Sitting of 9 April 2001

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

    Crime Prevention and Reduction
    Mr. Keith Darvill: What assessment he has made of the impact of the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that place a statutory duty on local authorities to prevent and reduce crime.[156020]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): We established statutory partnerships to ensure that the resources and commitment of local councils, health authorities, schools, businesses and voluntary organisations could work better to support the police in the fight against crime. Those partnerships have been very successful and have helped secure the 10 per cent. reduction in crime measured by the 2000 British crime survey.
    This morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office—my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) —and I announced the allocation of £220 million over three years direct to crime and disorder partnerships to spend on measures to help to tackle local drugs markets.
    Mr. Darvill: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and tell him how welcome the provisions in the 1998 Act for promoting local partnerships are? However, does he agree, first, that more needs to be done to make local authorities more aware of the it implications of section 17 of the Act and to encourage them to make crime and disorder a key consideration in all their areas of activity; and, secondly, that to make further progress in bearing down on antisocial behaviour, the necessary resources need to be devoted to local initiatives both by police and by local authorities?
    Mr. Straw: I agree with both my hon. Friend's observations. A great deal has been done, but there is a great deal more to do; we should not be satisfied with the amount of co-operation that has been achieved until crime is almost eliminated from those areas. I have heard good reports from my hon. Friend about the crime and disorder partnership in Havering; there is no doubt at all that where
    688
    the partnerships are really working, they are very effective indeed in helping to reduce crime and disorder and to make communities feel safer.
    All local crime and disorder partnerships now have to put together their further strategies, which have to be ready by 2002. A great deal of work is going on between the Audit Commission, the Local Government Association and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders better to ensure that they produce those strategies.
    On my hon. Friend's second point, I accept the need for resources; many of them can come from the main programmes of local authorities and the police, because those programmes—for example, on housing—suffer if levels of crime and disorder are high. Savings can be made if levels are lower. The money announced today by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Minister of State, Cabinet Office will go direct to the crime and disorder partnerships; they can use it in whatever way they think best—including, for example, paying for additional applications for antisocial behaviour orders.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: However well-intentioned the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was, is it not a disappointment in at least two respects? First, apparently the child curfew orders are non-existent. Secondly, 1,000 prisoners released early under section 99 have reoffended; some have committed serious offences involving rape, violence and drugs.
    Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman knows, amendments are before the other place to raise the level of child curfew orders to 16. We think that that will work. On early release, that provision was always embedded on the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which established the present sentencing framework. The only difference is that under our arrangements, we are providing proper through-care and better security for those who are released. Every prisoner—except a whole-lifer—is, in effect, released early.
    Mr. Eddie O'Hara: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Knowsley came top of the league for its record on crime reduction. Will he join me in congratulating all those concerned—the council, the police and many other agencies—on achieving that excellent record? It sends out a message to the world that Knowsley is a decent, safe place in which to live and do business—and to that tiny minority who still disrupt the life of the decent citizens of Knowsley it sends the message that their behaviour will not be tolerated.
    Mr. Straw: Yes, I congratulate the borough of Knowsley and the Merseyside police service for all their excellent work in getting crime down. We have provided local authorities and the police with the powers for which they asked us and which they need better to tackle crime and disorder. For example, I am pleased to tell the House that, in respect of antisocial behaviour orders, which the Opposition have promised—and I quote—"to tear up", more than 200 have been issued. The latest analysis of the actions taken by the courts in respect of the small number of breaches has found that, of 19 people thus charged,

    689
    14 received a custodial sentence—a very, very good message that the courts, too, are taking the new orders seriously.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary will know that we very much support crime reduction partnerships. Following the endorsement by the chief inspector of constabulary, I have received answers from Ministers stating that they see the community beat officer as an important part of the fight against crime locally. Given that level of agreement in the House and around the country, will the Home Secretary tell us what progress has been made in ensuring that community beat officers are in place? Do the Government have a target whereby every community will have its own recognised community beat officer? Have the Home Secretary and the Government yet been able to accept that there is also a place—in addition to neighbourhood wardens—for a community safety force under the authority of the local council to bring together all those other people with safety and policing responsibilities in a way that supports the police, gives a presence on the streets and reduces the amount of low-level and other crime?
    Mr. Straw: To reassure the hon. Gentleman, he will know that there has at last been an increase in the number of officers in the Metropolitan police force, which is very welcome. In addition, the efforts of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in bearing down on sickness are ensuring that there are 500 extra officers available for beat duty who were not previously available. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that, from next year, we shall require every chief officer for every area to say how each ward and borough is being policed, so we are ensuring a much sharper focus on what everyone regards as extremely important—policing at beat level.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: May I ask my right hon. Friend to remind magistrates of the range of non-custodial sentences available under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and urge them to use them, because they have a very important part to play in trying to curb reoffending? Will he also consider giving housing action trusts and social landlords, who are managing an increasing number of homes, powers to apply for antisocial behaviour orders?
    Mr. Straw: On the second point, yes, we certainly will consider that, but meanwhile I tell my hon. Friend that there is no reason at all why housing associations should not co-operate with the local authority to get an antisocial behaviour order in respect of a social tenant who is not the tenant of the local authority—or indeed in respect of someone in private owner-occupation, because antisocial behaviour orders are available for all kinds of tenancy.
    On the sentences that should be used, through the Magistrates Association, magistrates are given clear advice about the appropriate level of sentences that they ought to use, and we certainly look to them to issue tough sentences—that was Parliament's clear expectation on antisocial behaviour—when dealing with the terrible anti-social behaviour that has ravaged many neighbourhoods, but which we are now seeing turned around.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that only 200 antisocial behaviour orders have been made—not the 10,000 that the right hon. Gentleman anticipated; given
    690
    that he started by saying that they were to be used as a last resort, then, four months later, said that they were not; given that the community police officer of the year has described the legislation as "unworkable"; given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) rightly observed, not a single child curfew order has been issued; and given that local authorities across the country have been smothered with additional duties but deprived—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to ask a question.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to you for that reminder, Mr. Speaker. I am coming to the question and I assure you that it will be worth it. Given that local authorities have been smothered with additional duties and deprived of the support to discharge them, why do not the right hon. Gentleman and his quintet of bumbling incompetents admit their consistent failure and make way for a team that wants to minimise bureaucracy, punish criminals and protect the law-abiding majority of decent citizens of this country?
    Mr. Straw: In the unlikely, although possible, event that we were to make way for a team from the Opposition Benches, we would be making way for a Conservative party whose record is indelible: crime doubled under the Conservatives, while the number of people convicted of crime fell by a third. As for the legislation, late last year, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers described the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as:
    "The finest piece of legislation in terms of crime-fighting we have had in long time."
    A former Conservative Home Office Minister said:
    "I congratulate the Government genuinely and sincerely on the working of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and on the spirit of collaboration with local government that they have inspired by that." —[Official Report 23 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 599.]
    The other difference between us and the Conservatives, should they ever return to power, is that they would tear up the antisocial behaviour orders. Yes there have not been sufficient of them, but 200 communities are now living in safety as a result of the ASBOs and those communities would otherwise face control by the criminals and drug dealers that were there before.

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Criminal Records Bureau. [156021]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau is being closely managed and monitored and the bureau will operate to high service standards, which will be published. We expect it to begin issuing the higher levels of disclosure documents in the autumn, subject to its systems and processes having been proved under test and pilot conditions and having been shown to be capable of delivering the required level of service to its customers.
    Mr. Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I also pass on the thanks of the voluntary groups and organisations, because he listened to them and waived the

    691
    charges? However, what plans is he putting in place to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the information going into the system, so that people have greater confidence in the working of that system?
    Mr. Clarke: I appreciate my hon. Friend's initial remark. He is right to focus on the accuracy of the data, as Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary did in its report which appeared on the record in July 2000. We entirely share those concerns, as do the Association of Chief Police Officers, the inspectorate and the Information Commissioner, formerly the Data Protection Commissioner. We therefore welcome the work of ACPO in producing a compliance strategy for forces to implement. All forces have been required to submit action plans to the inspectorate, since when the plans have undergone analysis by the inspectorate. Home Office officials and representatives of ACPO and the inspectorate have met the Information Commissioner to map out a plan of further action, which we hope will lead to a very significant improvement.
    My hon. Friend has rightly raised a key question, as did the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its report. We are giving the issue the highest priority in the implementation of the Criminal Records Bureau.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What assessment has the Minister made of the effectiveness of the Prime Minister's crime tsar, Lord Birt, and will we have access to his record of achievement?
    Mr. Clarke: As far as I am aware, Lord Birt does not feature in the Criminal Records Bureau which we are discussing now. I have nothing further to add on his report.

    Prisons
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with the chief inspector of prisons about prison conditions in England and Wales. [156022]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I met Sir David Ramsbotham on 5 March to discuss his thematic report on the treatment and conditions of unsentenced prisoners in England and Wales, which was published on 11 December 2000. We discussed a variety of matters to do with conditions in our local prisons.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will know about the unannounced visit that the chief inspector made to Parc prison in my constituency, which resulted in the verdict of an excellent recovery after a very rocky start to the life of that private prison Given that the chief inspector produces reports that show that some prisons do excellent work and that others continue to fail, what discussions did my right hon. Friend have with the chief inspector to try to develop a model of management for the Prison Service that will ensure that best practice is replicated everywhere, and particularly in the prisons that have been failing?
    Mr. Boateng: I met Sir David after the inspection of Parc prison, and we meet regularly on a bilateral basis.
    692
    What emerges from his and my view of Parc—I have visited the prison—is that what works is effective partnership between the prison and the local community, and effective management. Those are lessons that the Prison Service—in the public and private sectors—is taking forward. We can all contribute to that, and I am glad that Sir David has, in the course of his inspection and thematic reports, made his own particular contribution.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Following the adverse report by the chief inspector on Chelmsford prison and following the visit that the Minister and I made to the prison, will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the staff and governor of the prison on the vast improvements that they have made? I hope that, when the chief inspector carries out his next unscheduled visit, his report will be infinitely better than the previous ones.
    Mr. Boateng: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the interest that he has shown in his local prisons. It helps greatly when hon. Members get involved. I have every confidence in the management of Chelmsford. It, too, is making important links between the prison and the local community. I hope that that will be reflected in Sir David's subsequent reports.
    Ann Clwyd: How many asylum seekers are being held in prison in England and Wales? Is it not totally inappropriate to hold people in prison conditions who are not accused of and have not committed any crime?
    Mr. Boateng: We hold only 1 per cent. of the total number detained at any time in prison. It is a far from ideal circumstance, but we try to ensure that when asylum seekers are held in prison, the conditions and the range of facilities available reflect their particular situation.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the prisons Minister confirm that, since 1997, the assault rate of prisoner on prisoner is up and the assault rate of prisoner on staff is up, thus making our prisons more violent; that the percentage of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one is up, thus making prisons more overcrowded; that the number of hours spent in purposeful activity is down, thus making prisoners more idle; that slopping out is back on some wings of some prisons, thus making them more degrading; that the number of suicides is up, thus making them more depressing; and that the time spent out of cell is down, meaning that prisoners are locked up in idleness for longer? If, as Churchill said, the measure of a civilised society is how we treat our prisoners, where does this prisons Minister stand in the civilisation stakes?
    Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Lady knows very well that in the first two years of our stewardship of the Prison Service, we spent an additional £120 million on prisons for which she did not budget. She also knows that throughout the past four years, we have spent more year on year on education and offending behaviour programmes than her Government ever did. She should also know that this Government are serious about prison

    693
    reform, a task on which her Government successively failed to make any headway. The Conservatives talk about it; we do it.
    Miss Widdecombe: The prisons Minister appears to be saying that he has spent an awful lot of money for declining results. The flip side is discipline in prison. Is it true that television in cells is not just for the enhanced levels, but for standard levels; that it is no longer permanently losable as a result of disciplinary action; and that where there are two to a cell, it is not even temporarily losable as a result of disciplinary action? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that prison governors are unable to punish juvenile offenders with loss of remission or extra days and that when they smash up their cells on the last day, which one governor told me is a regular occurrence, there is nothing that the prison authorities can do? Is it not true that the Government have presided over a revolving-door prisons policy that has led to another 1,000 victims of crimes committed by those who should be in jail? Finally, in light of the success of Thorn Cross, what possible justification was there for the early destruction of the high-intensity training unit at Colchester before the research results were known?
    Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Lady does not do justice to the seriousness of the issue by approaching it in this way. She knows that her Government introduced televisions into cells and that it is this Government, yes, who expanded the number of prisons with televisions in cells. We did that to ensure that prison governors and staff have a range of inducements and incentives to good behaviour, which are withdrawn if there is a failure in good behaviour. That makes a reality of discipline in prisons. We are not simply relying on cheap rhetoric as a substitute, which is precisely what she does time and time again.

    Tower Blocks
    Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on the safety and security of residents in tower blocks.[156023]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Government are determined to reduce crime and the fear of crime in all residential areas, including those containing tower blocks. Working with local crime and disorder partnerships, we are introducing a range of anti-crime initiatives, such as the installation of closed circuit television and the provision of concierge-controlled entry points. Some £90 million has been allocated to housing-related projects. Some of today's announcements, including new funding for neighbourhood warden schemes, will help to tackle crime in tower blocks.
    Mr. Benn: I assure my hon. Friend that Leeds will bid early and bid often for the resources that have been announced today. He mentioned concierge schemes, CCTV and more beat officers, but how does he propose to share information about what works in the use of those funds? That is what the group of elderly residents of a tower block in my constituency, whom I met last Friday,
    694
    want to know, so that they no longer feel afraid as they make the journey from the entrance to their block to the sanctuary of their own front door.
    Mr. O'Brien: What works is ensuring that we get the design of tower blocks right. We seek to promote the role of good design in community safety, particularly by the "secured by design" initiative administered by the Association of Chief Police Officers which encourages the adoption of guidelines to improve the security of estates and tower blocks. The scheme offers specific guidance on multistorey dwellings and stresses the importance of controlled access to tower blocks. Research conducted last year on a sample of 50 estates in West Yorkshire revealed crime rates per household which are between 40 and 50 per cent. lower on estates meeting "secured by design" principles. That is one of the key ways in which we hope to ensure that good practice is disseminated.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Talking of tower blocks, what is the latest news in the saga of the Marsham street tower blocks, for which the Home Office is responsible?
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been considering that issue with great care, and we are anxious to ensure that when the development is complete, it is secured by design.
    Ms Karen Buck: Last week, I met a group of residents of Adair Tower in North Kensington whose lives have been made hell by three crack houses. One has been closed down but the other two are still operating. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the tenant management organisation and the police on their close working relationship in dealing with that problem? Will he assure me that he and his team are doing everything possible to give the police the tools to act swiftly against crack houses? In particular, will they consider bringing up to date the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to include crack, to help the police in their work?
    Mr. O'Brien: I agree with my hon. Friend's points. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently visited the area with her and met some of the local people involved in tackling those problems, and he will consider the points raised during that visit. I assure my hon. Friend that tackling crack and associated drugs is high on our agenda. We cannot tolerate the behaviour experienced by the residents in her constituency, and we are determined to deal with it.

    "Corpus Juris"
    Mr. Howard Flight: What the Government's policy is on "Corpus Juris".[156024]
    The Minister of state, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We believe that the way forward for judicial co-operation in Europe lies not in "Corpus Juris" but in

    695
    the measures agreed at the Tampere European Council, including, in particular, mutual recognition of judicial decisions and the creation of Eurojust.
    Mr. Flight: Will the Minister give an absolute undertaking that the Home Secretary will not seek any common European Union legal system or permit any interference by Europe in our judicial system?
    Mrs. Roche: There is absolutely no intention to have a common legal system. As the hon. Gentleman will know, "Corpus Juris" is merely an academic study; it has not been formally proposed or discussed by the Council of the European Union. We have made progress on mutual legal recognition, which the House will know was an initiative proposed by the United Kingdom Government that has been warmly welcomed by other member states.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: The term "corpus juris" is a bit of Euro-babble which, translated into plain English, means a legal means to crack down on the immense fraud that exists in Europe. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), as a director of some 17 companies that take investors' savings, would be concerned to join in the crack-down on fraud. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister not to listen to the anti-European rhetoric of the Opposition, but to work to create systems on the basis of mutual recognition to deal with the serious problem of fraud—the black holes into which too much European money disappears. The Opposition should be determined to crack down on the problem, instead of waving it away.
    Mrs. Roche: Of course, the phrase "corpus juris" originally comes from the work done in the reign of the Emperor Justinian. [Interruption.] Before the Opposition get too excited, may I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is right—we do need to crack down on fraud in the European Union, which is why we celebrate the creation of Eurojust, and why, following an open competition—[Interruption.] This is a serious point. Following an open competition, Mr. Mike Kennedy, who is currently the chief Crown prosecutor for Sussex, has been selected to represent the United Kingdom on that important institution.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: How does the Minister square her initial answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), that her Government were against "Corpus Juris", with the votes of Labour Members of the European Parliament as recently as 14 March, when they voted to undermine our traditions of habeas corpus, and for a European public prosecutor—a specific part of the "Corpus Juris" proposals—who would have the power to detain suspects without trial for nine months?
    Mrs. Roche: As the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition know, we are entirely against "Corpus Juris". We have made the Government's position absolutely clear.

    Private Security Firms
    Mr. Bob Russell: If he will make it his policy that streets and other public places will not be policed by private security firms.[156025]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): It is the police who have the job and responsibility of policing our streets. The office of constable is a constitutional role, which we will rigorously uphold. However, we believe that a range of other agencies have a key partnership role to play in supporting the police in those efforts, and we believe that the Private Security Industry Bill will assist that process.
    Mr. Russell: Can the Minister clarify his answer? I am not sure whether he is saying that there will or that there will not be privatised police on our streets. Surely people want proper police officers and more bobbies on the beat. Does he agree that when people have paid their taxes, they expect to see police officers on their streets?
    Mr. Clarke: There are two points. First, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes—people are entitled to see police numbers going up. The numbers are going up. By March next year, we will have more police than we inherited, and by March the following year, we will have more police than there have ever been in this country, thanks to the decisions taken by the Government. Secondly, it is important for the hon. Gentleman to recognise that although there are currently 126,000 police officers, there are 300,000 to 350,000 private security guards in various parts of the country. It is important that we build effective co-ordination and partnerships between those people and the police.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Can my hon. Friend say whether in our streets and other public places there is now less vandalism and less graffiti?
    Mr. Clarke: I can certainly say that in most parts of the country that is true, but in some parts there are serious issues of vandalism and graffiti that have not yet been tackled fully. That is why we have the crime and disorder partnerships to which my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) referred earlier.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister not realise that all the speculation arises from the fall in police numbers? He knows that there are 1,600 fewer police officers now than there were when Labour came to power, and 6,000 fewer special police constables on the streets now than there were when he first came to power. Does he agree with the chairman of the West Yorkshire Police Federation, who said, with reference to the cut of 400 police officers:
    "The blame lies fairly and squarely with Jack Straw… It's a total mess."?
    Mr. Clarke: We have had this argument on many occasions, and I do not think that I have a great deal to add. The fact is that police numbers fell from 1993 until March last year. At about that time, they started increasing significantly. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary

    697
    said, they increased by almost 1,000 in the 10 months up to January this year—the biggest increase ever. They increased in almost every police force in Britain. As I said, those increases will ensure that by March next year, there will be significantly more police officers than we inherited. That is a significant achievement and a change from the policy that the hon. Gentleman's Government pursued from 1993. We agree that we need more police officers, but unlike the Conservative party, we have taken the steps to ensure that we will have them.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: The cowboy clampers were out on the streets of Doncaster again on Saturday, coining in as much money as possible from passing motorists. Presumably, they wanted to do so before, thanks to my hon. Friend, the law comes crashing down around their heads in the form of the Private Security Industry Bill. Until that happy day, however, will he consider the possibility of his Department keeping a record of complaints about clamping companies, so that the Security Industry Authority can distinguish between reputable and disreputable companies?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly consider that proposal. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work to promote the licensing of wheelclampers, which the Private Security Industry Bill is taking forward. The Bill will make a material difference, and I hope that it will prevent the sort of activity that she has seen on the streets of her constituency.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will know that an interesting experiment has been conducted at Blue Water, which is paying for local police officers to carry out patrols. Are there any plans to extend that practice, so that police officers will be identifiable in public places?
    Mr. Clarke: Such plans do exist, and there are a significant number of examples, including the Broads Authority in my county. The cities of Hull and Liverpool have put in considerable resources. We want to encourage such partnerships in a wide variety of different ways, whether in public sector bodies such as the national parks authorities or city councils, or in the private sector, as with their use by the retail industry at the Blue Water development. However, I am keen to rebut the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) that that replaces the need for a proper number of police throughout our country. It does not. That is why we want both to increase the number of police officers, as we are doing, and to build partnerships to ensure safer and more secure communities throughout the country. That is the Government's policy, and that is what we will carry forward.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: How many police officers are engaged in searching for royal lines of crack?
    Mr. Clarke: I deeply regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend an up-to-date account of precise police resources in this area, but I think that he makes his point effectively.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister accept that the police are becoming less and less
    698
    visible in rural areas, because there are fewer police, fewer special constables and, above all, fewer rural police stations? Does he agree that the rural police, who should be visible and patrolling our streets, will never be replaced by private security officers? They are no substitute.
    Mr. Clarke: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion at all. The fact is that Gloucestershire, where his constituency is located, now has 28 more full-time officers than it had in March 1997. Numbers have continued to increase since then. There are now more police in Gloucestershire than there were when the Government came to office. I think that he should welcome that. More generally, perhaps he would also like to welcome—as he has done personally to me—the fact that our rural policing allocations have given significant extra support to rural constabularies such as that of Gloucestershire. That is how policing can be improved in the way that both he and I believe to be necessary.

    Black and Asian Police Officers
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on the recruitment and promotion of black and Asian police officers.[156026]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Most police forces are on course to meet their recruitment targets or come close to them, but there is still a great teal to do on that and on progression of black and Asian police officers. There were 2,915 ethnic-minority officers at the latest count, an increase of just under 580, or about 25 per cent., since March 1997. An inspection of forces by Her Majesty's inspectorate last year found that there had been an overall improvement in forces since the previous inspection in this area in 1998.
    Dr. Iddon: I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that the efforts made so far by Greater Manchester police to recruit from the black and Asian community have been disappointing. Has any analysis of the reasons for that been carried out? Is it something to do with the culture in the police force? Why are black and Asian people in Greater Manchester reluctant to join the police, and are any special strategies being introduced to deal with the situation?
    Mr. Straw: As I said, all forces are making progress, although it has not be, It swift enough. Between March 1997 and January this year, the number of black and Asian officers in the Greater Manchester area increased by 26, from 161 to 187. That is a rise of about 15 per cent.; it is not as high as the increase in the country generally.
    I think that one reason for the shortage is that for a couple of years there was a recruitment freeze in many areas, including Greater Manchester. There are some cultural issues, but I know that the chief constable and chairman of the Greater Manchester police authority are anxious to deal with them.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Home Secretary agree that we should do much more to encourage young black people and Asians to take up careers in the police force? I have asked some questions in Lancashire about police numbers generally. I was told only two weeks ago that the number of regular constables had fallen by 30, and the number of specials by 121,

    699
    since the last general election. Is there not an opportunity for the Government to redouble their efforts? Could they not visit sixth forms, colleges and youth clubs to encourage young black people and Asians in particular to join the specials, and to see the police force generally as a chance for them to play their part in reducing crime in Lancashire?
    Mr. Straw: The reason for the fall in the number of specials dates back to the Police Service (Health and Safety) Act 1997, a Conservative measure passed towards the end of the last Government that made health and safety requirements the same for volunteer specials as for full-time employed police officers. The former Home Secretary furrows his brow. He may not even have noticed that the legislation was passed while he was Home Secretary, but that is the truth of it, and that is why police services across the country have charted a reduction in specials. We consider that very unsatisfactory, and we want the numbers to increase.
    In Lancashire, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of black and Asian officers during the past four years: it has risen from 33 to 49. As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) may have noticed, the whole of the most recent edition of the Lancashire constabulary's newspaper is devoted to further work that the police are undertaking to increase the proportion even more.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: There are only 596 women police officers drawn from the ethnic minority communities. That will concern my right hon. Friend, as it concerns me. What can we do to persuade more Asian women to join the police? Is there not a case for gender targets for officers drawn from ethnic minority communities? I suspect that most of those 596 are black women, with only a handful of Asian women. We must get more Asian women into the police force.
    Mr. Straw: It is important for my hon. Friend not to generalise about Asian women. There are significant cultural differences between women of Asian heritage who come from the Muslim tradition and those from the Sikh or Hindu tradition. We know that there is a cultural problem among, in particular, some sections—not all—of the Muslim community in respect of encouraging women to join uniformed services such as the police. That is as much an issue for the Muslim community as it is for the police service, and we must make progress.
    As for whether we should set a specific target, the proportion of women in the black and Asian population of the police service is just below the proportion of women as a whole in the police service. I do not think that there is a case for separate targets at present, but we will certainly keep the matter under review.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What assessment he has made with his EU counterparts of the operation of the Dublin convention on the treatment of asylum seekers.[156027]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Dublin convention has not worked as it should. The procedures are slow and
    700
    cumbersome and, crucially for the United Kingdom, agreements between member states to transfer asylum seekers under the convention have been subjected to repeated difficulties because of judicial review challenges in United Kingdom courts.
    In the European Union, we have been leading the case for reform of the Dublin process. We await proposals from the Commission.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Instead of waiting for proposals from the Commission, is it not about time that the Government got a grip of border controls in this country? Is it not a fact that last year there were about 76,000 asylum applicants, and that about 60,000 were ineligible for asylum, but only about 9,000 went back? Is it not high time that European Union countries, instead of playing pass the parcel with humanity, took care to exercise their responsibilities effectively so that applications from asylum seekers are processed in the first EU country in which they arrive?
    Mr. Straw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last remark. The principle of the Dublin convention is that asylum seekers' applications should be processed in the first EU country in which they set foot. The difficulty is the way in which the convention has been constructed, and the repeated problems that we have faced over, for example, decisions by our higher courts to classify France and Germany as unsafe third countries, a view with which I respectfully disagree.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, we inherited the Dublin convention. It was signed in 1990 and did not come into force until October 1997. We have been working hard—I have taken the lead in Europe—to propose changes to it. We have doubled the number of removals over the past four years, but one of the major problems in that context is the convention and the way in which our courts have sought to interpret it. That is why we are engaged in further detailed discussions within the Commission to try to change its wording.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: In the negotiations on replacing the Dublin convention, does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a danger that agreement will be reached by sinking to the lowest common denominator? In that context, we might think twice about exporting the voucher system to the rest of Europe. What steps are being taken to try to influence the process, given that we are not, as a result of the Amsterdam treaty, fully signed up to a common system across Europe?
    Mr. Straw: We accepted article 64 of the treaty, which provides for common minimum standards for asylum seekers. Work is taking place on proposals in respect of that. We must move towards a common playing field. We cannot have a circumstance where there is effective free movement across every other country in the EU and we have border controls, and where our definitions of whether someone should or should not be given asylum have been judicially interpreted in a way that is significantly at odds with the interpretations of courts in other European countries.
    I do not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that we will drop to the lowest common denominator. Every member of the EU is a signatory to the European

    701
    convention on human rights, which sets a basic template for how individuals are treated. For example, it already secures a common policy on ultimate removals, which is why decisions to declare France and Germany unsafe states within the refugee convention are all the less explicable.
    Mr. Michael Howard: The Home Secretary is right to remind the House that the Dublin convention was signed as long ago as 1990, before our problems were on anything like their present scale, and that its objective was to ensure that asylum seekers made their applications in the first EU country that they reached. If the convention is not working as intended, it should be revised or we should consider withdrawing from it.
    In so far as our problems are being caused by decisions of the United Kingdom courts, what steps is the Home Secretary taking to introduce legislation to overrule them? Does he know that, this year alone, nearly 1,200 people have been apprehended in the UK terminal of Eurotunnel in my constituency? What progress has been made to persuade the French Government to ensure that SNCF reinforces the fencing for which it is responsible at the Eurotunnel terminal at Coquelles?
    Mr. Straw: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, I have had many discussions with, and made representations to, the French Government and SNCF to ensure that they reinforce security measures at their end of the tunnel. As he knows, I have introduced a civil penalty for rail freight as well as other carriage through the tunnel better to secure that and to bear down on SNCF. The French Government have already agreed to introduce juxtaposed controls for passengers on Eurostar services. They have promised to introduce legislation on that by June.
    On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first question, section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 sought to deal with the problem of the definition of safe third countries in a case known as Adan and Aitsegeur before the Court of Appeal. However, I regret that members of the Judicial Committee in another place have decided on an even wider interpretation of a safe third country. We are therefore considering further changes to legislation.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Home Secretary confirm that whatever changes we might make, this country will remain a safe haven for Muslims and others who are fleeing from the Taliban in Afghanistan, people such as my constituents who fled the civil war in Somalia, and Iraqi Kurds fleeing Saddam Hussein? Will he also confirm that Labour Members will have nothing to do with the outrageous views of the hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend)? It is about time that the Conservative party removed the Whip from him.
    Mr. Straw: Of course, I confirm that we shall continue to uphold in every particular our obligations under the refugee convention to grant refugee status to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution. I accept my hon. Friend's comments on the hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend). However, I regret that many
    702
    Conservative Members have consistently sought not to tackle but to exploit one of the most difficult problems for Europe.
    Mr. David Lidington: When the Home Secretary next consults his EU counterparts, will he consider why asylum applications in the United Kingdom reached record levels, but fell in Germany and the Netherlands? Will he accept that common sense and experience from overseas suggest that extensive use of the power to detain asylum seekers in secure reception centres and fast-tracking manifestly ill-founded claims are the way in which to deter unfounded claims? Will he recognise at last that the policies that Conservative Members have advocated for some years would result in our being able to tackle the problem and would be significantly better for our national interest than the shambolic system over which he presides?
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Last year, the number of asylum applications rose by 7 per cent. over the previous year. Applications fell in Germany, but they increased by a higher figure in the Netherlands. We remain seventh in the league table per head of population. The Netherlands has almost twice as many applications per head. That also applies to Belgium, Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Austria, Denmark and Sweden. It is a Europe-wide problem. It must be thought through, which the Conservative party has failed to do. The number of applications being decided in a year has trebled compared with when the Conservative party left office. As a result, the backlog is at a seven-year low—well below the level when it left office.
    To give a further illustration of the way in which Conservative Members do not seek seriously to deal with the problem, but instead exploit it, it was they who chose to fight against the civil penalty—the £2,000 per clandestine—which has been the single most important measure to bear down on the criminals. They would destroy it.
    As for detention space, like the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the hon. Gentleman speaks about the idea, although it would be impossible, inhumane and ridiculously costly to detain every single asylum seeker. However, when we propose an extra detention centre—in Aldington in Kent—what happens? Conservatives locally and nationally oppose it. That is the policy: they want detention centres anywhere but in their own Conservative backyards.

    Secure Training Centres
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What plans he has to increase the number of secure training centres.[156028]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Youth Justice Board has responsibility for commissioning and purchasing places for young people in the juvenile secure estate and has recently announced a £250 million reform plan to improve youth custody arrangements. In the four-year plan, 400 new places will

    703
    be made available in new secure units for boys and girls sentenced to custody. That will be a substantial addition to the present 130 secure training centre places.
    Mr. Boswell: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to study the excellent recent inspection report on the second secure training centre at Rainsborough in my constituency? Will he accept my own evidence from a follow-up visit that it is indeed working successfully? I notice that the Home Secretary nods. As the present ministerial team when in opposition rubbished the imaginative idea of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the then Home Secretary, and as it now appears to have had second thoughts about its merits, will the Government commit themselves to the target of 1,000 places that has been offered by the incoming Conservative Government?
    Mr. Boateng: Conservative promises must be judged against the Conservatives' performance in office. They took the power to do this in 1994. It was not until this Government came into office that any were built. Again, it is all yack, yack, yack from the Conservatives. It takes a Labour Government to do anything about crime and disorder.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: The Minister will be aware that many of the young people who are likely to go into such secure units have very poor educational achievement and often a variety of other problems. Can he assure me that the units will be sufficiently well funded to provide good-quality support for those young people, meeting their education and other needs, so that they have a realistic chance of leaving the unit able to lead a law-abiding life it their community?
    Mr. Boateng: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Recently, Baroness Blackstone, the Minister for Education and Employment, and I visited one of the institutions where the link is being made between custodial experience and the importance of addressing numeracy and literacy deficits, and people's experience on release from custody. That is the objective in Medway and the other secure training centre. The Youth Justice Board is resourced precisely to achieve that objective. Those young people have a chance to improve their education; some of them have that chance for the first time. We must ensure that they do not lose it.

    Police Manpower
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on police manpower in England.[156029]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): There were 125,537 officers in total in England and Wales on 31 January, an increase of 990 since September 2000 and of 1,367 since March 2000—the largest rise in a single year for more than a decade. On the basis of the money that we have put in, there should be 128,000 officers in total by March 2002 and, by March 2003, numbers should reach record levels, well above the 128,290 recorded in March 1993.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that answer. However, his record in office so far is no ground for such optimism. How many additional regular constables, for example, would be required to make up for the loss since he came to office of 6,000 special constables?
    Mr. Straw: The only people who are sad about the fact that police numbers are increasing are Conservative Members.

Foot and Mouth
3.30 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the foot and mouth outbreak. As I have done on seven previous occasions in past weeks, I wish to update the House, before the Easter recess, on the latest position on the disease, set out the measures that the Government are taking and give right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to raise issues with me.
As of 7 pm yesterday, Sunday 8 April, there had been 1,134 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease. As of 2 pm today, I had been informed of a further 10 cases. As of 7 pm yesterday, the number of animals authorised for slaughter was 1,366,000, of which 888,000 had been slaughtered and 478,000 awaited slaughter. About 329,000 animals remained to be disposed of. That is out of a total United Kingdom cattle, sheep and pig population of more than 55 million, and against a figure of 500,000 animals that would go for slaughter in a normal trading week.
It is still too early to predict the future course of the epidemic. Epidemiologists are constantly updating their data as the outbreak progresses, but they still cannot say with any certainty how long it will continue. Although there are some encouraging signs, this is an exceptionally serious outbreak with a long phase-out period and we cannot afford a moment's complacency.
There is considerable agreement among the four groups modelling the epidemic. In particular, all have concluded that the two key interventions in tackling the disease are, first, and the highest priority, to cull all animals susceptible to the disease—principally cattle, sheep and pigs—on infected farm holdings within 24 hours; and, secondly, to cull susceptible animals in neighbouring farms that share a boundary—the so-called contiguous cull—within 48 hours.
We appreciate that the latter is very difficult for farmers to accept, but it is vital for the overall success of our disease control policy that all potentially infected animals are culled. I urge farmers, in the strongest terms, to co-operate with us in seeing that through. Expert advice is that those premises will have been exposed to infection and need to be dealt with quickly.
I have written to all livestock farmers making three key points. I have set out advice from the chief veterinary officer on biosecurity on farm. I have urged co-operation with the necessary culling of animals on neighbouring premises to infected holdings. I have also appealed to farmers not to jeopardise their own disease status, and that of other farmers, by moving animals around without a licence. Some of the isolated cases that have appeared in recent days and weeks seem to be directly attributed to farm-to-farm transmission from infected areas to clean areas. That point was made very forcefully to me and the Prime Minister at our meeting this morning with the National Farmers Union, and we share its concerns.
Across the country, the 24-hour report-to-slaughter target is being met in almost 80 per cent. of cases. When cases are not completed within 24 hours, they are being dealt with shortly afterwards. The 48-hour target for contiguous premises is more difficult to meet because of the sheer weight of numbers, but progress is encouraging,
706
with some areas achieving about 70 per cent. within deadline. It is particularly important that we hit that target in any new outbreaks away from the heavily infected areas to prevent further spread, and resources are being concentrated to that end.
In support of that strategy, we have committed more and more resources to ensuring that any possible blockages are removed. We have significantly increased the number of vets on the ground to 1,522, with more being recruited. We are employing more than 650 people as temporary animal health officers, to supplement the 200 regular officers in the state veterinary service. We have appointed 11 directors of operations in the most affected areas. The Army is deployed in all the key areas, with 1,842 troops committed to this outbreak, and I am grateful for the excellent support provided by the Army and the Ministry of Defence.
We have taken other practical steps to eliminate delay. We have introduced a generous standard tariff to speed up the valuation of animals, while at the same time safeguarding farmers' rights. We have reduced the turn-round times for vets visiting farms, wherever possible—for instance, by altering the reporting procedure for new cases.
We are very aware of the financial difficulties that many farmers are facing at this difficult time and we have addressed the problem in four ways. First, compensation for slaughtered animals is currently estimated to reach more than £247 million and is still rising. Secondly, we are paying £156 million in optional agrimonetary compensation to livestock farmers: payments begin this week. The package is worth about £2,750 to the average dairy farmer, £650 to sheep farmers, £650 to suckler cow premium claimants and £450 to beef special premium claimants.
Thirdly, we have introduced the livestock welfare disposal scheme as a last resort for livestock farmers whose animals face welfare difficulties as a result of foot and mouth disease related movement restrictions. The tariffs for animals slaughtered under the scheme are generous. The estimated value of this optional scheme depends, of course, on take-up, but it is likely to be in excess of £200 million.
Fourthly, we have ensured that, where animals slaughtered are the subject of a current subsidy claim, subsidy entitlement will be preserved as a result of the application of EU rules on force majeure. Overall, we have committed more than £500 million to farmers so far in the course of this outbreak.
Vaccination remains an option, but it is not an easy option. There are no easy options. Hon. Members are aware of the arguments for and against vaccination. We are prepared to vaccinate if necessary—we have obtained the approval of the European Union Standing Veterinary Committee for vaccination in the UK under certain circumstances—but it would be a major step to take, with significant consequences. We are constantly reviewing the position and will continue to do so.
Many farmers are currently keeping cattle indoors, which is helping to minimise the risk of the spread of infection. We hope that it may soon be possible to release some areas from restrictions, either completely or partially. There are two aspects. First, we will consider whether we can safely reduce the size of one or two areas that currently extend beyond a 10 km radius.

707
Secondly, once all the necessary veterinary inspections and blood testing have been completed we will consider lifting one or two infected areas completely where there have been no new cases for 30 days. I hope that it will be possible to start making progress on both those actions in the next week or two, but, again, disease control must remain the priority.
My ministerial colleagues in many other Departments and I are doing all that we can to promote the message that the countryside is not closed. More and more properties and visitor attractions are opening again and being publicised. We hope that over the Easter period visitors will return. We have provided updated advice to zoo owners and to royal parks, which will help them to make decisions on whether to reopen
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is today participating on my behalf in the Informal Council of European Union Agriculture Ministers in northern Sweden. She will update colleagues on the progress of the outbreak here. We are continuing to work very closely with our European Union colleagues, who remain supportive of the efforts that we are making to bring the outbreak to an end.
We will continue to channel all our efforts into ensuring that our targets of 24 hours from report to slaughter, and 48 hours to culling neighbouring farms, are met. With continued support from Members of Parliament, farming organisations and many others, together we can succeed in our aim of eradicating this disease
Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister for making his statement available a few minutes before he made it to the House.
I shall begin by expressing again my warm appreciation of the efforts of all those who are working to contain the spread of foot and mouth disease. I pay tribute to the role of the Army and the work of vets, slaughtermen and many others engaged in that task. Despite their excellent work, the signs are that foot and mouth disease is not yet under control; I shall return to that in a moment. I am sure that the whole House will unite in expressing deep regret at the scale of the human and animal tragedy now occurring.
In many parts of Britain, farmers are witnessing the destruction of their life's work and the killing of animals that they spent nights and days bringing into the world, nurturing and rearing. Alongside that suffering is another rapidly growing problem: the animal welfare crisis affecting 1.5 million animals, whose owners cannot move them because of foot and mouth restrictions—[Interruption.] I am sure that people who are concerned with animal welfare will note with in Brest the murmuring of Labour Members. There are problems with ewes and lambs in muddy fields and pigs that are in desperately overcrowded conditions; there is real distress as farmers wait for the welfare disposal scheme to start to operate.
On the issue of animals awaiting slaughter under the welfare disposal scheme, will the Minister publish regular figures at least once a week so that the size of that part of the problem can be measured? How long does he expect it to take to cure the large backlog? May I assure him that if special measures or powers are needed for that purpose, we will give our full support to any steps that are likely to be effective?
On the question of compensation, is he aware that I have sent him a letter setting out the categories of farmers who merit additional compensation? In his statement,
708
he referred to agrimonetary compensation. Will he confirm that that was due to farmers because of the weakness of the euro and has no direct relationship with foot and mouth disease?
I do not think that anyone—with the possible exception of the Minister—would try to claim that the disease is under control. Does he agree that if that claim is to be credible, four tests must be met? First, is the 24-hour report-to-slaughter time being met consistently? Secondly, is the geographical spread of the disease being reversed? Thirdly, have the bulk of the movement restrictions on healthy animals been lifted? Fourthly, is the number of confirmed new cases falling steadily? When all four tests have been met I—and, I believe, most others—will agree that the foot and mouth crisis has been resolved. I hope and pray that that day is reached sooner rather than later.
At present, it is hard to judge progress on meeting the first test as the Minister seems to have ceased daily publication of the figures that we need to make that judgment. Until last Thursday, the Ministry published cumulative and daily totals for animals authorised for slaughter; for animals slaughtered; for carcases disposed of; for animals still awaiting slaughter; and for carcases awaiting disposal. Given the Government's readiness to publish figures that contain good news, the suspicion must be that, by failing to update figures daily, they may be concealing the fact that the position is getting worse, not better, especially as the Minister's own figures, which he has just quoted, suggest that the totals are the worst ever in the six and a half weeks since the outbreak was first discovered.
At least 67,000 animals awaiting slaughter last night had been on the waiting list for at least a week. According to the Minister's own targets, no infected animals and no dangerous contact animals should be alive for more than two days. Does he agree that, unless information is available, nobody can judge whether the 24-hour report-to-slaughter target for infected animals and the 48-hour target for dangerous contact animals is being met? Two and a half weeks ago, the chief scientific adviser said that it was essential to meet the first of those targets if the outbreak was to be controlled. Will the Minister confirm that each time he or the Prime Minister says that progress on those targets is being made, they do so on the basis of genuine figures? Will he therefore resume daily publication of those statistics in the five categories that I mentioned? Will he provide the additional breakdown of infected and dangerous contacts that he and I debated in the House last Thursday? Does he agree that as Parliament is starting a 12-day recess tomorrow, daily publication of those figures during the recess becomes absolutely essential?
Does the Minister recognise that there will be great concern at the fact that only 70 per cent. of dangerous contact animals are slaughtered within 48 hours, and only in certain areas? Many dangerous contact animals may contract the infection or be incubating it before they are slaughtered, and the risk of the disease spreading exists from dangerous contact animals, as well as from infected animals.
Turning to the steps that the Government are taking, does the Minister agree that there are frequent reports of delay at the operational level, and of muddle? Does he accept that it would help if an Army commander were put in charge of the slaughter and disposal operation in each region? In this context, will the right hon. Gentleman say

709
from where the 11 directors of operations are drawn? Will he confirm that when the Prime Minister is absent, the meetings of the Government's own crisis management committee, known as Cobra, are chaired not by himself, but by the Secretary of State for Defence, who seems to be unrepresented in the House today, as is the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions? Is not the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence chairs the Government's own crisis committee in London a sign that the same approach should be followed on the ground in the regions?
Will the Minister say how many slaughtermen are now being used and whether he is confident that there are enough? How many appeals have been launched by farmers? Does he agree that some appeals may be made because of confusion about what constitutes a contiguous farm? Given that, in some cases, there are reports that, even on a contiguous farm, delays of more than two weeks are occurring before slaughter takes place, some farmers may wonder whether there is any purpose in then slaughtering healthy animals. Surely the purpose of slaughtering animals on contiguous farms is served only if it is carried out quickly.
On vaccination, I understand the difficulty that the Minister has in reaching a decision; it is a finely balanced issue. However, does he realise that he faces this difficulty simply and solely because of the failure of the Government to enforce their previous policy in an effective and timely way? Vaccination is a last resort—an alternative that the Government must now consider because they were too slow in carrying out their own slaughter policy. Will he confirm that it is 10 days since Downing street was spinning that a decision on vaccination would be made in 48 hours?
Does the Minister agree that there are three key questions on vaccination? First, will it speed up eradication of foot and mouth disease? Secondly, will it reduce the number of animals that have to be slaughtered? Thirdly, will it bring forward the date on which Britain's status as a disease-free country is restored? If the answer to at least two of those questions is yes, the case for vaccination is very strong.
Does the Minister agree with those criteria? If he does not, what criteria is he using to decide? Will he publish the scientific advice on which his decision is based? Now that the disease has spread to new, previously uninfected areas—some of which are a long way from existing outbreaks—does he consider that there is a case for using vaccination to create a firebreak around at least one of those areas to help to establish the acceptability and effectiveness of vaccination? While the Government have been contemplating this policy, has a contingency plan been prepared so that stocks of vaccine are in the right place, and have suitably qualified people to administer it been identified?
Will the Government now admit that their own mishandling of the foot and mouth outbreak has contributed significantly to the present scale of the problem? Will the Government recognise that the disease would not have spread as widely as it has if they had taken more prompt and effective action? Will the Minister accept that if he had followed the timely suggestions made by the Conservative party, the situation today would be less serious than it is?
710
The Governments refusal to learn the lessons of the 1967 outbreak, their neglect of the report of the Northumberland inquiry and western command, their delay in calling in the Army and giving them a fuller operational role and their reluctance to consult epidemiologists about the likely spread and scale of the disease have led to the extent of the present problem.
Together, they amount to ministerial negligence, which has cost thousands of farmers their livelihoods, is day by day inflicting appalling animal suffering, is destroying a sizeable part of Britain's tourist trade and will cost industry and the taxpayer billions of pounds. Against that background, will the Minister share with us, as frankly as possible and as he has promised to do, his views on why the disease is not yet under control? Why do his own figures continue to show a worsening position? Does he recognise, even now, that a more urgent and large-scale response is needed if we are to gain control of this hideous crisis?
Mr. Brown: I set that the bipartisan effort to deal with foot and mouth continues.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the scale of the problem, although that must be obvious to everyone. I thank him, too, for his kind words for those fighting the disease in the field—the civilian and military officials who are bearing down on the terrible outbreak.
The hon. Gentleman asked a range of questions, and I shall try to do justice to all of them. I do not think it right to try to turn this matter into a party political issue. The political climate is highly charged at present, but we are discussing a disease outbreak in livestock. The techniques for dealing with it are well understood, and we should be able to discuss the matter in terms of disease control rather than those of party politics.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman the factual answers to his points. There are two types of welfare scheme. There are three welfare livestock movement schemes, and about 90 per cent. of more than 48,000 applications submitted have been approved On average, movement licences are being processed and issued in less than three and a half days from the date of receipt.
On the livestock welfare disposal scheme—a more vexed matter—4,600 farmers have entered 1.6 million animals for that. That is an enormous number of animals, and, to date, only 48,000 have been slaughtered. The 22 abattoirs dedicated to the scheme have the capacity to slaughter around 280,000 sheep, 60,000 pigs and 25,000 cattle each week. Some 230,000 animals are scheduled to be slaughtered over the next few days, and the scheme is being got up and running.
The hon. Gentleman asked about statistics. I shall not repeat our exchange of last Thursday, but we are trying to put together a comparable series of figures. I do not think that he can charge me with publishing "good news figures": I gave the House the facts as frankly as I could in my statement. This terrible outbreak is not "good news". We are doing all that we can to bear down on it, and that should unite the House rather than being a cause of division.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the contiguous cull. He understands as well as I do why that raises difficult issues for individual farmers. He urged us to get on with it and to cull out dangerous contacts within the 48-hour time frame that we set ourselves. I took it from that that he

711
supported our policy, but he went on to ask about vaccination. He was right to say that the arguments on that are not all one way. Am I to assume, however, that he was advocating a policy of vaccination? Was he urging that on us, or was he simply setting it out as an alternative?
The Government's policy is clear: as I said in my statement, we keep vaccination under review, but I shall not move to a vaccination policy without considering all the issues involved, including several difficult ones that we have discussed before. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman did not say whether the Conservative party takes the view that vaccinated animals should be culled out afterwards or should live on. Was he advocating a firebreak vaccination policy, or was he trying to dampen down the disease? Those questions must be answered before a strategy is embarked on, not afterwards.
The hon. Gentleman asked about stocks of vaccine and contingency arrangements. Yes, we have adequate stocks, as I have told the House on previous occasions; and, yes, contingency arrangements are in place, explicitly relating to the outbreak in Cumbria, where the disease is at its most intense. He asked about the number of slaughterers working: the figure for Great Britain is 457.
The hon. Gentleman referred to suggestions from the Conservative party that we should have acted sooner on a range of things. On 11 March, he first suggested that we should bring in the Army; but, in fact, Baroness Hayman had written to the Minister for the Armed Forces on 9 March, requesting a range of logistical support. On 15 March, the hon. Gentleman suggested that we commence on-farm burial; in fact, on farm burial was first used on 2 March. On 13 March, he suggested that veterinarians should be able to authorise immediate slaughter; in fact, that had been MAFF policy since 22 February—more than 95 per cent. of cases are confirmed on that basis.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to agrimonetary compensation and asked me to confirm that it is paid out on the basis of currency movements rather than compensation for foot and mouth disease. That is true, but it should be remembered that the previous Conservative Government did not pay out a per ny of agrimonetary compensation. It was the foot and mouth disease outbreak in this country that informed our decision to draw down the agrimonetary compensation, in order to get aid swiftly to hard-pressed livestock farmers. Moreover, we have negotiated arrangements with the European Union for the payments to be made early.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know that, on Friday, an outbreak was confirmed at Ashes farm in Ruswarp near Whitby. I congratulate all those who so swiftly tried to nip the problem in the bud effectively. Obviously, the tragedy is that contiguous damage has occurred to livestock, but, given the sense of partnership and the mood in our local community, the lack of bipartisan agreement in the House this afternoon would be found offensive. People in Whitby who have worked with me and people in the NFU office in Whitby who have worked so hard to help people get through the difficult decisions that have been needed will find that lack of agreement most offensive.
As my right hon. Friend knows, the farm is close to the North York Moors national park. The big fear in the minds of many farmers—many of my constituents—
712
is the impact of the problem on hefted flocks. Will he assure my constituents and the House that there are contingency plans to try to prevent the spread of this terrible disease on to the moors, where it would cause far more damage than it has done so far?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the heroic efforts that are being made in the farming community, and in rural communities more broadly, to work with the Government and especially local officials to bring this disease outbreak to a conclusion. He is also right to draw attention to the particular issues and set of problems that confront us in dealing with the outbreak as it affects hefted flocks and moorlands. The issue is important in the area that my hon. Friend represents, on Hexham moor in Cumbria and indeed in the south-west as well. The Government are looking at what can be done to try to contain the disease in the very special circumstances of hefted flocks on moors without having to cull out all the animals on the moorlands.
Mr. Colin Breed: I, too, thank the Minister for providing us with a copy of his statement a few moments before the debate. I also associate the Liberal Democrats with the words of congratulation and thanks for all those who are working in the field in a demanding and often distressing job.
May I turn to a few practical issues on which, I am sure, many hon. Members have been approached by farmers in their constituencies? On 26 February, I first raised the issue of cattle going beyond the over-30-months limit. What compensation will be offered to those farmers? For those who cannot move their animals and who are now facing horrendous animal welfare problems, will the Minister increase resources to the Intervention Board? That seems to be one of the main problems in clearing the whole issue.
There is a significant backlog; farmers cannot get through; and applications for the animal welfare disposal scheme simply cannot be made.
Will right hon. Gentleman speed up the processing of movement licences for those in unaffected areas, where farmers have waited, sometimes for weeks, to get licences, despite having agreed the sale of their animals with others in unaffected areas? Will he also consider allowing farmers to reclaim the costs of vets' visits, which many of them are now finding very onerous? Those vets' visits are absolutely necessary because of the current FMD outbreak.
Finally, on a more local issue, will the Minister now undertake to instruct the Highways Agency to lay disinfectant matting on the Tamar bridge? He will know that that is a major issue in Cornwall, which is relatively free of the disease, but which is, of course, right next to Devon, which has a significant hot spot. Many farmers and many members of the public simply cannot understand why disinfectant matting cannot be laid on the bridge to provide at least some protection for the farms in south-east Cornwall.
Mr. Brown: I cannot give an instruction to the Highways Agency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I cannot

713
do so because the Highways Agency does not come under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—as, no doubt, most hon. Members will have spotted.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: It should.
Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for arguing for that extension of my Ministry's powers.
I am advised that the issue of disinfected mats is rather more symbolic than real—that is the professional advice to the Government collectively—nor can I give the hon. Gentleman any comfort on the recovery of the costs of private sector veterinary visits. On movement licences, which he perfectly properly mentions, the best way forward for those in the unaffected areas is to work towards relaxing the movement controls in the disease-free areas, so that movements from farm to slaughterhouse are more easily facilitated. That is the right policy approach, but I cannot yet make an announcement. As soon as veterinarians advise me that it is safe to do so, of course I will.
On the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the welfare disposal scheme, he is of course right. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the scheme has turned out to be very popular. About 1.6 million animals have been offered to the scheme, so extra resources are required to administer it, and extra resources are being moved in. We keep the scheme for over-30-month cattle under review, but I have nothing new to say about that today.
Dr. Jack Cunningham: May I ask my right hon. Friend to ignore the lectures from the Conservative party, whose record on BSE and other animal health and welfare issues was so abysmal? It ill becomes Conservative Members to come to the House in that mood and with those attitudes in the current circumstances.
I thank my right hon. Friend and his officials for being so helpful in dealing with the animal welfare problems among breeding flocks on the western fells of the Lake district in my constituency. Is he aware, however, that agriculture and tourism are inextricably linked in the Lake district hills and dales, so the Cumbrian economy is grievously damaged by the unprecedented crisis in agriculture? Is it not time urgently to provide a package of measures specifically to help the Cumbrian economy to weather the storm? Is it not also time for the Government, or—dare I say it?—the Treasury to be flexible, imaginative and generous in these unprecedented circumstances?
Mr. Brown: I have as much sympathy as I am allowed to have with what my right hon. Friend has said. He is absolutely right to refer to the inextricable links between tourism and agriculture in Cumbria, and I am pleased that the Ministry has been helpful in dealing with one of a series of difficult issues on the fells in his constituency. He is also right to tell me to be very careful about where I take advice.
Mr. Tony Baldry: What would the Minister say to my constituent, Mrs. Wilcox of Grove farm, Bletchingdon, which is the parish that is almost next door to Chesterton, where we had an outbreak of foot and
714
mouth some weeks ago? Mrs. Wilcox has 1,000 outdoor sows, producing 500 piglets a week, and she now has 3,000 piglets in temporary straw huts that are flooded because of the exceptionally heavy rain that we have had in Oxfordshire. She requested a welfare cull weeks ago and, although I will not take the Minister through it, there has been a saga of her sending information to MAFF, her vet sending information to MAFF and MAFF saying that it has lost the paperwork and the vet's letters. She got in touch with MAFF on Friday, only to be told that the Ministry had lost all her papers.
Mrs. Wilcox was on the telephone to my office today, almost in tears. The accommodation for her thousands of piglets is bursting at the seams, so what will the Ministry do about such cases? She says that she, the NFU and the National Pig Association cannot get through to anyone on the telephone; but we must have a system so that farmers such as Mrs. Wilcox can have help with their crucial welfare culls.
Mr. Brown: I will ask my private office to take up the constituency case that the hon. Gentleman perfectly rightly raises. Clearly, I cannot give him a response to an individual case across the Dispatch Box, but I will have it examined. He will understand how difficult the foot and mouth outbreak is for the pig sector—fortunately it has not got a hold in areas where pig farming is predominant—and mere are two reasons for that. First, the disease is incredibly infectious in pigs and they multiply the virus very quickly. Secondly, as he knows, because of the stratified nature of the industry, movement restrictions can cause welfare problems very quickly. The hon. Gentleman has nevertheless asked me to deal with that issue, and I will get my private office to consider it.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement. May I reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? We need a financial package for Cumbria, which is in the thick of the outbreak and where there is severe financial hardship in some areas. We are getting on with the job in a bipartisan manner without the splits that have appeared here today.
I have two questions for my right hon. Friend. First, now that MAFF owns the lease on the Great Orton aerodrome, which is the mass burial ground for many animals, will he ensure that public health in that area will be looked after not only today and next week but in the many years to come? Secondly, the NFU would like to keep cattle in their sheds—and not turn them out to grass—for one, two or three weeks more. That will cost money; I understand that it is estimated that it would cost £2 million to keep them inside until the end of this month. Will my right hon. Friend consider ways of funding that?
Mr. Brown: On my hon. Friend's second point, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is considering a feedstuff strategy for the infected areas where we believe the disease will be borne down on best by keeping cattle housed for longer than they normally would be. He is considering how we can facilitate that.
On my hon. Friend's question about the aerodrome lease, the disposal site and the public health issues, I can give the assurance that he seeks. As I understand it, there are no public health risks, but it is right that we should not just reassure ourselves about that but explain the

715
reasons to local people. We will ensure that the site continues to be monitored, and I will put such work in place.
Mr. Robert Key: Today and tomorrow in my constituency, 3,500 pigs and sheep will be killed. None of them is infected, but they are suffering from animal welfare problems and movement restrictions. Is it too late to provide more flexibility to local vets—they are in the best position to make judgments particularly about the movement of stock over short distances—instead of freezing everything until welfare becomes such a serious problem that it results in the death of many innocent animals?
Mr. Brown: I do not quarrel with the underlying thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am trying to free up the movement restrictions so that we can facilitate the normal workings of the trade. I thick we all agree that that is the best way forward. However, I can do that only in a way that is compatible with the veterinary advice on disease control that is available to me. As soon as I can do what the hon. Gentleman asks, I assure him that I will.
Mr. John McFall: I remind the Minister that some areas are not co-operating fully. On the west highland way, which passes through my constituency and attracts more than 1 million visitors every year, landowners are reverting to type and using the foot and mouth crisis to deny people access to it. Will he remind such individuals to put agriculture in perspective? It provides 0.8 per cent. of employment in the country and 1.8 per cent. of gross domestic product. Tourism is the jewel in our crown and we need full co-operation from the farming and agricultural communities.
Mr. Brown: Many matters are devolved and not my responsibility. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point: tourism is an incredibly important industry in northern Scotland, where there is no foot and mouth disease.
Mr. John Burnett: Last Saturday, I attended a public meeting in my constituency on the Ministry's proposals for a burial site in the parish of Petrockstowe. My constituents will stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with farmers because they understand that hundreds of thousands of carcases cannot lie on adjoining farms for days and weeks on end. However, the problem is gaining access to the site. The choice, which is devastating the village, is to drive through its narrow lanes—or, alternatively, to use the main road via the clayworks. I believe that the owners of the clay company are using this dire crisis to blackmail the Government and my constituents in an endeavour to secure extortionate terms. Will the Minister immediately exercise emergency powers to ensure that the right of way will go through the clayworks to the burial site, not through the village or its narrow lanes, which are utterly unsuitable?
Mr. Brown: Because the hon. Gentleman asked me to, I have considered the problem. As I understand it, there are three possible routes of access: through the village, off the main road or through the clayworks. He is right to
716
say that the private sector owns the clayworks and is denying the Government access. It is an intractable problem. I have every sympathy with him—
Mr. Burnett: Use emergency powers.
Mr. Brown: I do not have emergency powers to seize property owned by the private sector, as opposed to the Government. However, I shall do what I can to resolve the issue, to which I have given careful consideration.
Mr. Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend will know that last week the Peak district national park had its first suspected outbreak. That was investigated by vets almost a week ago and it has still not been confirmed. Nothing has been done on the contiguous farms. Clearly, when the rest of the Peak district economy is starting to bottom out and improve, it is important that we know as quickly as possible not only if the case is confirmed, but how the exceptionally isolated incident occurred.
Mr. Brown: We need to be careful collectively in dealing with predicted sporadic outbreaks. What we cannot predict is where they will occur. Initial testing shows that the holding in my hon. Friend's constituency is clear of the disease. However, it may be too early to give a final confirmation of that. Like everyone else, I hope that it is clear.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a serious problem that might affect arable areas, Stevadore and a grain merchant company have told me that the market in the export of grain has collapsed. There is no official embargo, but privately, people abroad have decided not to buy British grain. Will the Minister take the opportunity to make a firm statement that there is no possibility of grain being a vector of foot and mouth and that no one need be concerned about British grain? Will he do his utmost to ensure that our European partners make that clear on the continent? If the export of grain is collapsing, that could have devastating economic consequences in the eastern regions. Will he consider providing compensation for that?
Mr. Brown: I am familiar with one incident, which I hope is isolated, in which there was an argument about a grain shipment which was based on misapprehensions about foot and mouth disease. Grain is not a means of conveying the virus.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the case in south Lancashire, in my constituency. It is now almost seven weeks since it was identified, and poultry, pig, beef and sheep farming in the area faces severe welfare problems. What help can my right hon. Friend give? Can we lift the section D notices and allow the movement of animals as soon as possible, or can we ensure that the Intervention Board works more speedily? I know that it is in a period of crisis management because of the number of cases that it is dealing with, but something must be done to ease the plight of farmers in Chorley. I cannot stress enough the importance of that or of the scale of the tragedy that they face. It is not in the interests of the House that it should

717
attempt to make political gain out of the farming crisis; that is wrong, and the House will not have credibility as long as it is allowed to happen.
Mr. Brown: I must say that I agree with all three points made by my hon. Friend. The credibility of the House is best served when we are seen to debate, in a politically non-partisan way—[Interruption]—the great issues that confront our country.
Mr. Damian Green: What about BSE?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman shouts away, but he might just consider how I dealt with the Phillips report in the House. I took great care not to be party political, and I wonder whether it would have been the same if we had been in opposition and the Conservative party had been in government.
On the points made by my hon. Friend, I am allocating extra resources to the Intervention Board. He can assure his constituents that as soon as veterinary advice enables me to lift movement restrictions, even partially, I will do so.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The crisis has been going on for at least seven weeks, and the number of animals slaughtered in that time is dwarfed by the number on the welfare scheme, so it will take longer than seven weeks to put that scheme into effect. Will the Minister therefore consider allocating extra resources to get the scheme up and running, and indeed completed? Will he consider also clearing licences for animals that require them and that could go to slaughter in the zones that are not affected by the disease? That would help to ease the welfare problem.
Mr. Brown: At the moment, I cannot relax the licensing scheme even in the controlled areas, but as I have just told my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), as soon as it is possible to relax restrictions, which would have to be done on veterinary advice, I will of course do so. I am considering how practical it is to allow movement of livestock that are trapped in the infected areas to go to abattoirs in those areas and then on through the food chain. That may be possible. Of course, the priority must be to control the disease, and movement controls are vital to its extermination.
Ms Candy Atherton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Cornwall county council, local MAFF officials and the National Farmers Union on today opening up sections of the Cornish coastal path? Does he agree that the news, along with the opening of the Eden project and the fact that many of our gardens and all our beaches are open, means that there is much to attract visitors to Cornwall this Easter?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I congratulate local officials, public sector employees, local government and the local NFU on working together for the benefit of Cornwall, and on giving the clear impression that agriculture and tourism go hand in hand and can work together.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: What advice has the Minister received from his officials or others about
718
the nature of the outbreak compared with 1967? Why do they believe that the contiguous cull is necessary, especially where cattle are still being wintered in? The Minister will recall that in the 1967 outbreak the disease skipped farms and areas, and there was no rhyme nor reason to it. Secondly, will he confirm that until the House passes an order, the contiguous cull is voluntary and is illegal otherwise?
Mr. Brown: If animals are dangerous contacts and deemed so by the veterinary authorities, the cull is not voluntary; it is mandatory. If farmers are in the controlled zone but outside any other 3 km zone, and if they voluntarily give up their animals for a firebreak policy, as is happening in southern Cumbria, that is voluntary and not mandatory. However, the Government have the power to slaughter any animal that is deemed on veterinary advice a dangerous contact and at risk of carrying infectivity. It is not necessary for the clinical signs of the disease to be apparent, as a matter of veterinary judgment.
On the comparisons between the 1967 outbreak and the present one, I went into that issue in some detail in my previous address to the House. The two outbreaks are not directly comparable. There are various features now that are different from what happened then. The two most important are the fact that, in 1967, there was not the rapid movement of animals around the country that there is now—there was not the highway infrastructure. Also, as the hon. Lady well knows, the 1967 outbreak was predominantly in cattle and pigs and in the midland belt of England, including her constituency, whereas the outbreak now is predominantly in sheep and predominantly a phenomenon of the western part of Great Britain, with hot spots particularly in lowland Scotland, Cumbria and Devon.
Mr. Huw Edwards: There are now 14 outbreaks of foot and mouth in Monmouthshire and the situation is extremely grave. I was speaking to farmers in the Chepstow area this morning, where it has been particularly serious. The 48-hour contiguous cull has far from been reached in that area, despite discussions that took place when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attended my constituency last Tuesday. We were assured by the Assembly Minister, Carwyn Jones, that there would be liaison officers in Monmouthshire in a day or two, but I am not aware that they have yet been appointed. I also point out to my right hon. Friend the concern of farmers in areas winch border England. There may be an outbreak, say, in Herefordshire, but there may be contiguous farms in Monmouthshire. Who is responsible for notifying those farmers?
Mr. Brown: The contiguous farm policy applies even across borders pertaining to the responsibilities of different Ministers. I had an opportunity to discuss some of the issues with the Agriculture Minister for Wales this morning, and with leaders of the farmers unions in Wales, as well. We are all working together for a common purpose, but I will draw my hon. Friend's specific remarks to the attention of the Welsh Agriculture Minister.
Mr. Steve Webb: The Minister will understand that farmers whose animals have had foot and mouth infections and who want to stay in the business are putting aside the compensation payments that they have

719
received to restock after the crisis is over. Given the limited entitlement to social security benefits for people who are in businesses that are making no money, can the Minister advise them of what they are meant to live on?
Mr. Brown: I have set out the support payments available to farmers in those circumstances, and I understand that the social security arrangements, where they obtain, have been carefully set out. The big decision for farmers who have received a compensation payment is whether to restock the farm holding or renew any tenancy arrangements that may have been interrupted, or whether to pause and think very carefully about what the future holds for them.
There is a serious discussion still to be had with the industry about the shape of support payments and in particular the future support arrangements for the sheep regime. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with some of the issues involved—the hill farm allowance, the sheep premium regime in the European Union, how far we are to make use of the second pillar of the rural development regulation, and how far we should advance our plans for genotyping the national flock to make it more scrapie resistant. These are all issues to be discussed with the industry, but our first priority must be to defeat the disease.
Ms Sally Keeble: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about his plans for easing restrictions in some areas. Is he aware that the NFU in Northamptonshire is keen for restrictions to be eased locally, especially in view of the size of the area to which they apply and the length of time that has passed since the case that we had? Can he say a little more about the areas in which he is considering easing the restrictions, and about the timetabling of the decision, so that my farmers know roughly when they can expect some movement in that respect?
Mr. Brown: I cannot set a clearer timetable than the one I set out in my statement, because all these matters depend on veterinary advice. It is the areas where earlier outbreaks occurred—especially those in the east of the country—that seem to be early candidates for the lifting of movement restrictions and the return to more normal trade. I have under active consideration the question of whether it will be possible to do something further with the areas that have remained disease free throughout the outbreak, including East Anglia, the north of Scotland and west Wales. However, it would be dangerous to set a timetable for what is, after all, a biological phenomenon. I am advised that unexpected outbreaks are still likely to occur. By far the best thing we can do is to bear down quickly on such outbreaks and cull out the infected animals and contiguous premises.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister now respond to the requests that I made some two or three weeks ago and consider vaccination at least in respect of rare and pedigree breeds in this country? Such breeds are priceless and can never be revived. Will he also look favourably on a request that was made by a number of farmers regarding the 30 mile exclusion zone that extends from Hawes? The affected area is much wider than the recommended 10 km zone.
Mr. Brown: I asked representatives of the National Sheep Association this morning whether they believed
720
that vaccination would play any part in a rare breed survival strategy. Their answer was an emphatic no. It is not that I have not thought about the issue or that I do not have it under consideration—I can assure the hon. Lady that I do. However, there are very strong arguments against the use of vaccination even in trying to protect rare breeds. The people who care for the industry most and who know it best are firmly opposed to the use of a vaccination strategy, but we are considering other things that we can do to protect rare breeds, including the preservation of genetic material.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Although it is gratifying that the number of new cases seems to be falling daily, the evidence of the past few days, which shows that the spread of the disease extends well beyond the areas where most of it has been found before, is extremely worrying. For example, a case recently arose in south Wales, in Nelson, near Caerphilly. Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether the investigations of the National Assembly for Wales, MAFF or the Scottish Parliament have produced any ideas about whether such outbreaks are caused by airborne factors, careless movement of vehicles on farm-related business, or unauthorised movements? Also, what is being done to try to get up to speed on culling in contiguous areas?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right that more needs to be done to ensure that the culling out of contiguous premises is achieved within our target range of 48 hours. As to the cause of sporadic outbreaks, more work still needs to be done, but it seems that they are caused by farm-to-farm transmission.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who attended the presentation that he kindly arranged last week came away feeling that there will be no future for hefted sheep or moorland animals unless he accepts a policy of vaccination very soon? Does he accept that many farmers in my constituency and elsewhere feel that, despite all his good intentions, which are not in dispute, there is a lack of co-ordination and clarity, and no central direction? His answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) about disinfectant on the Tamar bridge illustrated that point. Who precisely is in charge? Who can take the decisions and lead the national fight against this national scourge?
Mr. Brown: On the Tamar bridge, the advice that is available to the Government suggests that the disinfected mats are of only marginal utility. Of course, the objection to them is that they might do more harm than good. On the broader question of hefted sheep on moorlands, and in Cumbria in particular, there are several strategies for saving them, including vaccination. I have not ruled the latter out, but there are several other approaches, including containment and testing of animals to see precisely where the disease is. Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not for the gratuitous culling of animals. It may be possible to deal with the problem just by containing it.
Mr. James Plaskitt: Farmers in Warwickshire to whom I spoke today are anxious for a speeding up of the slaughter rate under the

721
welfare scheme. Can my right hon. Friend say more about the additional resources that he can provide for the purpose?
May I introduce a word of bipartisan encouragement? Mr. Philip Bushill-Matthews recently wrote in my local newspaper an article that begins by congratulating the Government on their handling of the foot and mouth outbreak. He is the Conservative MEP for the West Midlands.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful for that bipartisan support. As for speeding up the slaughter element of the welfare scheme, we are bringing onstream sufficient capacity to take out around a quarter of a million animals a week, and some 230,000 are lined up for slaughter in the next few days.
Mr. Nick Harvey: May I urge the Minister to devote more resources to the clearance of carcases in Devon? Now that more progress is being made with the cull, carcases are literally piling up and typically not being moved for seven, eight or even nine days. What advice does the Minister suggest I give to constituents who are complaining about the effluent from carcases running into duck lakes or past their front doors, about carcases piled up on the school bus route and even about carcases between two caravan parks, which, obviously, are causing a serious odour problem?
Is the Minister aware that his officials in Exeter say that a lack of trucks to move the carcases is one of the problems? Can he do something about that? Farmers are threatening to turn up and deliver the carcases to the Ministry if the trucks do not collect them.
Mr. Brown: A lack of sealed trucks suitable for moving the animals to disposal sites is part of the problem, but at the heart of it has been the difficulty of finding a suitable disposal route, or series of disposal routes, in Devon. That has been an intractable problem throughout Great Britain while we have been dealing with the outbreak, but it has proved particularly difficult in Devon for a range of local reasons. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with all those reasons, and merely stating them will not, of course, solve the problem. As was demonstrated by the discussion that I just had with his hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), it is very difficult to find disposal routes in the west country that are acceptable to the Environment Agency and also to local people. However, we are doing our best and we believe that we now have suitable disposal sites.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does it not beggar belief that there should be any unauthorised movements at all? Seven weeks into this contagion, there are still farmers out there moving livestock that can contaminate healthy beasts. Has the Minister made any estimate of the number of unauthorised movements? If we track down those irresponsible farmers, what sanctions can we use against them?
Mr. Brown: Those who break the law will be prosecuted, and prosecutions are pending. I cannot give an estimate of illegal activity, but let me say this: the
722
overwhelming majority of farmers who have been hit by this terrible disease outbreak have behaved not just responsibly but wry bravely, in the most adverse circumstances. I pay tribute to the law-abiding majority, who are working hind in hand with the Government to bear down on the disease.
Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister accept that one way of fighting the disease is for the Opposition parties to do what they are there for—to hold the Government to account and ask questions? If they do not, government will be worse than it would be otherwise.
Does the Minister also accept that the debate on vaccination will not go away until he sets out clear criteria against which we can judge whether the circumstances have indeed arrived in which vaccination can be resorted to, or ought to be resorted to? At present, it is being floated almost as an abstract concept. Until we know how the Minister will reach such a conclusion and in what circumstances, he will become increasingly frustrated by our questions and we shall become increasingly frustrated by his answers.
Mr. Brown: I have no quarrel with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. As for the second, more targeted part about vaccination, there is a range of ways in which a vaccination strategy might be used. They all have their difficulties as well as their claimed benefits. The matter has been much discussed in public; moreover, I arranged a presentation on the issues yesterday and was pleased to observe a good attendance on the part of Members on both sides of the House. I look forward to giving evidence on the question of vaccination to the Select Committee, when the Select Committee is ready to receive me.
Mr. Tony McWalter: As a Hertfordshire Member, a county where the disease has not yet occurred, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware of the remarks of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) that to have a burial site in Hertfordshire would be "reckless"? Will my right hon. Friend take my assurance that I believe that the county should do everything that it can to play its role in helping to deal with a national crisis? Furthermore, will he assure me that there will be no limitation on movements and no other dangers involved in the policy, which I have broadly welcomed?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I under stand that it is the Opposition's policy to advocate the burial of carcases rather than on-site burning to dispose of them. I may be wrong, and perhaps there is a different policy for Hertfordshire.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The Minister's policy of taking potentially risky carcases across safe areas to sites where a huge pyre will be built to burn them has been much criticised by experienced vets of 1967, and runs counter to the recommendations set out in the 1969 report. The situation has been made worse by the muddle in deciding who accepts that the site is right. Sites in my constituency have been approved by the Environment Agency, but have been the subject of massive disapproval from everyone else. Other sites have been approved by

723
other agencies but blocked by the Environment Agency. Who decides? Is it MAFF, the Army or the Environment Agency? Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know? Some of my constituents, such as the Arrowsmiths, have had rotting carcases on their farms for six days.
Mr. Brown: I read in the newspapers over the weekend that the hon. Gentleman thought that foot and mouth had been caused by an escaped virus from Porton Down, or a stolen virus. If he really believed that, he would have asked me about it, rather than drawing my attention to quarrels about landfill and burial sites. There will always be such quarrels. Whether it is safe environmentally to use them is, of course, a matter for the professional views of those at the Environment Agency. It is not clever to drop a lot of dead animals in the water supply. We must take these environmental considerations into account. We must take into account also the views of local people, who may agree with burial or landfill as a general proposition, but become much more sceptical about it if it is to be done near where they live.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Is the Minister aware that his Department's guidance—urging the reopening of some public footpaths—is being ignored by a number of county councils, thereby delivering a further and entirely avoidable blow to the tourism industry in the run-up to Easter? Will he confirm that there has never been a case of foot and mouth being spread by a walker?
Mr. Brown: There are always uncertainties about the way in which foot and mouth disease is spread. It happens mostly by animal-to-animal contact or by farm-to-farm spread. Although I do not know of a case of a walker having spread foot and mouth disease, I cannot say definitively that it has never happened. However, all these issues must be dealt with in a sensitive and proportionate way. My advice remains the same: that those who enjoy the countryside should stay away from farmed livestock, but otherwise enjoy the countryside; the countryside is not closed.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the Minister accept that it is not only in Banbury where there are problems with the welfare disposal scheme? In Leicestershire, farmers have been quoted three weeks to a month. There are piglets trying to eat other piglets. The situation is desperate. If the right hon. Gentleman is to solve the problem, he will have to introduce a massive increase in resources now—he might have to bring in the Army—otherwise, he will never cope with the problem.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the contiguous slaughter in Leicestershire is running at 120 hours and not 48? When, finally, will he answer my questions about homeopathic borax, which has been shown in previous outbreaks to go a long way towards preventing animals from getting foot and mouth disease? Why will he not at least set in motion a trial? I have raised the matter with him on several occasions. I have tabled written questions and I have raised the matter with the Prime Minister. When will we get an answer? When will chemists get some instructions?
Mr. Brown: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I concede that he is due an apology from me. He has asked twice about the use of borax as an alternative
724
therapy. That is a matter of professional judgment, but I have promised him a reply twice and he has not yet received one. He should have done so before now, and I shall ensure that he receives a reply.
On the welfare disposal scheme, I have explained the substantial demand and the need for extra resources to ensure that it carries out its functions. We are also prioritising work by trying to deal with the hardest cases first. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the stratified nature of the modern pig industry and the welfare problems that movement restrictions quickly create. I shall draw the constituency case that he raised to my officials' attention and ascertain whether I can get something done about it.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I think that my right hon. Friend understands that the tourism industry as well as agriculture is greatly affected in Devon as well as in Cumbria. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and others, I ask him to urge his colleagues to make available an appropriate package of assistance.
On a visit by the Paymaster General at the weekend, it became clear in discussions with Mr. David Beardsley, the secretary of the Federation of Small Businesses for Devon, that we need enough good-quality business advisers on the ground to assist people who are taking the difficult business decisions that hon. Members have mentioned to make sensible decisions and to know what is already available. That was more than the people to whom we spoke realised.
Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, I am passionately committed to business advice for those whose farm-based businesses are in transition. I secured moneys last year specifically for helping smaller farmers through the period of transition. The scheme is available to all farmers, and I have managed to carry the underspend on that budget into this financial year. Clearly, the special case that can be made for Cumbria and the west country means that they will be treated as priorities when resources are allocated.
Moreover, I promise to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who is considering those issues more generally.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. Today is the last opportunity for the Minister to come to the House before the recess. I want to call every hon. Member, but I need the assistance of those who wish to speak. Questions must be brief so that I can call every hon. Member.
Mr. Tom King: Obviously, the sympathy and understanding of the tourism industry are crucial if we are to crack the problem of foot and mouth. What has happened to the taskforce? The Chief Secretary is present. Will we have a statement about the taskforce's proposals before the House rises? An announcement about the small firms loan guarantee scheme will not begin to tackle the scale of the problems. People believed that they faced a problem that would last three to six weeks. Those in the tourism sector realise that this year is almost a write-off

725
for them. The question for some facilities is not whether the countryside is open for business but whether they will ever be open again.
Mr. Brown: The question goes slightly wider than my ministerial responsibilities, but I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who chairs the taskforce. I understand that there will be no statement before the House rises; I accept that that is no comfort to the right hon. Gentleman and I shall try to provide a fuller reply that is.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in times of crisis, it is important for the Government to have a surplus, not a deficit? Do farmers who receive the compensation ever thank him for the fact that the Labour Government have a surplus in their budget, not a deficit like that lot opposite? Do they tell him that they will vote Labour this time, instead of voting for that lot who left them not only in the lurch but with BSE?
Mr. Brown: Those points are often made to me, but in private.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister understands that the recent outbreak is a devastating blow to livestock producers in south-east Scotland. The borders is one of the principal world centres for breeding sheep, especially Cheviots. Will the Minister re-examine the position whereby local vets have discretion about the 3 km cull? Everyone understands that, if there is a suspected case on a farm, slaughter is the only option in the infected place and on the contiguous farms. However, mass prosecution of a 3 km cull dictated by MAFF in London without proper reference to local vets could decimate the local economy and the sheep industry in south-east Scotland.
Mr. Brown: Administration of those matters is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It is a matter for the Scottish Minister rather than me, although we all receive the same professional advice. I do not want to go further because there is local discretion and it is up to the Scottish Minister with responsibility for agriculture how that is exercised.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Where do we stand now in terms of collection centres? The Minister will know that, for the small producer, sending small loads to an abattoir is pretty uneconomic. A collection centre would be much more practical for that person.
Mr. Brown: The point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes is absolutely correct. As he will recall, at the beginning of the outbreak, I had hoped that it would be possible to set up collection centres specifically to help smaller farmers to assemble sufficient batches to go in commercially attractive groups into the abattoir and the food chain. So far, it has not been possible to do that, but, as soon as it is possible to bring such a system into play, I would like to do so.
Mr. Michael Howard: Is the Minister aware that, last week, the leader of Kent county
726
council, in an attempt to explore the possibility of reopening footpaths in Kent, asked the Minister for the Environment how an area might be moved from the "at risk" category to the "provisionally free" category? He was told to ask MAFF. The next day, he asked MAFF and he was told to ask the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Does that not epitomise the way in which the crisis has been mishandled by the Government?
Mr. Brown: I suspect that there is more to the story than that. In any event, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I can travel the same journey together in steadily liberalising the regime in east Kent.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Has the Ministry any guidelines on the siting of cremation pyres? May I draw to the Minister's attention the problem that I have in my constituency? A cremation pyre is being built in Hood lane, near Longdon in Staffordshire, within 200 yards of a village. Does he accept that, whatever the reality of the toxicity of the smoke, people are very concerned about the smells and the dirt? There are a number of people with asthma, emphysema and other breathing problems. Is there any way that the pyre can be moved before it is ignited tomorrow morning?
Mr. Brown: I do not want to intervene in the local decision-making process. There are consultations and a range of different factors is taken into account, including the wishes of local people. These are not very popular neighbours, yet it is essential to dispose of the carcases. I am afraid that I can give the hon. Gentleman no more satisfaction than that.
Mr. Simon Thomas: May I share with the Minister the increasing sense of despair among many farmers in my constituency? Silage is running out; access to summer pastures is denied; and there is a real problem with the Intervention Board. There was also a problem with licensing from restricted areas to non-restricted areas; I accept the Minister's figures on licensing without restricted areas. Will he set targets for the welfare-to-slaughter scheme, so that we can measure progress? Does he accept that the maintenance of my party's bipartisan approach in Wales depends on the Government and the Minister meeting their own targets? There is still a gap there. Will he do more to ensure that the welfare-to-slaughter scheme can work and that we get the slaughter within 24 hours?
Mr. Brown: I have candidly set out for the House both the targets across Great Britain and the rate at which they are currently being achieved, and said that extra resources are still being brought in to ensure that we get even closer to those targets than we are doing now. As the hon. Gentleman will know, administration of the fight against the disease in Wales is, of course, a devolved matter for the Welsh Assembly. However, I promise him that there is very close co-operation and co-ordination between my Ministry, which is dealing with the outbreak in England, the Welsh Assembly, which is dealing with it in Wales, and the devolved authorities in Scotland.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My local NFU has approached me and, I imagine, most of my colleagues in Kent about the future of the Invicta abattoir at Lamberhurst. I am sure that, like many other abattoirs, the Invicta abattoir is currently suffering from a lack of trade. However, if it closes, it will not be available to assist with culls or any other action that is needed in the future. Can the Minister reassure me that such essential abattoirs will remain open during this period?
Mr. Brown: We have tried very hard, even before this disease outbreak, to support abattoirs, and there are various public policy reasons for our wanting to do so. I am not familiar with the particular circumstances of the Lamberhurst abattoir to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but if he would like to write to me about them, I shall certainly investigate and see what I can do.
Mr. Howard Flight: West Sussex has had the good fortune not to be infected, partly because of the care taken by farmers. Some 10 days ago, two landfill sites were designated in the Horsham district council area, but I am very pleased to say that, on Friday, I was advised that MAFF had reversed the decision. Nevertheless, that risk seemed to arise initially because of a complete lack of liaison between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—which had designated the sites—the Environment Agency, county councils, district councils and MAFF. As was reconfirmed today in a letter from MAFF, those sites could have been used for animals slaughtered in contiguous culls. Is there adequate liaison on those matters between all those who are involved in them?
Mr. Brown: Yes, there is. The difficulty, of course, is the need to consult a great many people about a range of different options and to do that as rapidly as possible. An enormous amount of work is being undertaken, but the time constraints are very short. Although that might seem like confusion to the outsider, mostly it is not—it is a lot of people working very hard to very tight deadlines. The hon. Gentleman said that he is pleased that that option will not be taken in the area that he represents and I understand why he says that. However, may I gently say to him that burial is the option being advocated to me by Opposition Front Benchers?
Mr. William Cash: The Minister will know that the first and main conclusion of the western command report, which was issued after the 1967–68 outbreak, was that standing instructions should be provided for any further foot and mouth outbreak. Will he not only tell us whether any such standing instructions exist, but ensure that they are placed in the Library so that we know exactly whether they have been followed? Secondly—as DETR Ministers are not in the Chamber—will he, please, inform his colleagues that those who live in Stafford borough council area and Newcastle-under-Lyme cannot understand why, under current rules, they do not qualify for business rate relief? Will he, also take such action as comes generally within his purview to ensure that they ale put on the list?
Mr. Brown: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's public expenditure bid to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. As for the 1967 outbreak, in my last address to
728
the House, I set out some of the differences between what is happening to us now and what happened in 1967. The features of this outbreak are unique and there is no map to guide us through it. On the specific subject of burial, the use of burial on the small farms and for the small numbers of animals that pertained in 1967 is quite different from the type of circumstances pertaining now. We really do have to be sensitive to the dangers to the water supply and to the water table features.
Mr. Peter Luff: On bipartisanship, may I caution the Minister about relying too heavily on the words of the Conservative MEP Philip Bushill-Matthews, who was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt)? That article was written four weeks ago, when we were all a good deal less unhappy than we are now with the handling of the crisis. More substantially, the Minister will be aware that the disease seems to be growing very fast in Worcestershire and that that is a matter of considerable concern. That is probably one of the reasons why residents in the vicinity of the Throckmorton airfield site—which is being used as a mass burial site by his Department—are not objecting to the principle of burial on the site, despite the fact that there was absolutely no consultation with them before the announcement. However, could he, please, ensure that the 25 or so parliamentary questions that I have tabled on the site are answered rapidly? Could he also, either now or in writing later, give me an assurance that there will be no burning of animal carcases whatever at the site?
Mr. Brown: I shall do my best to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary questions are answered both rapidly and accurately, although it is not always as easy as it might appear to achieve both those aims. I shall check with my officials, and if I can give him the assurance that he seeks, I shall write to him within the next day.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: May I urge the Minister to establish an MPs' hotline? As the recess begins tomorrow, it is essential that it should be operating and properly staffed. How many extra staff has he taken on in his office, as that has been one of the few routes by which MPs have been able to raise serious issues on behalf of constituents? The Intervention Board is clearly in crisis. Mr. John Barnett, of Mickley hall, in Broomhall near Nantwich in Cheshire, now has more than 1,000 pigs waiting to be accepted for the animal welfare slaughter scheme, even though he applied on 23 February. As of today, he has still received no response, despite many assurances in the meantime.
Mr. Brown: I have already explained the pressures that the scheme is under. A hotline has been established for Members of Parliament, and I shall give the hon. Gentleman the number when this exchange comes to an end. The strengthening of private offices has been undertaken in the Ministry. Two extra people in my office are dealing with incoming inquiries, of which there have been about 120 from Members of Parliament alone.
Mr. Graham Brady: What advice and assistance have been given to the National Trust and other owners of deer parks, such as Dunham Massey in my constituency, on the steps that

729
have been taken to safeguard the deer on their properties? In particular, what consideration has been given to the possibility of vaccination to protect those animals?
Mr. Brown: I understand from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that advice has been issued on the management of deer. The most recent veterinary advice that I saw was that there was not a case for culling wild deer, on the ground that it would do more to spread the disease than to eliminate it. There are continuing discussions with those who have responsibility for managing substantial tracts of land on how to handle wildlife during this disease outbreak.
Mr. James Gray: Wiltshire is one of the areas approaching, we hope and pray, clean status, the last outbreak having been something like a month ago. Will the Minister give careful consideration to raising the restrictions there, as well as in the areas in the east of England that he mentioned earlier? Will he also give some thought to three issues that have been raised with me that could put that status in jeopardy?
First, we accept the need to bury, and Wiltshire is prepared to play its part in taking carcases from elsewhere for burial—that is a reasonable thing for a county such as ours to do—but will the Minister give farmers and the tourism industry an absolute assurance that lorries travelling through the constituency are 100 per cent. disinfected and totally safe? I am sure that they are, but farmers seek reassurance on the point.
Secondly, those farmers who have been granted licences have to take their lorries into Gloucestershire in order to go to disinfection centres, because there are so few centres around. Will the Minister consider opening new disinfection centres in Army, RAF or local authority sites, so that lorries need not go into infected areas before returning to Wiltshire?
Thirdly, when it comes to lifting the restrictions, which we all hope will be soon, will the Minister consider doing that progressively, following the same pattern as the outbreak, so that abattoirs and other parts of the infrastructure are not suddenly heaped with a huge burden that they cannot handle?
Mr. Brown: All three points are good and fair. We are considering lifting the restrictions in the hon. Gentleman's area, but I cannot give him a timetable. We are also considering whether it can be done in phases, rather than in one single move. We are further considering whether it will be possible to establish new disinfection centres, for exactly the reasons that he outlined. He accurately described the regime that is supposed to apply to the movement of vehicles. The vehicles are inspected to ensure that they conform to the standards that we have set out. The disease spread risk is absolutely minimal.
I understand why people want reassurances, and the hon. Gentleman was right to ask for them. I am happy to give him the reassurances that I have just set out.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the House would want me to thank the Minister for making his statement and replying to every hon. Member who sought to question him.

Point of Order
4.59 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any requests on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement to the House? There are reports that a British forces' helicopter containing a number of personnel has crashed in Kosovo. Has a Minister from the Ministry of Defence sought your leave to make a statement to the House about that matter?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to hear about that terrible matter, but a Minister has not approached me.

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  [Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence from the Treasury Committee, Session 2000–01 on the 2001 Budget, HC 326-i to iv.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Notwithstanding the gravity of the foot and mouth situation, it is good to move Second Reading at a time when the fundamentals of our economy are stronger than they have been for a generation. Because of our reformed monetary framework, tough fiscal rules and prudent choices, we now have the lowest inflation for 30 years, and it is the lowest in the European Union; the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years; the highest business investment for 40 years, at over 14 per cent. of gross domestic product; the lowest unemployment since 1975, with more people in work than ever before—more than 1.1 million more than in 1997; and sound public finances, cutting free of the millstone of debt run up by the Opposition when they were in government.
  The Government inherited a £28 billion deficit and debt at an unsustainable 44 per cent. of national income, but we have made the biggest net cash debt repayment in one year by any British Government at £34 billion, and have reduced net debt to below 32 per cent. of national income. Because we have cut debt and unemployment and achieved higher growth and earnings, we are freeing up resources for priority areas in a sustainable way.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Over the past four years, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has made much about reduction in debt. Does he agree that debt reduction varies over the business cycle? Are the Government prepared to publish their cyclically adjusted estimate of debt reduction over the past 20 years?
  Mr. Smith: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that information. However, if one looks at the projections of fiscal balances in the Red Book, one can see that cyclically adjusted, as well as unadjusted, we are well within our fiscal rules. Indeed, because we put those rules in place and stuck to them, we have reduced the debt to GDP ratio and, as I explained, released resources for priority services. The fall in debt charges alone has freed £7 billion compared with four years ago. The fall in spending on unemployment has freed about another £4 billion.
  On that basis, we can plan ahead and invest for the long term in the nation's priorities: education, health, fighting crime, transport and science. Those are the priorities on which our future prosperity depends. The Bill builds on that strength and continues to deliver on our promises. The Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor makes a clear choice about Britain's future and sets out a platform on which to build opportunity and prosperity for all. Like the Budget, the Bill takes a balanced approach, with stability as its foundation. Our hard-won economic stability enables us to deal with decades of underinvestment in public services, skills and
  732
  infrastructure, and it is the basis for the success of Britain's businesses and a better deal for pensioners, children and families.
  Maintaining and locking in that stability for the long term is at the heart of the Bill. We are taking a balanced approach, built around fairness, with support for children, hard-working families and pensioners; investment in our schools, hospitals and transport system; a sustainable environment; and higher productivity and enterprise, with employment opportunities and skills for all.
  Following that balanced approach, this is a Bill for families and children and one that tackles poverty. We have made a clear choice to take account of the costs of children through the tax and benefits system and to help every child make the best start in life. It is a matter of choice that we have increased child benefit to £15.50, a rise in real terms of no less than 26 per cent.
  Clause 52 proposes the children's tax credit at £10 a week, equivalent to a 2.5p cut in income tax for those families. From next year, it will be £20 a week for families in the year of a child's birth. A family who received just £11.05 per week under the last Government will receive £25.50 a week under this one. We are increasing maternity pay to £100 by 2003 and we will increase the payment period from 18 to 26 weeks, as well as introducing two weeks' paternity leave for new fathers.
  The Bill takes further steps to make work pay. Twenty-five million taxpayers will gain from the widening of the lower 10p tax rate in clause 51, at a cost of £1 billion. Now, more of their income will be taxed at that lower rate, rather than at 22p. We have put up the working families tax credit by £5 and increased the minimum wage. Those two together mean that the guaranteed minimum income for families with children and with someone in full-time work will rise to £225 a week. That will make a real difference to families on modest incomes.
  To ensure that pensioners share in the nation's rising prosperity, we are increasing pensions above inflation and above earnings by £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 a week for couples, with further rises of £3 and £4.80 next year. Because of the measures that we are taking this year alone, households will be, on average, £240 a year better off and families with children will be, on average, £420 a year better off. Two million of the poorest pensioners will be at least £800 a year better off.
  Living standards for a typical family have risen by 10 per cent. since the last general election, with particular help going to the poorest and those who need it most. That is the measure of our commitment to building not only a strong economy, but a strong society—one that is making people better off.
  Of course there is more to do. We must build the best possible environment for business to flourish and productivity to rise. Our ambition is to achieve a faster rise in productivity than our main competitors over the next decade. We want successful companies in all sectors to invest and expand. We have already created a more favourable company tax environment, with the lowest corporation tax rate ever in Britain and, overall, the lowest rate of any major industrialised country. We have reduced the long-term capital gains tax rate on business assets to 10 per cent.
  Recent evidence of progress has been encouraging. In the last year, the economy has grown at 3 per cent. and manufacturing productivity by 4.4 per cent. Business

  733
  investment grew by 2.4 per cent. last year and we are now investing at a rate of over 14 per cent. of gross domestic product—the highest level for 40 years.
  In January, Arthur Andersen and the Brussels-based GrowthPlus organisation released their pan-European benchmarking study on the environment for entrepreneurship and concluded that the United Kingdom, ahead of Europe and the United States, is the country that provides the environment that is most friendly to entrepreneurship.
  We still have some way to go and we have proposed further reforms to promote competition, investment, innovation and enterprise. To promote long-term investment and to protect investors, we will take forward Paul Myner's recommendations in the review of institutional investment; we will abolish the minimum funding requirement and, through tax and regulatory reform, we will make it easier for institutions to invest in venture capital. We are building a competitive and modern tax system for large firms, with changes to double taxation relief in clause 79 and the abolition of tax on most payments between companies within the UK tax jurisdiction in clauses 83 to 85.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: As I reflect on the Chief Secretary's investment calculations, I wonder what effect changes in the economic background since the Budget will have. For example, cuts in capital expenditure in the telecommunications industry are leading to considerable job losses, and there will be a knock-on effect from the United States. Does he have any post-Budget feel for the outcome in the UK over the year?
  Mr. Smith: Yes. Information available since the Budget could not, of course, have influenced the figures in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. It is interesting and instructive, however, to examine the average of the independent forecasts, the most recent of which have been published since the Budget. Their growth predictions for the UK average 2.6 per cent., which is towards the upper end of the Budget prediction of between 2.25 and 2.75 per cent. To that extent, we have had some reassurance from the independent forecasters.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned external circumstances, and any slow-down in the United States would be a matter of concern. That, too, could not have been factored into the Budget predictions, but the general estimate is that a 1 per cent. slow-down in the United States would affect the UK export market by about 1 per cent. and would affect GDP by around 0.25 per cent. I hope that that answers his question.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Unless I misheard my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), he was asking about investment rather than growth. It would be interesting to hear the Chief Secretary's latest analysis of that.
  Mr. Smith: Prospects for investment are sound and in line with our forecasts. Recent trends have also been encouraging. We are not complacent, but the soundest basis on which we can attract and sustain investment is the platform of stability that the Government have put in place by applying and sticking to sound fiscal rules, by
  734
  having sound money, by hitting our inflation target and by investing in skills and improving competition so that we have a successful and dynamic enterprise economy.
  We are carrying that work forward in the Finance Bill. For large firms, for example, there will be the changes in double taxation to which I have already referred. We shall consult on a widely welcomed measure: the possible extension of the research and development tax credit to larger firms. We are also consulting in detail on relieving tax when companies sell substantial shareholdings. Since 1997, enhanced capital allowances and new tax credits to encourage research and innovation have already saved business more than £1 billion. Increasing research and development by large companies can have a big impact on the UK's long-term productivity.
  The Bill will also improve the environment for small and medium-sized enterprises. Clause 62 doubles the value of share options that can benefit from tax relief through enterprise management incentives to £3 million. Clause 61 extends the right to benefit from that relief to all employees. Alongside the measures introduced in the Bill, we are reducing the burden of tax and regulation on small firms with a package of measures to cut the administrative burden of value added tax, and that, too, has been widely welcomed. We are simplifying small business corporation tax by making companies' annual accounts the basis for calculating tax, cutting at a stroke the need for a parallel paper chase.
  The Bill will make the tax system more responsive to specific needs to benefit businesses, communities and people throughout Britain. In particular, it will help to ensure that areas left behind by rising prosperity are helped to catch up, with a package of six tax cuts, totalling £1 billion over five years, targeted on enterprise in our poorest areas.
  We are also giving a boost to the British film industry by extending tax relief for British films for a further three years, under clause 72. We are reforming betting duty. In recognition of the importance of our national heritage, we are bringing in a scheme to reduce VAT on church repairs and making refunds available to national museums and galleries that allow the public free admission.
  Mr. Michael Jack: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned further support for the British film industry. What rate of return has so far been received for the taxpayer's investment in that industry, and does it justify the additional help that will be given?
  Mr. Smith: The industry's recent success—in awards as well as rewards and returns—fully justifies the steps that we have taken. Moreover, the fact that the extension was made possible was warmly welcomed not merely in the industry, but by commentators and more generally.
  We are also initiating consultation on tax relief for community sports clubs, acknowledging their invaluable contribution to recreation and a strong society.
  On skills, we recognise that today's economy demands more workers with higher skills and qualifications to fill new jobs. However, up to 30 per cent. of all employees do not have basic level 2 qualifications so, as well as the extensions to the new deal and the provision of training to people on benefits, we want to encourage companies and employees to upgrade their skills. To back up the tax relief that we already offer on employee training, we shall

  735
  consider a new tax credit to support training. We are launching an independent study to enhance the supply of highly skilled scientists and engineers, who are also an important part of the work force for productivity and future growth.
  Britain is already one of the best business environments in the world. We shall continue to look at new ways to help Britain's companies raise their productivity. The reforms that we are making through the Bill will make the environment for all businesses better still.
  Moreover, following on from previous Budgets and the steps that we have taken to tackle climate change, improve air quality, promote lower emission fuels and renewable energy, and regenerate rundown areas, the Bill carries forward the Government's commitment to a sustainable environment. Clauses 1 to 3 effect our cuts in fuel duties for ultra-low sulphur petrol and ultra-low sulphur diesel and enable the Government to provide reliefs for pilot projects to develop more environmentally friendly fuels.
  Clauses 8 to 14 increase to 1,549 cc the engine size below which the lower rate of car vehicle excise duty is paid, reform VED for goods vehicles, and implement the new exemption for tractors and agricultural machinery. Altogether, those measures are worth £1.6 billion a year to motorists—equivalent to a 4p pet litre cut in fuel duty for motorists—and £660 million to the haulage industry, which is equivalent to a 7p per litre cut in fuel duty for hauliers. The measures also promote less environmentally damaging fuels and vehicles.
  The introduction of the aggregates levy in clauses 16 to 49 seeks, in a revenue-neutral way to promote the use of recycled aggregates and other alternatives to primary aggregates to reduce environmental impacts of quarrying such as damage to biodiversity, visual intrusion and nuisance to nearby communities.
  Mr. David Heath: I am sure that the Chief Secretary is aware of the useful talks between his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the major quarry producers about creating a rebate scheme for companies that introduce environmentally friendly measures. Given that that is on-going, that it is referred to in the Red Book and that there is now no incentive for companies to introduce measures that would make their activities more environmentally responsible, would not it be more sensible to delay the introduction of the aggregates levy until the rebate is ready?
  Mr. Smith: It would not be sensible to delay the levy, for the logical reasons that I am about to give, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point about introducing more environmentally responsible quarrying methods, and we are attracted in principle to the approach that he advocates. Of course, some difficult definitions and criteria will have to be sorted out, but we shall continue to discuss that possibility.
  It is important that we go ahead with the levy to provide an incentive to use more environmentally sustainable alternatives and, in a revenue-neutral way, to use the funds from the levy to cut employers' national insurance contributions and to establish the new sustainability fund, which will come into operation at the same time as the levy in April next year. As announced in the pre-Budget report, £35 million a year will be allocated to the fund and we shall consult further on the details of its operation.
  736
  The climate change levy and the landfill tax, dealt with in clause 102, together with the aggregates levy, demonstrate our readiness to provide incentives for the environmentally sustainable use of scarce resources. By bringing actual market costs more in line with real economic costs, economic instruments that allow those involved in environmentally damaging activities to respond according to their circumstances meet the public good as well as helping the environment. Attaching a price to environmental detriment creates a permanent incentive for innovation and investment in less polluting methods of production and encourages the consumption of cleaner products.
  Revenues from new environmental taxes are being used to cut the rate of national insurance, rather than to boost the income of the Exchequer. That is not only economically rational, but environmentally responsible. Those Opposition Members who delight in opposing such measures are simply refusing to face up to the tough choices that are necessary if we are to take our environmental responsibilities seriously.
  The Bill sets out a clear choice for Britain's future. This Government have built a platform of economic stability as a basis for future prosperity. The choice that we have made is to build on that stability. We have chosen more investment in our public services, not less. We have chosen sensible tax cuts for hard-working families, not underinvestment and cuts in our public services, which are the undeniable consequences of the policies—such as they are—of the Conservative party.
  This is a Finance Bill for families and children, and it tackles poverty and unemployment in our poorest communities. It will help Britain's businesses grow. It will carry forward stability as the basis for a strong economy and a strong society. It represents the way to deliver opportunity and prosperity for all, and I commend it to the House.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I must begin by congratulating the Chief Secretary, who managed to occupy almost 24 minutes of the House's time so elegantly and beautifully, while saying almost nothing at all. That was, of course, forced on him by the character of the Bill.
  It is odd to debate Finance Bills on Second Reading. I suppose that we are forced to do so by the conventions of the House, but, of course, no hon. Member on either side of the House would deny the necessity of having a Finance Bill. The debate on Second Reading is intended to be about the principle of the Bill, so I suppose that perhaps we ought to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down now."] Exactly, but this is not the Finance Bill that we should have liked, and I hope that the House will take my remarks in that light.
  As always, I declare my interests as set out in the Register of Members' Interests but I have no idea how the remarks that I am about to make could possibly benefit them. None the less, I declare them all the same.
  The background to the Bill is not quite as the Chief Secretary outlined it. It begins with a long record of taxation by stealth to pre-fund the rapid growth of expenditure. There has been a 3 per cent. increase in the tax burden measured as a proportion of gross domestic product, and that comes to about £30 billion a year.

  737
  I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for boring you by reminding you of the analysis that Her Majesty's Opposition have repeatedly made of that increase, but I shall outline that as a precursor to the latest developments.
  Our complaints to date have been as follows. First, there has been no sign yet of any efficient expenditure. You may be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the posters that have appeared in our streets which ask people why, given that they have paid the tax, they have not seen any extra policemen or received the operations that they expected and so on. There is sign of expenditure but no sign yet of efficient expenditure.
  Secondly, we have repeatedly asserted that the rise in expenditure is ultimately unsustainable without a consequential increasing tax burden into the future. That would have the further consequence of decreasing the competitiveness of our economy.
  Thirdly, we have made what I think is an undeniable argument; it is undeniable because I have not heard the Chancellor or his colleagues deny it. If expenditure is not to result in the inefficient rise in taxation in two or three years' time that the Government deny they will engage in, it must result in an inefficient cut in expenditure growth. We have said that and we have said it again, and I have been listening hard for Ministers to explain how they can increase expenditure at its current rate and then suddenly cut its growth and find that public services are delivered efficiently. As far as I know, that has never been achieved anywhere in the world and I would be surprised to find that it can be done here.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I had understood that the Conservative party was in favour of the Government's spending proposals. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore explain whether the Opposition would cut expenditure inefficiently or raise taxes?
  Mr. Letwin: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable admiration, has not attended to the interesting debate between the Government and ourselves. The Government claim that the Conservatives' policy is to reduce expenditure by 2003–04 by £16 billion, although the figure varies by the day. The actual policy is to reduce expenditure, compared with Government spending plans, by £8 billion, and that would reduce the rate of growth to a sustainable level.
  I make my remarks only by way of background, because we have recently moved into a new phase. There has been a clear change in the mood with which commentators greet statements by the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor. Let us imagine moving forward to 2003, and ask ourselves whether we can be as confident as the Treasury once was that there will be no slow-down and that the economy will continue to grow with the abolition of the cycle that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) alluded to implicitly. The answer is that, without any forecasting, we cannot be as certain as we once were.
  If there is a slow-down, we must then ask ourselves whether the Budget and the Finance Bill that embodies it—and previous Budgets and the Finance Bills that embodied them, and the next two Budgets—are as prudent as the Chancellor and Chief Secretary now imagine them to be.
  738
  The answer must surely be no. If there is a slow-down, all my arguments will have rather more force in three years' time. It will be all the more necessary to cut expenditure growth and the more inefficient not to do so. It will be truer that tax rises at that time will occur when the private sector can least afford them Alternatively, the Government could choose—I doubt that "Mr. Prudence Brown" would dream of doing so because he does not have this reputation—to allow for ballooning borrowing. That is an unenviable set of choices.
  The Government have so constructed things at a time of great uncertainty that, if the worst predictions are to be proved true, they will be faced in three years' time with the prospect of raising taxes at the worst possible moment, cutting expenditure when it would be least efficient to do so, or with ballooning borrowing, which is never efficient.
  The problem is not that the Bill aggravates the situation, which is why I congratulated the Chief Secretary; in truth, the Bill does not do much at all. The problem is that it does nothing to address the underlying problem that the Government have built up in successive Budgets and Finance Bills.
  Ms Sally Keeble: In the scenarios that the hon. Gentleman paints for three years' time, he does not seem to hold out a hope that his party will be in government.
  Mr. Letwin: Dear me; I shall pass over that comment in the spirit of last year's proceedings, in which we engaged in serious economic and fiscal debate. Conservative Members intend to keep the debate at that level. [Interruption.] I think that we had such a debate. I hope that the Paymaster General agrees, because we saved her from the disaster of a double tax relief regime that would have squeezed multinational companies out of the country for ever. The nation should be a little grateful to us. We were not alone in that. The Confederation of British Industry and many others also played a part. We helped her to become the saviour rather than the destroyer of British industry.
  Let me deal with one item, which I am inclined to describe as the only real measure in the Bill. It took the Chief Secretary 19 minutes to reach it and he spent two and a quarter minutes on it. That is odd because it occupies 33 of the 108 clauses and is the only major new tax in the Bill. Why did he do that? He has the awesome might of the Treasury behind him. Presumably scribes have been working for weeks on his great speech. He could have mounted a defence of the magnificent new measure, but instead we got 19 minutes of silence on it, two and a quarter minutes of febrile meanderings and a complete refusal to deal with the serious matter raised the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). As usual, the question was not quite on the mark because the problem is worse than it implied. Nevertheless, the Chief Secretary should have given a proper reply, but was unable or unwilling to do so.
  Why so little attention to the measure? The reason must be that the aggregates tax is a text-book example of everything that is wrong with the Government's fiscal approach. It is, as the Chief Secretary suggested, like its famed predecessor, the climate change levy.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): Good.
  Mr. Letwin: That is the official view. That will not, however, be the opinion of most people who have to pay it. Moreover, the levy and the aggregates tax share the feature of the Holy Roman empire which was not holy, Roman or an empire: the climate change levy is not about climate change and the aggregates levy is not about aggregates.
  Its first feature is that it is a tax, which marks it out as a true measure of the Government. It is, of course, a stealth tax. In fact, it is probably the stealthiest of taxes. If the aggregates tax were a tax on aggregates and calculated or designed to have the slightest effect on their extraction, it would at least be declaring what it was about. Its name would suggest that purpose. However, the Treasury has distinguished economists, including micro-economists, working for it. They know, and must have told Ministers many times, that an aggregates tax will have no such effect.
  Instead, the tax will have two other effects. First, it will raise the amount that it costs to extract aggregates, and hence reduce the sum that people are willing to pay for the land from which the extraction occurs, so it is a tax on land. Secondly, it will raise costs at the other end, on production for construction, so it is a tax on construction. However, the Bill does not refer to a construction tax or a land tax. Why not? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester is right: because there are echoes of development land tax. The last thing that the Government want to do is admit that they are imposing a tax on land or construction, because those would be unpopular, so they have devised an immensely ingenious idea—they have gone to the middle of the value chain and called the levy an aggregates tax, which sounds like an environmental measure.
  The Chief Secretary let the cat out of the bag, however. Why not delay the implementation of the tax until it has been redesigned by the ingenuities of the Financial Secretary, who managed so to contort himself that by the end all those affecting climate change do not pay any climate change levy, but everybody else does? He could have designed a system that would induce those who are affecting climate change to affect their production of energy. In due course, the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary or another member of the Government who is inclined towards prestidigitation could have come to the House and announced a weird and wonderful scheme that exempted from the aggregates levy those extracting aggregates in such a way that they ended up, nevertheless, extracting fewer aggregates. For the moment, however, we have a classic stealth tax. It is a tax on land and construction, so the Government want to introduce it before any of the things that I have described have happened.
  The next element of stealth is a classic example of the Government's method of proceeding. I almost admire it and have grown almost to love it, but the nation will not admire or love it. The tax is introduced under the rubric that it is fiscally neutral. That is a wonderful phrase. Every time the Government introduce a tax, they say not only that it is environmentally beneficial when it is not, but that it is fiscally neutral. How is it fiscally neutral? There is an offset on national insurance contributions. That is the Government's favoured methodology.
  740
  If the Chief Secretary is willing to come to the Dispatch Box to contradict me and give the House an assurance, I will withdraw what I am about to say. Let him promise that in succeeding years there will not be a rise in that tax without an exactly concomitant decrease in national insurance contributions, and I will withdraw my assertion. I see no sign of movement. I predicted that I would see no such sign because it is precisely the Government's intention to create an addition to the tax base that will enable them in due course to extract more from their land and construction tax than they have relieved from national insurance contributions. When that happens, there will be few people in the House who will remember this debate because very few people want to attend a debate about so boring an item as the Finance Bill. The Chief Secretary did his best to make sure that the Members in the Chamber would leave so that they would not remember some years from now that he had not responded to my assertion.
  The fact is that the tax is a device. As I said, I have come almost to love it because it is so widespread and so brilliant. Yet, oddly enough, it is now so transparent that it is not as brilliant as it once was. In due course, this land and construction tax will rise inexorably with little or no concomitant decrease in national insurance contributions. It is therefore a stealth tax in every dimension. It is stealthy because it is not about the item that it says it is about; it is stealthy because it is about other items that it does not say it is about; it is stealthy because it says it is fiscally neutral but it will actually go up; and it is stealthy because, in the end, this is a Government who depend on stealth taxes to raise large sums to fund ultimately unsustainable public expenditure programmes.
  There is a worse problem. It is parallel to what happened last year with the brilliant device of double tax relief, the proposals on which had to be withdrawn. The Government have made an error, which I suppose comes from haste, and they—and more to the point, the nation—will come to rue that error. For a long time, we in this country have taxed natural resources in public ownership. The petroleum revenue tax is the classic example. None of us on either side of the House has an objection in principle to such a tax.
  I am sure that the Chief Secretary advisedly used the term "taxing the use of natural resources". I am sure that he or the person who wrote his speech meant that term, but a precedent is being set which I doubt the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor intended. If they did intend it, they are a great deal less benign than I am inclined to give them credit for being. So far as I am able to determine, there has never been a tax on privately owned natural resources. This is a departure. We are talking about land that, in most cases, is in private ownership. A private operator comes along and extracts natural resources, having paid a market price for the land, so that it can deliver a product to private sector users engaged in construction. At no point in the chain are we dealing with a national resource in the sense of one that is in public ownership. The tax that is being applied is therefore an intervention in the marketplace. Once one starts down that route, there is no limit.
  The following are not covered by the tax: coal, lignite, slate, shale, soil, vegetables and organic matters, anhydrate, ball clay, barytes, calcite, china clay, feldspar, fireclay, flint, fluorspar, fuller's earth, gems, gypsum, metal ore, potash—we do not have much of that in

  741
  the UK—rock phosphates, sodium chloride, talc, spoil and waste by-products, by-products of continental shelf drilling, spoil from roads, stone used for dry-walling, armourstone, rock and stone not crushed.
  I hesitate in reading out the list, because I see the Financial Secretary's eyes lighting up. He no doubt has it in mind to introduce a series of fiscally neutral measures, taxing each and every one of those commodities in due course. With the aggregates tax, he and his colleagues have opened the barriers to exactly such taxation. I said that they did not mean to do so, and I hope that that is true. It is a horribly inefficient and complicated way of extending our tax base. It involves a new series of taxes, each with its own complexities.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am interested in all the exemptions from the tax that my hon. Friend outlined. I thought that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had given an undertaking that they would do everything possible to avoid red tape and complication. Surely my hon. Friend has got the exemptions wrong and the tax is straightforward, or we do not have joined-up government.
  Mr. Letwin: I have terrible news for my hon. Friend. Those are not the exemptions; those are merely the matters that are not covered by the present tax. We have not even seen the exemptions—they are not in the document. The exemptions are yet to come; that is the purport of what the Chief Secretary told those on the Liberal Benches. We are to be presented in due course with a scheme of bewildering complexity produced by the genius of the Financial Secretary. I hazard a guess that the scheme will exempt one class, which will be exactly the class of those who extract aggregates. If that does not happen, I will buy the Financial Secretary a lollipop, even in these hard times.
  I hope that I have said enough to suggest to the House that the Opposition are not wholly in love with the aggregates tax. Indeed, we shall oppose it. We shall scrutinise it in Committee in the detail that it deserves.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he and his party will do to tackle the environmental damage and costs of quarrying?
  Mr. Letwin: As the Chief Secretary is doing nothing through the tax to tackle the environmental damage caused by quarrying—the tax will not affect the extent of quarrying in the United Kingdom—that is a question for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is a serious question, but his tax does not affect it. As I pointed out, the tax is a tax on land and on construction. It will not affect by one jot the amount of aggregates extracted in the UK.
  I move on to two items that are not in the Bill and on which I hope that we can reach agreement in Committee. When we dealt with double tax relief and the control of foreign companies last year—at exhaustive length, as I think that the Paymaster General would agree—and in subsequent statements, the Government made clear two things, both of which I had hoped would be reflected in the Bill, but are not. Although these are properly matters
  742
  for the Committee stage, I flag them up now so that the Government have the maximum amount of notice of what we shall be banging on about. I make no apologies for banging on at great length about these matters.
  First, when the splendid resolution on onshore pooling was brought back into the Bill, it was a specific concern to many of us and to a number of major UK multinationals that here might be a problem for those who were forced by the provisions to restructure so as to achieve a flatter structure of subsidiaries, whose subsidiaries were currently held indirectly, in particular in the United States, Japan and Germany.
  The problem arises when a UK-based multinational plc holds a low-tax subsidiary which is itself the owner of a high-tax subsidiary or vice versa, and when, in order to achieve the onshore pooling effect, it is necessary to sell the subsidiary of the subsidiary to the UK multinational plc, in order that it should be the direct owner so that the onshore pooling can occur. The Paymaster General will recognise that that is the effect of the Finance Act 2000. During consideration of that legislation, we pointed out that, for some existing UK plcs, the restructuring exercise could produce uncovenanted tax costs in overseas jurisdictions where capital gains can be crystallised by the mere act of reselling holdings within a group structure. I think that the Paymaster General promised that she would consider the matter. I suppose that she might have done so, but it has not been dealt with. The Bill contains no transitional provisions to accommodate the difficulty, but such measures should exist and the Opposition will table amendments accordingly.
  Secondly—
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Secondly?
  Mr. Letwin: I mean secondly only in respect of the small area about which I am speaking: items that are omitted from the Bill.
  Secondly, when the original proposals were made on double taxation relief and control of foreign companies, it was promised that those components would be accompanied by a third measure to allow either exemption or roll-over relief for companies that were disposing of substantial shareholdings. Indeed, I believe that that promise was sustained throughout the long saga of the revision of the double taxation relief proposals. I described a moment ago the manoeuvre in question, which is necessitated by the requirement to establish a flatter structure of holdings.
  It would be sensible if companies that were forced into that position by the DTR and CFC provisions could claim either exemption from capital gains tax at the time they sold or restructured their holdings within the group, or a roll-over relief that allowed them to continue indexation—bearing it in mind that it is indexation, rather than tapering, that still goes on in the business world. Alas, that promise appeals to have disappeared into a long-grass Green Paper—if Green Papers can be composed of long grass—and is not contained in the Bill, but the Opposition and British business believe that the Bill should contain such provision. Again, we will table amendments accordingly.
  I fear that the most astonishing omission from the Bill is neither those tidying manoeuvres nor the others that we shall suggest in a constructive spirit in Committee.

  743
  This debate is occurring after a pretty harrowing 90 minutes, in which hon. Members interrogated the Minister of Agriculture about what is probably the worst crisis to have hit the British countryside in the past four years. It is certainly a crisis that will lead to very significant difficulties for many of the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House, so one would have expected the Bill to contain serious measures to alleviate it. Of course, it could not contain all the measures that are needed, as many fall outside its scope, but one would have expected it to deal with the tax side. I do not refer to our £500 million interest-free loan scheme—a proposal that could not be accommodated within the Bill, although it could and should be implemented by the Treasury—but there are other such omissions.
  In particular, we desperately need measures to refund VAT input charges much more rapidly than usual. I shall explain that point a little more, although I think the Paymaster General will have taken it on board with lightning alacrity, given her great knowledge of the VAT system. Usually, when hoteliers or farmers who have a bed-and-breakfast proposition, or whatever else, come to Customs and Excise and find that at the end of a three-month accounting period the VAT input charges that have been paid on consumables exceed the VAT output charges that they have levied on their customers—the problem being that there were no customers—they have a right to claim a refund.
  There is no debate about that arrangement, as it is part of the ordinary workings of VAT, but there is a problem. The Paymaster General will be aware of the difficulty, although I think that most of us will be more aware of it as ordinary citizens and constituency Members of Parliament. The fact is that Customs and Excise is jolly slow at making such payments. The Paymaster General shakes her head, but she stands in danger of being sent copies of all the documents that we have accumulated in respect of cases of slow payment by Customs and Excise.
  It is clear that there ought to be a rapid refund scheme, which should automatically ensure that people receive a quick refund of, say, a month's worth of VAT input if they qualify for relief.
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): If the hon. Gentleman has examples of cases of Customs and Excise not responding as quickly as it should have, I sincerely hope that he will send them to me—however great their number—so that I can chase them up.
  Mr. Letwin: We certainly will, but let me tell the Paymaster General some sad news. I am surprised that she is not already aware of it. I am not saying that Customs and Excise has not been acting at its usual pace; I am saying that it has acted at precisely its usual pace.
  I do not know whether the Paymaster General has had any dealings with Customs and Excise as a customer, so to speak, as opposed to in her capacity as a Minister, but I assure her that the speed with which it responds to requests for money back is not as great as the speed with which it responds to requests from her private office. The pace is, in fact, rather slow. In the normal course of events, that is not a problem: things are settled in time, and interest is paid. The Conservative party proposes that there should be symmetry in the interest charged on late payments in one direction or the other, but we shall let
  744
  that be for the moment. At least there is an interest charge, and, as I have said, in normal times the problem is not so great. Today, however, having to wait for even a couple of months could mean the difference between life and death for some small businesses. Payment should be made on the nail—on the day.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: That being the case, why has the hon. Gentleman not sent in the examples?
  Mr. Letwin: Because we are not long past the date of first accounting. We are dealing with the problem today, and today is April the something or other—the ninth. We are eight days past the accounting period. The problem is that nearly all the companies with which we are dealing—sole traders—will have been dealing on a three-month basis. If they have a month's or six weeks' worth of VAT output zero and a large amount of VAT input and put in a claim, in the near future we shall hear complaints that they have not received an input refund, believe me.
  Mr. Donohoe: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us just how many examples he has been given? He said earlier that he had been given examples; now he is saying the opposite.
  Mr. Letwin: What I said was that the Paymaster General stood in danger of being given each example.
  Mr. Donohoe: How many?
  Mr. Letwin: None—because we have come to the end of the three months. [Interruption.] Oh dear; I hope that we can raise the intellectual level of the debate. We are dealing with a problem that will have begun to occur in the last eight days. We have been dealing with a foot and mouth crisis that has been worsening over the past six to eight weeks. People will have made their three-month returns. I guarantee to the Paymaster General that if no steps are taken, we shall see a flood of complaints about late repayment.
  It should, incidentally, be no problem for the Paymaster General to agree to our proposed amendment if it is really true that, as she and her colleagues seem to be claiming, there is no delay. Why not make the arrangement automatic? If there is no problem, let us solve it—that is, let us ensure that there cannot be a problem.
  The second difficulty arises on the Inland Revenue side—the income tax side. There are two particular problems in this connection. The first concerns those with tied accommodation: we think especially of tenant farmers. There is an oddity in that the Inland Revenue treats the second house owned by such a tied-accommodation dweller as a principal residence for the purpose of not levying capital gains tax. That is a long-established principle in law. Unfortunately, when the working families tax credit was melded into income tax and when—I take it—people's arrangements were moved from the Department of Social Security to the Inland Revenue following the legislation, that principle was not applied. People in tied accommodation who need the working families tax credit now cannot receive it, because they have a second house that is not treated as a principal

  745
  dwelling for that purpose. A simple amendment will suffice, and we will table one. I hope that we can reach agreement on it, because it is urgently necessary.
  Dawn Primarolo: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that second accommodation that generates income takes people beyond the WFTC limits?
  Mr. Letwin: It may or may not be generating income; the capital sum alone would take people beyond those limits. A wealth test, rather than an income test, is causing the problem. Where there is sufficient income, we are much less worried. The problem arises when there is not sufficient income, and people who would otherwise qualify for the WFTC are excluded by the wealth test.
  The second problem on that front involves farmers, hoteliers and other sole traders who, in July, will make corporate income tax payments that they will not eventually be due to pay. There will be an adjustment in due course, but it will be of little benefit to someone who becomes bankrupt and cannot reclaim the money because he or she is not in business. We need a scheme—again, we shall table an amendment on which I hope we can reach agreement—to allow automatically for an early provisional claim. It is the wording of the relevant Act—the Taxes Act 1988—that is causing the problem, and we hope that our amendment will solve it. That too is urgently necessary.
  Finally—I appreciate that the House will be longing for me to finish—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Kind though that is, I am sure that my hon. Friends are, in fact, longing for me to finish, and I shall.
  Let me end by saying that there is another absence from the Bill, less immediately important than others but structurally more important. We need—in this Bill, or in the next Finance Bill or the one after that—to see the vast changes in tax structure, and the great tax reductions, that Conservative Members have advocated. We need to see, from 2003, a removal of tax from savings and dividends for basic and starting-rate taxpayers; we need to see a significant increase in the limits on approved share options for small and medium-sized enterprises; we need to see a considerable rise in pensioners' age-related allowances; we need to see the introduction of transferable allowances for married couples, the exemption of widowed parents' allowances from tax, and the increasing of a much-restructured child tax credit by £200 for children under five.
  Those are measures for which we have been calling. They are measures that need to be installed in a Finance Bill. What better opportunity could there be than that provided by a Bill as empty as this—and, we hope, subsequently to be denuded of the ludicrous aggregates tax?
  Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend recall that, according to the last Labour party manifesto, how and what Governments tax send clear signals about the economic activities that they wish to encourage or discourage, and the values that they seek to entrench in society? Can my hon. Friend tell me, on the basis of that commitment by the Labour party, why it has chosen in government to punish families, savers and motorists?
  Mr. Letwin: I can only assume, using my hon. Friend's impeccable logic, that those are the activities that the
  746
  Government wish to discourage; but, as that would be to discourage nearly everything that goes on in the United Kingdom, I am driven to the conclusion that it is by mistake that the Government are taxing them. We hope to save them from that mistake, in part by introducing measures that will relieve some of the people described by my hon. Friend, and in particular will give people a major new set of incentives to save and provide for themselves over their lifetimes. That is another urgent necessity if we ate to avoid a society that depends increasingly on the very means-tested benefits that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has misguidedly extended so far.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend shire my concern that the savings ratio has plummeted under this Government? Does he agree that the removal of the taxes to which he has referred would give a much-needed boost to the savings sector? What are his views on the steady decline that we have seen, and what are the likely consequences?
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. He need not consult my views, however: paltry as they are, they do not bear comparison with the grand majesty of the Treasury's own views. The Treasury has said—perhaps the Chancellor failed to read the Red Book at this point, and allowed the Treasury to speak for itself—that if the savings ratio remains as low as it is at present, it is a very worrying sign for the economy. So it is: but we are not concerned just with the savings ratio in any given year.
  As my hon. Friend knows, what we are concerned with is the long-term culture of saving, or the long-term absence of a culture of saving. That has the most profound effects. It is not something that affects only the availability of domestic capital. I was interested to see that the Chief Secretary failed completely to answer a question about gross fixed domestic capital formation. Either he does not have any idea what the trend is or, as I suspect is more likely, he has an idea but does not want to tell us.
  That is not the only way in which the savings culture, or an absence of it, has an effect. Much more profoundly, it has an effect on the relationship of the individual with the state and with society at large. If an individual is given insufficient incentives to save as he goes through life, it is inevitable that at some stage, if his income is low, he will be cast on to state benefits. In many instances, that is degrading for the individual. Much more important, it creates a dependency that institutionalises a huge fiscal problem.
  As benefits extend to almost 50 per cent. of the population, and as we go through the cycles that Ministers so grandly think that they have abolished, we shall increasingly see fiscal accounts being shot to hell by increased expenditure on means-tested benefits. That is to no one's benefit. It seems nice to the individual who is receiving the benefit but it does not seem nice when the individual is paying tax to support the benefit, or engaging in the borrowing that will lead to the tax to support the benefit.
  There is a serious problem, and the Government or the Treasury are aware of that. What are the Government doing to cure it? The answer is nothing. What are the

  747
  Opposition proposing to cure it? The answer is much. That is why we shall advance the tax measures that I have described.
  The Bill contains almost nothing except one nasty and classic example of a stealth tax, which we shall oppose. The Bill fails to contain the very things that it needs to contain, such as urgent measures to deal with foot and mouth, long-term strategic measures to deal with the failures of our tax system and a remedy to the problems that arose in the course of the previous Finance Bill. One could not produce a Finance Bill that does less or does it worse than this one.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) seemed to say at the beginning of his speech that he did not see much point in considering the Finance Bill on Second Reading. I do not know whether he was saying that. Most of us would wish to have the debate; otherwise, he would lave been deprived of 39 minutes of a rather rambling but no doubt intellectual speech. That would be to do him an injustice.
  The hon. Gentleman rambled from the aggregates tax eventually to savings. His treatment of savings was extremely simplistic. There is much evidence that the savings ratio decreases when people are confident about the economy. [Interruption.] People may be confident of their jobs, confident of growth and confident in the Government. He suggested that there will not be capital for investment because the savings ratio is low. The United States has a low savings ratio, but it manages to provide considerable capital—partly through the stock market—for the investment that he wishes to see.
  Mr. Letwin: If there is an excuse for considering the Finance Bill on Second Reading, to hear the right hon. Gentleman is possibly it.
  First, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that I was referring to domestic sources of savings? I take his point that one can call on external so trees, but those are difficult in terms of the exchange rate. Secondly, does he accept that if the savings ratio remains low despite the lack of confidence that is beginning to emerge, there is genuinely a worrying trend?
  Mr. Davies: I do not think that there is a lack of confidence. If people were less confident about the economy, they would probably save more. These things happen from time to time. There is no correlation between a bad economy and low savings. People do not save when they are confident. They seem to save more when they are less confident. That seems to be the history of this difficult subject, which the Treasury and many economists have considered over the years.
  The purpose of a Finance Bill is to provide the legislative means to put into effect the taxation changes, about which we heard about from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, that are announced in the Budget. It is necessary to have a Finance Bill to put most of them into effect. There are clauses that provide for a reduction in fuel duties and a reduction in vehicle excise duties. There is the welcome increase in the children's tax credit and the increase in family tax credit. There are small but extremely helpful changes to VAT, which I believe are welcomed by businesses, especially small businesses.
  748
  There is also the welcome way in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided income tax relief by extending the threshold on the 10p lower rate rather than providing relief on the basic rate. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said, that relief provides in a full year about £1 billion extra assistance for those who pay tax at the lower rate.
  I move on to table A.11 of what my right hon. Friend referred to as the Red Book. It is no longer the Red Book, but I do not want to be pedantic. Perhaps it is a book of many colours. The tax reductions that are given legislative form by the Bill amount to perhaps slightly more than £3 billion in this financial year. That is not an insignificant amount to put back into the economy when the outlook for the global economy—I do not think that there is any dispute about this—is looking less certain.
  Such a sum, together with the public expenditure increases for the next three years announced in the autumn by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, should, apart from the intrinsic merits of spending that money, provide a welcome cushion for the British economy if the world economy, especially the economy of the United States, slides into recession. It is to be hoped that it will not, and that there will be merely a slow-down. The tax reductions, which amount to about £3 billion, and public expenditure will obviously help to cushion a global recession or slow-down, if there is one.
  Those of us who are not directly concerned with business and commerce do not always realise the pressure that the global economy and global competition now put on domestic industry, especially manufacturing industry. That pressure also bears on some sectors of service industry that have to compete internationally. To maintain profit margins, costs must continually be kept down or cut and prices not be increased. Indeed, prices often must be reduced. That places tremendous pressure on industry and businesses.
  As I see it—perhaps I should not say this—the problem is becoming not rising inflation but a falling rate of inflation. If the trend continues, there could be a fall in the general level of prices. That would take us into deflation, as may have happened in Japan over the past few years, where inflation has probably settled at zero.
  I must be careful what I say because my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), like me, was around in the 1970s, when inflation was high. Having been around at that time and in the early 1980s, when inflation was also high, I do not find an inflation rate of 1.9 per cent. worth worrying about. I worry slightly that perhaps we should have a higher rate of inflation. I do not know how the harmonised European figures are meant to apply to Britain, but they suggest that our inflation is about 1 per cent.
  I am not particularly worried about a rate of inflation of 1 per cent. As someone who was around in the 1970s, I am amazed at how rapidly over a fairly short time—10 or 15 years—the level of inflation has fallen from the high levels of the 1970s to 1 per cent. or 1.9 per cent. Many people will claim credit for that, but most is claimed by that worthy group of people known as the central bankers, who could be described as the high priests of monetary policy. The past 10 years constitute the decade of the central bankers, who have peddled their ability, expertise and prudence in monetary policy. They maintain that its mysteries are best left to the high

  749
  priests because they approach such matters with clean hands, unsullied by the grubbiness and self-seeking of democratic politics and politicians.
  As I have said that I do not worry about inflation, I might as well say that I do not believe central bankers. I do not believe that central banks or monetary policy had much to do with the sharp fall in inflation in the past 10 to 15 years. It was caused mainly by forces that are outside monetary policy. Many factors contribute to intense global competition. They include the reduction in tariff barriers—in many cases, their elimination—and the working through the system and elimination of controls and regulations, which perhaps date from the second world war. We are now in a position that is similar to that before the first world war. There is complete freedom of movement of capital, and money can move quickly and easily from country to country. There has been an immense advance in technology, which is easily transferred to developing countries. That enables them to compete with countries that are described as more developed than they are.
  The fall of the Berlin wall, the break-up of the Soviet system and the intensification of competition that that caused also affected the global economy. Countries that were on the other side of the iron curtain are now trading in the same way as western countries. All those factors have driven down costs and prices through the intensity and universality of competition.
  The fall in inflation therefore has little to do with central bankers and monetary policy. Indeed, my impression is that central bankers are, to use an American phrase, behind the curve. The Federal Reserve and the European central bank are behind the curve. Indeed, our much revered Monetary Policy Committee seems to take decisions on last month's figures and not on what it believes might happen in future. The Federal Reserve is not merely behind the curve; although it is supposed to be independent of Government, it is not independent of Wall street. Mr. Dow Jones frightens the living daylights out of Alan Greenspan, who is the Caiaphas of the high priesthood of central bankers.
  We get wonderful language from the Federal Reserve; some time ago, the chairman criticised Wall street for irrational exuberance. Let us leave aside the philosophical question of whether exuberance can be rational. Given that it was irrational, rational language, debate and argument from the chairman of the Federal Reserve would do no good. It did not. He was frightened to do anything because he did not want to upset Wall street. He was following the bubble upwards, and presumably hoping that it would burst itself so that the Federal Reserve would not get the blame for the consequences, which are now occurring.
  The asset bubble, whether comprising shares in America, property in Japan and, on a lesser scale, property and shares in Britain, appears, paradoxically, to be a consequence of low inflation. Investors and managers have never adjusted to a world of low real income returns, and they therefore look for bubbles and capital assets to supplement or prove their existence.
  Even if we accept that the central bankers managed to decrease inflation from very high levels, once it is down to 1 per cent. or 1.5 per cent., they are out of a job. Central
  750
  bankers are not needed when we approach zero inflation because they cannot do much. A 0.5 per cent. or 1 per cent. cut in interest rates when rates are 5 per cent. and inflation is 1 per cent. or 1.5 per cent. is hardly likely to have an effect. We fear that global competitive pressures will push prices down, and no amount of interest rate reductions by central bankers will have much effect.
  Mr. Letwin: The right hon. Gentleman is presenting an interesting argument. To the extent that falling prices are generated by competition and technology rather than excessive monetary restraint, why does he believe that that is bad?
  Mr. Davies: It is not bad up to a point, Lord Copper. However, it is bad when inflation reaches zero and general prices start falling. I believe that capitalism needs some inflation. A deflationary position, whereby general prices fall, creates enormous problems for businesses and manufacturing industry, especially in Britain.
  Mr. Edward Davey: If growth in the real economy is strong and unemployment is down, does it matter if monetary variables are falling?
  Mr. Davies: It matters if prices fall. A good example is the steel industry. The problems in the steel industry in south Wales are created by the falling international price of cold-rolled coil. It has fallen to a point where it is not possible for the British steel industry to make a profit in many areas of Britain. Somebody else may make a profit somewhere else in the world, but not the British economy. Japan has a different sort of economy, but it showed the dangers of general price deflation.
  We are therefore back to good old fiscal policy.
  Mr. Letwin indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davies: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman shakes his head because he is a creature of the 1980s fashion that fiscal policy is bad and monetary policy is good. He now nods, but in economics, fashion changes, and it is beginning to change now. Fiscal policy is again beginning to become more important than monetary policy.
  I welcome the Bill for two reasons: the merits of the different tax changes, and because some money, including public expenditure money, will be put back into the economy. Four years ago, we handed over monetary policy to the Bank of England, but perhaps fiscal policy will come into its own again. Monetary policy will not solve the real problems in the world economy: falling prices, with which the Federal Reserve, the European central bank and the Bank of England cannot deal.
  I am glad that the Chancellor introduced the Bill, that he has not put all his trust in central bankers and that perhaps fiscal policy will again become fashionable.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), but I must take issue with some of the economic points that he made. The previous group of academics to claim that monetary policy was ineffective were extreme right-wing economists who believed in the

  751
  hypothesis of rational expectations and that macro-economic policy had little effect on the actions of private agents in the economy. It is unusual to hear someone from a different wing of the political spectrum presenting the same argument. Although I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that, in certain circumstances, fiscal policy can be effective, nowadays monetary policy undoubtedly has by far the greater impact, particularly in the short and medium terms, on the economy—it has the greatest impact on aggregate demand in the economy.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave an interesting historical analysis of economic trends, but I refer him to periods in the early 20th century and in the 19th century, in this country and other advanced industrialised economies, when prices fell during strong economic activity. The idea, therefore, that one cannot have both deflation and strong economic growth does not hold up to historical analysis. It is to be welcomed when prices fall. My constituents certainly like to see prices go down when they go into shops to buy the services and goods that they need.
  The Finance Bill is unusual compared with other Finance Bills, for three reasons. First—it is quite a serious reason—there is no report from the Select Committee on the Treasury to accompany the Second Reading debate. In the past—I checked the record—the Select Committee has published a report, which helped proceedings in the debate. The reason we do not have a report is, I believe, that there is some disunity among members of the Select Committee, which I regret. We felt that the report would probably not be unanimous. There was no report last year; that has been repeated this year. However, we have the benefit of the evidence—to which I shall return, because there are some interesting nuggets there for colleagues to consider.
  Secondly, the Finance Bill is relatively short compared with previous ones, at least in the recent past. This time last year, we were dealing with a Finance Bill with 558 pages which ended up having 597 pages. However, this Bill is still far too long. It is 292 pages long—much longer than most Finance Bills, even in the 1980s. That worries me. If the Government are trying to sweep up before a general election and not put a heavy Finance Bill before the House, and they still come up with a Bill of 292 pages, I am extremely worried for the future. It should have been a very short Bill.
  Either Ministers are intent on continuing to hound business and the private sector with too much tax legislation, or they are not in charge of their civil servants, who are putting forward far too many schemes, which Ministers are not throwing out. Nevertheless, the Finance Bill is unusually short compared with recent attempts.
  Thirdly, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, the Bill is relatively uncontentious. Most of its contents, with the except on of the aggregates levy, are relatively uncontentious, but we will judge the Bill not just by its contents, but by how it deals with the wider issues that are affecting this country—the big picture issues.
  Before I come to those, I want to relate a serious matter to the House. I hope that Treasury Ministers will go away, check the record and have an answer ready for the winding-up speeches. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer misled the Select Committee on the Treasury when he gave evidence on 20 March. He was being
  752
  questioned by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) about the tax burden; it is something to which he returns assiduously. In reply, the Chancellor said:
  "The facts in the Red Book are accurate; but I am pointing out to you that, as far as the inherited situation was concerned, the tax burden was due to rise to 38 per cent."
  He was referring to the Conservative figure published in the November 1996 Red Book.
  I was interested in that, so I asked the Chancellor to confirm that the 38 per cent. figure was
  "calculated on the same basis as the figures in the Red Book".
  The Chancellor replied, "Yes." I went back to him again and asked:
  "On exactly the same basis?"
  He replied, "Yes." However, I have checked with the House of Commons Library and it appears that the 38 per cent. figure was calculated on a different basis from the figures that appear in the Red Book.
  In November 1996, when the Conservative Government said that the tax burden was due to rise to 38 per cent.—I think that it was 37.9 per cent. to be precise; perhaps it was 38 per cent. in the following year—the European system of accounts 1995 was not operating. The ESA 1995 was introduced in 1998 by the Office for National Statistics. If we recalculate the figures in the November 1996 Red Book and adjust the tax burden figures, we get a very different tax burden—it is considerably lower. The reason why it is lower is that, under the ESA 1995, money GDP was raised by around 2 per cent; so the figure that the Chancellor quoted to the Select Committee was not calculated on exactly the same basis as the figures that appear in the current Red Book. I hope that Ministers will check that and apologise to the House if I am right.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I appreciate that these are complicated matters and that they are, to some extent, matters for debate, but I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the Chancellor had misled the House or the Committee. He should not use those words.
  Mr. Davey: Of course I withdraw those words if they were incorrectly used, but I understood that there was, shall we say, a discontinuity between the words in the record and the analysis that I was offering the House. I hope that Ministers can try to correct it.
  I go on to the big picture and how we should judge the Bill. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill fails to provide the extra resources needed for our schools, hospitals, police and pensioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) set out those needs on 13 March in the House. I shall not repeat everything that he said, but he made some pertinent remarks, particularly about schools, hospitals and pensioners, why they need extra resources and why the Budget and the Bill fail to provide those extra resources.
  In my constituency, class sizes in secondary schools have gone up to record levels—levels not seen since 1973. Despite some increase in capital spending, for which I give the Government credit, there is still a huge backlog of repairs. I give one small example to Ministers. In St. Mary's primary school, Chessington, three outside

  753
  classrooms are still extremely cold in winter and far too hot in summer, and they still do not have lavatories. They are not yet included in any refurbishment plan, for replacement by permanent modern buildings. There is therefore still a backlog of repairs.
  There is a huge teacher shortage in my constituency, too. Whether we talk to a primary or a secondary head teacher, the message is still the same. They are having real problems recruiting staff. That means that there are sometimes no teachers in front of classes.
  In my constituency, there is a huge problem with hospital bed shortages. In recent months, there has been a large increase in admissions to the accident and emergency unit. The hospital authorities have tried their best. They have put beds in seminar rooms and closed the day surgery in order to use the beds for overflow from A and E, but there has still been a huge increase in the number of overnight stays. They have gone to a hospital nearby, Tolworth hospital, and, following some suggestions from me and others, managed to open a ward temporarily. They did that because they needed intermediate care beds. In my constituency, nursing homes have closed and the number of care beds has reduced significantly. That has caused a huge problem for the hospitals. We need to tackle those bed shortages. Recently—I think last week—the British Medical Association produced a survey to that effect.
  There are huge shortages of general practitioners and a lack of medical students applying to train in consultancy and general practice. Those are the problems. It is interesting to note that one of the key problems generally in the public sector is a shortage of staff. Whether it is in the health service, schools, police or other public services, there is a significant shortage. The Budget contains some measures to deal with those problems, but it does not go far enough, particularly in relation to London and the south-east, where the problems are particularly acute.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell said, in this Parliament, private sector wages have increased by an average 15 per cent. whereas public sector wages have increased by only 10 per cent. Therein lies a huge problem. Until we tackle it and make it clear that we value our public sector workers and provide them not only with financial rewards but with status, those shortages will continue to undermine attempts to modernise our public services.
  The Bill also does not provide the resources necessary to ensure fairness to pensioners. Although there have been increases in the minimum income guarantee, as we know, many people do not claim the guarantee. The latest figures show that more than half a million pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee do not claim it. That fact demonstrates the problem with the Government's overall strategy for tackling pensioner poverty. If Ministers continue solely down the route of means testing and do not increase the basic state pension, pensioners will continue falling through the holes in the safety net and not receive the money that they desperately need.
  Hon. Members talk about prices decreasing, but many pensioners face increasing bills. Their council tax bills, for example, are certainly not being reduced. In just three years—since 1998, when they started running Kingston
  754
  council in my constituency—the Conservatives have pushed up the average yearly council tax bill from £700 to £950. Pensioners in my constituency have to pay those tax increases on low increases in the basic state pension.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Is not the increase in Kingston's council tax due to changes in the sums provided by central Government? I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that real spending levels are much the same.
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He is indeed right that part of the increase is due to the Labour Government's failure to provide a decent grant settlement to the royal borough of Kingston. I have to tell him, however, that it is due also to the incompetence of the current administration, which has wasted money and failed, for example, to collect parking charges to which it was entitled.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are going rather wide of Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful for your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I was describing how the Finance Bill does not deal with the needs of pensioners. Pensioners in my constituency tell me that they are also worried that, should they become frail in their later years, they will not receive personal nursing home care. The Government have not provided any measures in the Bill to ensure that personal care is free for elderly people in nursing homes. I believe that that is a major error. The Bill does not provide the necessary funds.
  When the Chancellor did appear before the Select Committee on the Treasury, I was very worried because, in his evidence, he seemed rather complacent about some of those issues. I asked him three times to provide figures on health spending, particularly the Government's average spend, in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament, on the national health service as a percentage of national income. He told me twice that he was about to give me the figures, but of course failed to do so. However, the figures show that, on average, in the previous Parliament, 5.5 per cent. of national income was spent on health, whereas, in this Parliament, 5.4 per cent. is being spent on it. In this Parliament, therefore, the average resources that the Government are providing for the health service have decreased. I think that the Chancellor's failure to defend his record on health spending said it all.
  The Chancellor was also rather economical with the truth on education spending. Although he told us his plans for the future and the figures that he hopes to deliver, as we have seen before he often does not meet his spending targets or spend the money that he says he will spend. He did not reassure us.
  Mr. Donohoe: Can the hon. Gentleman give us one example of the Chancellor not delivering on his promises?
  Mr. Davey: Indeed I can. In evidence to the Treasury Committee, Treasury officials told us that, this year, based on their initial assessment of spending plans, spending Departments are already underspending by £1 billion.

  755
  That is a concrete and classic example in which the Chancellor promised us that he would spend a certain amount but Departments are not spending it.
  The Chancellor failed to examine his own record on education and admit that, on average, under his stewardship in this Parliament, we have spent less on education as a proportion of national income than was spent in the previous Parliament. Liberal Democrat Members therefore very much regret this Budget and its accompanying Finance Bill. Although it is not what the people of this country want, the Chancellor has chosen to put tax cuts before spending increases. Some people believe that, by putting tax cuts before investment and public services, new Labour is acting more like the Conservatives.
  The Bill fails to address another big picture issue which, to his credit, the hon. Member for West Dorset has started to address—the economic consequences of foot and mouth. It is a major issue both for the individuals, regions and sectors affected by it and for the economy as a whole. The outbreak is devastating for those individuals and their livelihoods. In the past few weeks, the House has heard many examples demonstrating that fact.
  We also know that foot and mouth is proving to be highly damaging to certain regions and sectors. The House may be surprised, however, to learn of the effects of the outbreak on businesses in my constituency, which has some farms although not very many. One example demonstrates the knock-on effects of foot and mouth. I quote it not to belittle the effects of the outbreak on the tourism and agricultural sectors, but to demonstrate the breadth of its knock-on effects.
  The example is a shop in my constituency called Kosmic Kites, in Surbiton. This month, in a letter to me, its proprietor Mr. Paul Hankin wrote:
  "I write out of desperation, as my Business appears to be falling apart due to Park and Public land closures …
  My shop has been trading for 9 years, last year was the most successful so far, and all the signs were that 2001 would be even better";
  but
  "since Park closures my takings have fallen by 85 per cent."
  That business, which was built up over years, is not in one of the sectors that we usually associate with damage from foot and mouth, but it is still being severely damaged by the outbreak. It demonstrates the seriousness of the situation.
  There is a wide variety of assessments and forecasts of the effects of foot and mouth. Very recently, the Centre for Economics and Business Research argued that it would result in a 1 per cent. decrease in GDP, costing the economy up to £9 billion. However, that may have been one of the more exaggerated and alarmist forecasts. Other forecasts have said that the effect on GDP could be as low as a 0.1 per cent. However, I have read various analysts' forecasts, and the most persuasive one comes from Goldman Sachs. Although Goldman Sachs states that it is difficult to make an estimate—because of factors and uncertainties regarding the length of the outbreak; a substitution effect in which people spend money in shops and urban areas rather than in the countryside; whether people will go on foreign holidays or delay domestic holidays; and the short, medium and long-term effects on the public's perception of visiting the countryside—it predicted that, this year, foot and mouth would have a
  756
  0.3 per cent. negative effect on growth. However, its more extreme forecast suggests that GDP will be affected by as much as 0.6 per cent. If that worst scenario materialised, an awful lot of jobs and businesses would be lost. Foot and mouth is having a major effect, and it could have a disastrous effect on economic growth this year.
  Clearly it is the Government's job to take action on foot and mouth. I think that everyone will agree that disease control is a public good that cannot be left to the private sector. The control of disease has benefits for the whole of society, and the Government have a duty to act to control it.
  An interesting paper by David Harvey, from the Centre for Rural Economy, was published last month, entitled "What Lessons from Foot and Mouth? A Preliminary Economic Assessment of the 2001 Epidemic". It is necessarily very preliminary. It says that the benefits of being free of the disease are probably worth £1.2 billion a year. There is a huge economic benefit to getting rid of the disease quickly, so the Government must do everything that they can.
  The Government have introduced business rate relief on loans to those who are struggling, but we feel that they should go further. I hope that they will seriously consider some of the proposals from the hon. Member for West Dorset on VAT, for example, in a cross-party way. The Liberal Democrats intend to make other proposals. For instance, it would be possible to extend carry-back of trading losses from one year to three, to help businesses now by allowing them to offset current losses against profits made two or three years ago so as to get a tax repayment in the coming year. It is about the timing of relief against losses. The Bill gives us an opportunity to help to tackle the financial problems that businesses face because of foot and mouth.
  A macro-economic issue that is no longer entirely in the Government's hands, but is important in tackling the economic consequences of foot and mouth and dealing with the problems caused by the slowdown in the United States of America, is the policy on interest rates and the exchange rate.
  Mr. David Heath: Does my hon. Friend agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was right to say earlier today that there is a strong argument that the compensation payments given to farmers whose stock is culled to allow them to restock later should not be treated as a liquid asset for either taxation or benefit purposes, because that militates against sole traders in desperate straits getting the support that they need?
  Mr. Davey: Yes. That is pertinent to this debate, because we could use the Bill to introduce measures to tackle the problem. I hope that the Paymaster General will respond to that point.
  The US slow-down, combined with foot and mouth, has had a serious effect on aggregate demand. We look forward to the Monetary Policy Committee reducing interest rates. I support an independent central bank, and believe that its independence should be guarded jealously, but it is right for us, as constituency Members, to send signals that we believe that the economic situation on the ground is deteriorating significantly enough to warrant interest rate changes.

  757
  Monetary policy needs to be directed towards helping agriculture, manufacturing and tourism, which were already suffering before foot and mouth and the US slow-down. The high exchange rate was already hitting those sectors extremely hard. Some of the weakest sectors in our economy are being hit yet again. The simplest and quickest way to relieve these problems would be for the committee to take action on interest rates, and we hope that that would also affect the pound.
  This is not the Bill that Britain needs. It does not secure the finances that our public services need; it puts tax cuts before investment in our health service, schools and police; and it fails to deliver imaginative proposals to deal with the foot and mouth crisis. We needed a different Budget to tackle large class sizes, long waiting lists, police shortages and pensioner poverty. The Liberal Democrats will continue to campaign until we get those changes.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. David Borrow: I am very pleased to be taking part in this debate. I look back to Finance Bills since 1997. In April 1997, people in my constituency asked me how a Labour Government could deliver better public services and pensions, when the Conservative Government had been running a deficit of more than £20 billion a year, costing each man, woman and child £500 a year. They were sceptical about the notion that, in those circumstances, a Labour Government could hope to boost public services, improve the lot of pensioners and look after the disabled.
  I remember many a time on the doorstep explaining to people that the Government's strategy was to reduce the cost of failure by reducing unemployment and getting more people into work, so that more were paying taxes and fewer claiming benefits. That strategy, based in large measure on the new deal and on careful management of the public finances in the first two years, has delivered what we promised four years ago.
  Unemployment has dropped by about 500,000 or 600,000 and the number of people employed has increased to a record level, by 1.2 million. That in itself has transformed the public finances and made the space to provide extra resources for public services. The fall in unemployment in just about every constituency has been mirrored in mine, where the rate is now about 1.5 per cent. In 1997, 1,534 people in South Ribble were unemployed; by this February, the figure had dropped by 42 per cent., to 883.
  Last Friday, I attended a business breakfast at Runshaw college in my constituency, where the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), was guest speaker. It was the 13th business breakfast that I have attended since being elected. The basis for the discussions was not the problems that were raised in the past about how companies would survive and how we could avoid making people redundant; the focus was on how to ensure that we have a sufficiently educated, skilled and trained work force to do the jobs that need doing.
  The problem for many companies in my constituency is in recruiting the skilled work force that they want. We need to invest in education and training through greater
  758
  public investment, rather than looking for more tax cuts in the immediate future, which would do nothing to help to provide the work force that companies in my area need.
  Two major manufacturing companies in my constituency have greatly increased their work force since 1997. One might be surprised that either of them, especially Leyland Trucks, was able to do so. In 1997, Leyland Trucks employed 600 people making trucks. Given the weakness of the euro in the past few years and the trading position, the market is difficult, but the company has increased its work force to 1,000 in four years and achieved success in the climate created by the Labour Government in that period. Schwann's Pizzas has benefited from major investment and increased its work force considerably; it is probably now the third largest employer in my constituency.
  My answer to people who talk about whether the Government have spent enough on public services and whether they should spend more is that we need to get the fundamentals right. We must ensure that people have jobs and that companies prosper if we are to make space in the public finances for further investment.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who talked about the Labour Government's failure to invest in services. Since Christmas, I have visited more than 20 schools in my constituency. The head teacher of virtually every school had the same message: investment is coming through to education; there are more classroom assistants and computers; extensions are being built; and modernisation is taking place in many schools.
  I shall give a few examples of the new buildings and extensions that I have seen in the past few weeks. Tarleton high school has had a major extension and benefited from more than £0.5 million of investment in its new Ribble building. When I visited Little Hoole county primary school a couple of weeks ago, a new classroom was being built. A week ago last Friday, I visited St. Catherine's Roman Catholic primary school and had the pleasure of cutting the first sod prior to a two-classroom extension. Last week, I visited the Church of England primary school in Tarleton, which had just completed the erection of a new classroom. A couple of months ago, I visited Cop Lane Church of England primary school in Penwortham, which has a new hall. Those small schools have received major investment and can see the difference that a Labour Government make through investment.
  Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Borrow: I am always happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Jack: If life is so good, will the hon. Gentleman explain why pupil numbers are now at 1,800 in Lancashire's largest comprehensive school in my constituency, which desperately needs a new school hall because only 350 pupils can take school dinner at one time? Can he also explain why the head teacher tells me that he does not have sufficient resources to introduce the new sixth-form curriculum properly?
  Mr. Borrow: The answer to that—which also applies to Woodlea primary school and Balshaw's high school in my constituency, where major investment is still

  759
  needed—is that, after 18 years of a Conservative Government who did not invest in school buildings, there is a huge backlog of building work and repairs. My constituents, like those of the right hon. Gentleman, need the continuation of a Labour Government, who are pledged to maintain investment in education.
  Let me turn to a different area—health, which has already been mentioned. The four hospitals that serve my constituency—Ormskirk and District general hospital; Southport general infirmary; Chorley and South Ribble district general hospital; and the Royal Preston hospital—have all had major investment in the past four years. I am arguing strongly for further major investment in Chorley and South Ribble district general hospital, because the Government have allocated more than £1 million of investment in renal services for the north-west. South Lancashire, which includes South Ribble, has the worst renal services provision in the north-west. Together with my colleagues in south Lancashire, I am making a strong argument for investment in Chorley and South Ribble district general hospital so that it can set up a dialysis unit. If we are successful, that major investment will have resulted from the fact that the Labour Government have a proven Budget approach over the past four years, have got the economy going well and have created space in the public finances to invest in improved public services. We should all welcome that.
  A few moments ago, I mentioned the business breakfast that I had at Runshaw college, a further education college in my constituency. Bernard O'Connell, who runs the college, told me that it was receiving significant new investment and would shortly open a second campus in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). I was told that the new campus would be dedicated solely to mature students and that the college was seeking to expand the number of graduates whom it educates from 300 to 1,000. Again, that fits in with the need, which I mentioned earlier, for better education and training for the work force in my area if we are to compete successfully in a competitive economy, which my constituents wish to do.
  Let me touch briefly on the comments on pensions made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. In 1997, his party's manifesto, in a similar fashion to those of the Conservative and Labour parties, pledged to increase the basic pension by the rate of inflation. However, the Liberal Democrat manifesto added that, if extra resources were available, they should be targeted on the poorest pensioners. The Government have done that through the minimum income guarantee. Occasionally, it would be nice if Liberal Democrat Members congratulated the Government on finding those extra resources to ensure that, as from this month, a single pensioner in my constituency will have a minimum income of more than £92, compared with £68 four years ago. That significant change has been brought about only by the fact that we have a Labour Government.
  A few moments ago, I mentioned that one argument that we had in 1997 was about the new deal, a programme opposed by both Opposition parties. Even for a constituency such as mine, which has low unemployment, the new deal is a not insignificant factor in its development. A new partnership has been set up in Leyland to create a Tesco store that which will employ about 300 people. The partnership involves Runshaw college, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied
  760
  Workers, Tesco and the local authority. It will mean that 300 people will be taken off the long-term unemployed register, trained at Runshaw college and, at the end of their training, provided with jobs at the new Tesco store, when it is built. Three hundred jobs out of an unemployment total of 885 will virtually wipe out any remaining unemployment in South Ribble. The partnership seeks to train and develop those with the lowest employment skills, so it is targeting those who most need that. As I said, my constituency has skills shortages, but it needs schemes to bring people without skills into the labour market.
  A significant amount of the discussion at the business breakfast on Friday morning was about the measures that the Government need to take, not simply to reduce the number of unemployed but to bring people into the employment market in the first place. We discussed a range of measures that were needed to provide better child care support and better help for disabled people to bring into the labour market those who are currently excluded from it. When there is a tight labour market, we need to look at ways in which we can give people who feel that they cannot get a job the right training and education to go for those jobs, and receive the right back-up.
  I welcome the measures to reduce VAT on church repairs. I have received representations from my constituency, in particular from St. Andrew's church in Leyland. Those concerned will be pleased by the Government's response.
  I also wish to refer to the welcome measures to introduce a tax credit for the development of vaccines, particularly in connection with TB and the AIDS epidemic. That is a useful development. When I was in Uganda last summer, I saw the impact of the Government's debt relief proposals, through the heavily indebted poor countries programme, on improving education and health provision in that country. That is particularly important in assisting in the battle against AIDS.
  The Bill mentions discussions with pharmaceutical companies about making drugs available more cheaply to the developed world. It has long been my view that, when drugs are developed by major pharmaceutical companies, they are targeted at the developed world. The business plan assumes that the companies can make a profit and cover their costs on the basis of charging high prices in North America and western Europe. Those companies should be able to supply drugs at cost price to the poorest countries of the world, without provision for the cost of development. They would not be selling the drugs to those countries at a market price—the same price at which they would sell them in western Europe or North America.
  South Ribble is a semi-rural constituency and I have raised with MAFF and the Treasury the issue of the climate change levy and its effect on the horticulture industry. I recognise that we have won half the battle by getting a 50 per cent. discount. I recognise also that Ministers are unlikely to agree to an increase in that 50 per cent. discount at this time. However, the big increase in gas prices has added a burden to the horticulture industry. Ministers must closely monitor the situation, given those factors and their effect on the glasshouse industry. While the 50 per cent. discount was welcome, it may not be sufficient to ensure that the industry can compete with others in western Europe.

  761
  Last Friday, I attended a meeting of Labour party members with the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and we discussed the foot and mouth outbreak. Many of the people who were there remember the devastation of the closures of pits, steelworks and shipyards and, in my constituency, the collapse of Leyland motors and the high level of unemployment that resulted. They remember also the failure of the then Conservative Government, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, to do anything to alleviate those difficulties or to assist the dozens of small firms in my constituency who suffered as a result of the collapse of major employers.
  At that point, it did not seem to be part of the Tory agenda to assist individuals and companies in distress. That may be the Conservative way. Whatever failure occurred under the previous Government, the Labour Government should be prepared to use the prudently managed public finances of the past four years to assist the rural economy and those areas—particularly Cumbria—that are suffering greatly. That does not require an amendment to the Bill, but a willingness to use part of the Budget surplus to assist the rural economy.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), who came in at the last general election, did not pay due tribute to the fact that economic growth in this country—which has delivered some of the benefits that the Government have attempted to give to his constituency—actually started before 1997. There was a pre-1 May 1997 history and, in terms of economic growth, the Government took over considerable benefits.
  The Government are near the end of their first term. To be truthful, I see this Finance Bill as a fag-end Bill. It has none of the gusto and excitement of a Government who expect to be re-elected, yet many Labour Members think that that is a possibility. However, it does not show any of the radical drive and determination that would make the House sit in awe, saying, "My goodness—what a Government! What are they going to do in the next Parliament if they get back in?"
  This is a tired Finance Bill, very much lacking in ingenuity. That is, of course, why most of this Second Reading debate has been about anything other than the Finance Bill. Hon. Members have talked about the economy, or about what the Bill might have contained had the Conservatives had the opportunity to write it. I know that your generosity of spirit is enormous on these occasions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that it will extend to me as well.
  There was controversy in each of the Finance Bills that I have experienced after coming to the House in 1987. This is the least controversial of them all. However, some of the policies behind it—the Government's policy on tax and spend and their broader macro-economic judgment—involve some interesting and controversial issues.
  The Government had the real misfortune, as the Chief Secretary said in response to my intervention, of having written the Budget before the economic climate began to change. The foot and mouth problem is immense, and I do not blame the Government for not taking that into
  762
  account in their economic judgment. Nevertheless, it needs to be considered in terms of the tax and spend measures announced in the Budget, and particularly in terms of whether the fiscal balance reflected in the Finance Bill is the right one.
  Economic confidence in the United States has almost fallen off the cliff, which is obviously having a big effect on US growth projections. That is bound to have a knock-on effect on us. The United States has been living beyond its means for a long time. We tend to be tolerant about that, because the US economy has undoubtedly been successful. However, its deficit and its desire to suck in funds from the rest of the world to cover economic difficulties could be put at risk during this year.
  If American interest rates fall and the Fed decides, for domestic reasons, that it must cut interest rates, there could be a point at which—even if the dollar is regarded as a safe haven at a time of economic concern—investors in the United States may hold back or withdraw.
  In those circumstances, the Americans would suddenly find that they had to put their own house in order. They would also find that the rest of the world would be that much more sympathetic if the American Government stopped behaving as if "America First" were the only policy that they could adopt. President George Bush has had an inauspicious beginning to his period as President. As a Conservative, I am almost tempted to say, "Come back Al Gore, all is forgiven" but I will suspend judgment. However, I should draw attention to the fact that the American President has decided that the word "compassionate" never appeared in his manifesto.
  Other factors affect the domestic economy. The Chancellor will have carefully to reconsider some of his assumptions. For example, a rise of £5.7 billion in corporation tax revenues is predicted in the coming year. However, such buoyancy of corporation tax revenues may be delayed, or a thing of the past. Most of the companies now reporting are certainly reporting sharply lower profits.
  In the overall Budget, there is always too little emphasis on the state of our home market, by which I mean not the United Kingdom, but the European Union. The 2000 trade figures from the Office for National Statistics should always be borne in mind when we discuss our domestic position. Some 57 per cent. of UK goods exports go to the EU, and only 16 per cent. to the United States. Some 54 per cent. of those exports go to eurozone countries, and more than half our total trade in goods is with the eurozone, while the United States accounts for 14 per cent. More than half our total trade in goods and services is with the EU.
  It is highly significant that the 12 countries in the euro represent, in population and in other ways, 80 per cent. of our home market. That sector of our home market has a single currency, and a higher-than-tolerable sterling value causes difficulties for our jobs market and results in decline in our manufacturing base. The good news in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Ribble is welcome, but if we do not soon resolve the imbalance between sterling and the euro in our home market, our manufacturing industry will suffer even more. According to figures that I have seen, 83,000 jobs have been lost since the euro was introduced through direct or indirect association with investments from eurozone countries. That is serious, and we should watch the position closely.

  763
  The Budget statement did not draw much attention to that situation, and nor did it assess our position against the convergence criteria that the Chancellor has set for the euro. Perhaps we shall hear more about that on the first day after the general election.
  The factors that depress domestic demand are important. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that if spending is to grow by more than GDP growth beyond 2003–04, further increases in taxes will be required. We heard earlier about the difference between monetary and fiscal policy, but fiscal policy is very important in a single monetary zone.
  In both the single currency zone that is the United Kingdom and in the European monetary zone, Governments must recognise the importance of fiscal policy levers. Any party that wants to be in government must accept that the overall burden of taxation must sometimes go up and sometimes go down. There is no magic about the percentage of GDP that a Government should take in taxation at any given time: the point is whether the figure taken is the right one when the economy is expanding or contracting. We hear too much cant from both sides of the House about that. Everyone now accepts that we have given independence to the Bank of England, and we shall possibly give it in the end to the European central bank, too. We must understand that fiscal policy needs to be a good deal more energetic than it has been in the past.
  Other factors will affect the Chancellor's ability to adjust taxation. We are increasingly realising the problems that arise from lack of tax harmonisation within the European Union. I am not, incidentally, arguing that there should be such harmonisation: I have already said that fiscal judgments should be made by Governments nationally, so that they may adjust to the economic circumstances of the time. My point is that there is a problem with holding the opposite view; if all judgments are made in isolation from what is going on in the rest of the home market, we shall have massive difficulties.
  Excise duties provide an illustration Mon of that point. Smuggling is one of our major growth industries. In brewing, the volume of smuggled beer equals the output of at least three British breweries. The figures are extraordinary. The cigarette industry also has huge smuggling problems, which the Government have not reflected in the Finance Bill. They have fiddled with excise duties but not tackled the fun fundamental problem of how to stop smuggling if there is a financial incentive for doing it.
  Another matter for consideration in the European Union is value added tax. The Daily Telegraph today carries a story suggesting that there is a European Commission threat to our VAT flexibility. I am afraid that the story is yet another that has much more to do with that newspaper's policy objectives than with news reporting. In reality, the agreement on VAT—that there should be a minimum rate of 15 per cent. unless there is some dispensation—was made under the previous Conservative Government, who were much more shrewd than the reporters of The Daily Telegraph seem to recall.
  There are many aspects for consideration within our home market. Perhaps because the Government do not want to be too exposed on the European issue, they constantly hold back from explaining to the British people the full facts of life. I admit that the Front Benchers of
  764
  my own party sometimes do the opposite by increasing people's worries about the European Union, but I have never been entirely in line with their contemporary policy on Europe. Both sides must observe our competitive position in the EU while trying to ensure that we do not get so far out of line—as, for example, on excise duties—as to cause ourselves the kind of internal damage that arises from losses to the Treasury from smuggling.
  The European central bank also needs to get its act together. Much more attention should be paid than seems to be paid by the current president of that bank to changing economic conditions. I hope that there will be an interest rate cut. However independent the ECB is, there is no reason why the UK Parliament should not send it a signal that it should cut its rates. We have no official Government or central bank representation on the ECB because we have not yet joined the euro, so I must hope that the voice of a humble Back Bencher—and an Opposition one at that—may be heard.
  Let me turn to the detail of the Finance Bill. The climate change levy is touched on, somewhat abstrusely, in clause 103. I wish that that had been examined in much more detail. I shall not go into the arguments about its overall purpose: there is no doubt that reducing emissions is a vital objective. Whether that is best done, however, by giving incentives for technological adaptation or by a levy is a matter on which I am much more comfortable with my own party's policy.
  I want to mention Air Products, a company in my constituency. Incidentally, and just to raise a competitive edge, I should point out that the chief executive of British Oxygen is a constituent of mine, but now I want to discuss the position of Air Products. The Government simply have not listened to the arguments of the industrial gases industry about the unfair and damaging impact of the levy. The separation of air into oxygen, nitrogen and argon by cryogenic distillation is the most energy-intensive process in the country. It is much more so than chlorine production and aluminium smelting, but they have been exempted from the levy. The process does not pollute the environment, so it is not covered by the regulations that the Government have insisted on as the criteria to define those processes that are eligible for an 80 per cent. discount.
  Air Products challenged the Government by arguing that air separation is a chemical process, as defined in paragraph 17(a) of the eligibility table in paragraph 51 of schedule 6 of the Finance Act 2000, and that it should thus be allowed to enter the Chemical Industries Association agreement for the 80 per cent. discount. The company has provided written independent expert opinion from a professor of chemical engineering at Bath university that supports that interpretation.
  The interpretation has been rejected and may be subject to a legal challenge, but I ask the Government to understand the consequences. Air Products has had to announce to its customers that, from 1 April, it will make a surcharge to recover the cost of the levy. That will have a further impact on the international competitiveness of industries such as chemicals and steel, and will add inflationary costs to the domestic sector in the food industry, in which liquid nitrogen is, of course, used for freezing, and in hospitals in respect of oxygen. I visited Air Products recently to open a combined heat and power plant—that is a small way in which the company can try to reduce its costs. However, I urge the Government to be

  765
  realistic about the issue; the knock-on effect for companies that use materials such as those provided by Air Products will be very serious indeed.
  I have no interest in Air Products other than the fact that it is a constituency company. I have some separate business interests that are in the Register of Members' Interests. Given that the Finance Bill affects any company, I make that declaration for the avoidance of doubt.
  I have some comments on something that is close to the heart of the Paymaster General: IR35. [Interruption.] Perhaps it is close to some other part of her anatomy, but if it is not her heart, I do not want to speculate too much.
  There is still confusion about IR35 in the industry. The Government have done many good things—stimulating entrepreneurial spirit, trying to make the economy capable of accepting the inward investment of high-tech companies, and stimulating the high-tech industry itself over a longer period—so why oh why is IR35 still a blight on the landscape and causing confusion? The court case last week may have pleased the Inland Revenue in some ways, but it certainly added to the confusion. It took an 88-page document from the High Court even to try to clarify the existing position.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that in the case that was resolved last week, the court ruled in favour of the Inland Revenue on every count and leave to appeal was refused. It is important that proper dialogue now takes place. I hope that he and other hon. Members will support me in that. We have already written to the main body, the Professional Contractors Group. IR35 is the law of the land, but discussions about its implementation and the advice that is given would benefit enormously from the positive engagement of those who are still unhappy with it. I hope that he will agree and encourage others to engage positively with the Government on the matter.
  Mr. Taylor: The Paymaster General is her usual winning self; I could not possibly refuse that encouragement. I hope that the PCG takes up her offer.
  There is definitely a need, however, to achieve a clearer understanding, in all circumstances, of what constitutes an employee. Accepting that IR35 is the law of the land, it would none the less be better if we could obtain that clarification. There is frustration out there—in what are broadly described as the knowledge-based industries—that IR35 is still a problem. I have heard the Government referred to as a sales prevention agency; they are certainly a job confusion industry when it comes to IR35. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), rightly talks about changing immigration qualifications to bring in skilled workers, but many skilled workers in this country think that it might be easier to get jobs abroad. I stress that, even if the court was clear on the matter, some of the applications of IR35 regulations are less clear to people working in the industry. The Paymaster General should continue to be concerned about that.
  I wish that the Chancellor had made better provision for inheritance tax. That may be a sensitive issue for Labour Members, but the inflation adjustment of the allowance for inheritance tax is not sufficient and needs radical
  766
  review. Many people from all walks of life, in my constituency and elsewhere, feel trapped by the measure. It is important to send a signal that the trickle-down of wealth from one generation to the next is worth while. We should share that aim throughout the House; it is not something to be penalised. As always, the people who are most adept can better protect themselves from the ravages of inheritance tax than those who find, too late, that they have been caught by it.
  I do not think that the Government have yet woken up to the fact that the damage that they did to pension funds through the changes to advance corporation tax continues to accumulate. All the good work—although I do not necessarily endorse the details—in encouraging people to take out pensions, such as the stakeholder pensions that have just come in, could be undermined by the apparent attack on pension funds.
  This afternoon, I recalled that I had been rather far-sighted on that issue. I put the first question to the new Prime Minister after the last general election. I asked him whether pensioners would suffer damage from
  "changes in advance corporation tax which he might propose."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 703.]
  He did propose those changes and pensioners suffered. The reality is that they are still suffering and the Government have not made up for the damage that was done.
  On a related point, the Government could have taken up the constructive proposals on annuities that were aired because they would have benefited many pensioners.
  I do not have time to go into many other small points. However, I increasingly come across a serious issue when I talk to pensioners in my constituency and elsewhere: it is one thing to bring in tax credits, but it is altogether different when the means-testing and all the other aspects—the reliefs, the clawbacks and the tapers—become so complicated that only professional advisers are capable of explaining them. Many people who should benefit from measures introduced by the Government simply do not have access to professional advisers, or have never taken professional advice; they may be reliant on citizens advice bureaux and similar organisations. I notice that Help the Aged described the system as "massively complex" and said that it involved "endless form filling". Will the Government please think about that?
  The issue is serious. I do not necessarily attack the Government's right to use means tests, although I do not think that they are the correct way forward. However, introducing means tests creates obstacles for the people one most wants to help. So often, the people at the bottom of the pack are hit hardest. It is good that the lowest rate of income tax is 10p, but many people do not benefit from that because they pay no tax at all—they rely on benefits. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
  In short, the Bill is a missed opportunity for a Government who want to appear radical and who expected further years in office. They could have taken up the constructive suggestions made by the shadow Chancellor to relieve savers from income tax, which would have been hugely beneficial, but which will now have to await the return of a Conservative Government. They could have given even more targeted help to pensioners. The Government could have helped those who

  767
  are distressed by their great difficulty in understanding the tax system to obtain the benefits to which they feel that they are entitled.
  Overall, I am worried about the Government's economic judgment. I am concerned that their public expenditure plans may require much more boosting from an increase in taxation than would be wise. The Government have more homework to do. On the specific issues that I raised, I hope that there is still time for amendments to be tabled in Committee. If they are drawn up in the terms that I have suggested, I am sure that they will be greeted with acclamation on the Conservative Benches.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: This has been a popular Budget, and I am sure that the Finance Bill will deliver. About 42 per cent of the population believe that the proposals are good for them personally, but, perhaps more important, 52 per cent. believe that the proposals will be good for the country. Furthermore, 55 per cent. of the population think that the Chancellor is doing his job properly, although listening to the Opposition, people would not think that that was so.
  The Government have done a great deal to help my constituents, and the Budget will deliver more for them. We have already heard about the proposal on the minimum wage, which is very important indeed—£4.10 is more than half as much again as those involved in the low-wage economy would have dreamed of in my constituency. Many of my constituents will benefit enormously from the increase in the minimum wage, but there is a problem: some charlatans in my constituency—and, I am sure, elsewhere—do not pay the minimum wage. I ask my colleagues to consider further policing of the minimum wage.
  When a young trainee hairdresser in my constituency asked for the minimum wage, she was told that she would no longer have a job if she expected that increase. That is despicable, and the Government should ensure that that is not allowed to happen again.
  In my constituency, 1,400 young people have benefited from the new deal, and more than 750 of them have entered full-time employment. Some 2,800 of my constituents have gained from the working families tax credit, which guarantees those in full-time work up to £214 a week.
  The Budget behind the Bill builds on the progress that the Government have made since 1997. Under the children's tax credit, the hard-working families in my constituency receive £10 a week, and 20 for the first year of a child's life. It is good that those policies have been introduced in my constituency. There has been a £5 increase in the working families tax credit, which will guarantee £225 a week by October. The 10p tax band has been extended. Maternity leave has been increased from 18 to 26 weeks, and maternity pay will increase from £60 to £100 by 2003.
  Most important, the Budget and the Bill will restore hope in my constituency, which the Conservative party neglected for a generation. In fact, a clear indication of just how well the Budget has been received is that the post offices in my constituency are now paying out almost a quarter more again than in previous weeks. That is a success in itself.
  768
  In 1993, more than 4,650 people were unemployed in my constituency. In the 1980s, the figure was even worse. The Tories have absolutely no idea of the misery caused by unemployment. We have heard about constituencies with unemployment levels as low as 1 per cent., but some areas of my constituency have unemployment levels of more than 50 per cent. and three generations of some households have not worked. That problem is being addressed for the first time in a generation, but the policies are still not penetrating my constituency as they should. For example, unemployment there is still 3 per cent. above the national average.
  I have heard people argue that there is a north-south divide. That is certainly true, but there is also an east-west divide. The east of Scotland is overheating and there has been substantial job drift from west to east. Unemployment levels are 40 per cent. in some parts of my constituency, but across the whole constituency it is 8 per cent. However, it is as low as 1 or 2 per cent. in the east of the country.
  Something must be done, and more would be achieved by targeting public sector jobs, which are at our disposal, to the west of Scotland. Those jobs could include the armed forces jobs that are out for tender at present. I understand that about 5,000 will be created in a new training college, which the Army will set up, and that it has been argued that it should be based in the east of the country, but I would argue forcefully that it should be set up in the west.
  In summary, the Government understand that the economy is based inside society itself and that we are talking about people, not just numbers. Number crunching is all very well, but the people whom I represent understand the issues only on the basis of the food that they have on the table. Prudence is sensible. A stable economy is essential—it is good for business and for the families in my constituency. It is certainly not pap, as some might say. Clearly, because of that success, for the first time in many years we can afford to rebuild the society in which we live.
  The base work has been done, and we now have record spending on education and health in and around my constituency and record investment in young people. For the first time in a generation, pensioners have been helped in a way that they understand. Of course, all that would be destroyed if the Conservative party were to return to power at the general election, as it has already committed itself to saving about £16 billion on public spending. Those cuts would most affect those who need the help most in my constituency.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I listened with keen interest to what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) said, and I take issue with the figure of £16 billion in cuts because—I am sure my hon. Friends on the Front Bench would be only too pleased to give him chapter and verse—the figure is not £16 billion. Although we on the Conservative Benches accept our responsibilities, we have learned to use public finance better than the Labour Government have—hence, the fact that we can deliver expansion across the board in many public services, such as education and health, and we can do so with better value for money.

  769
  At the outset, I remind the House that I have made certain business declarations in the Register of Members' Interests. I have no clear idea whether the Bill affects those interests; none the less, I thought it right to put that declaration on record.
  The first thing that I observed is that this year the Finance Bill costs £14.70 for 291 pages—not such good value as Harry Potter and certainly not so exciting. In fact, the Financial Times managed to use the wonderful headline, "Concise Finance Bill aims to avoid controversy". I am delighted that the Paymaster General and the Chief Secretary are still here, especially the Paymaster General because she has the job of steering through the House what is—according to the Financial Times—an uncontroversial Bill. She knows, of course, that she will be in for an easy time.
  I was interested in Ernst and Young's comments on its web page. That is the place to go these days for up-to-date, incisive, interesting and exciting comment. It said:
  "Budget rehash fails to excite."
  The Bill illustrates one of the problems with the Chancellor's announcing and reannouncing recycled ideas, which are then not exciting in the Budget or the Finance Bill because we can all search back through two or three copies of the Red Book to find some explanation of what appears in the Bill—for example, the aggregates tax.
  Ernst and Young makes an interesting point when it says:
  "the Chancellor's speech rehashed old announcements. He clearly isn't too interested in the business vote."
  I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench would disagree with that, but that is the perception of those on the outside.
  Ernst and Young makes another equally perceptive comment about the Chancellor. Of the Chancellor, the company states:
  "From a personal tax point of view, we think he has yet again yielded to compulsion to tweak things."
  This Chancellor cannot let go without making minor changes; I shall come on to one of them later in my remarks. Ernst and Young asks whether voters will be enthused by this approach—I suspect that they will not.
  The aggregates tax has been mentioned. My former tax adviser in the Treasury, Mr. Edward Troup, considered the layout and format of the Bill and wrote in the Financial Times:
  "Take land remediation—giving a tax reduction for cleaning up contaminated land. That takes up 14 pages of the bill. You do have to wonder whether all this effort is worth the benefits that will come from it."
  That is an interesting point when we consider the amount of legislation that is afforded to descriptions of the aggregates tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said in his sage remarks, we are searching for the purpose of that.
  If the Government are genuinely concerned about the exploitation of aggregate materials from land-based sources, why did they not seek to sit down with the aggregates extraction industry to try to negotiate a binding
  770
  compact with it to reduce the amount of material that was taken from virgin sources and to encourage the recycling of previously used materials?
  Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary engaged in exactly such discussions with the industry before the aggregates tax was introduced.
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for that clarification, but that is exactly the kind of discussion that resulted in the climate change levy. The Financial Secretary may have held the discussions, but we still have the tax.
  If the Government are genuinely concerned about environmental matters, why do the clauses that deal with this matter not comment on the effect of aggregates extraction on the marine benthos? If the Financial Secretary, who is now fingered with the tax, had cared to consider the effect on grounds used for fish spawning and examined the discussions about aggregates extraction from mid-channel sites, he might have thought that protection of the spawning grounds of fish, such as sole, was an important issue.
  If the tax were genuinely environmentally oriented, I would have expected marine-derived aggregates to be affected, but they are not. The tax is restricted solely to land-based extraction, which gives the lie to the Government's line that the tax is a great environmental measure. With the climate change levy and the landfill tax and no corresponding reduction in national insurance charges, the aggregates tax takes it place on the growing list of nice little earners.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) is no longer here, because he and I would have shared common cause over the impact of the climate change levy on the horticulture industry. Those on the Treasury Bench were kind enough to listen patiently and assiduously to my remarks in the debates on the Finance Bill last year, but the problems have not gone away. The cost of energy to the horticulture industry has risen and the Government have done nothing in the climate change levy to recognise the fact that it is a carbon-neutral industry.
  Much has been made of the missed opportunities in the Bill. The Paymaster General has taken a close personal interest in the exercise of rewriting our tax law, and the Bill is a missed opportunity in that regard. I have held discussions with the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the British Chambers of Commerce and they all continue to express concern about the complexities in our tax system. In the same way that the tax law rewrite exercise was established, the Bill could have contained a clause or two that would have established a study to consider simplification of the tax system.
  Mr. Letwin: As one would expect, my right hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. Does he agree that, if the Government were genuinely concerned about the complexity of the tax system, it is unlikely that they would be introducing new taxes?
  Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend makes the point. This is not the time or the place to have the broad argument about the way in which new taxes are introduced or about the

  771
  type of Bill that we need, but such issues should have been addressed. If the Chancellor were trying to carve out a reputation for himself as a reformer, he and the Government would get to grips with the complexity of the tax system. Comments about simplification—particularly from the Chartered Institute of Taxation—abound on the site of accountingweb.co.uk and those arguments are well known to the Financial Secretary and the Paymaster General. I do not need to repeat them, but it is sad that the Bill fails to deal with such issues.
  I am glad that the Bill introduces changes that deal with employee share ownership and the enterprise management investment scheme. I welcome them and the fact that the Chancellor has seen fit to put right some of his over-indulgence in the tax take on items such as fuel. We sometimes forget that we are talking about the people's money and the use to which a Government put it. Whether the tax take is set at the right level is a matter for the debates on the Budget and the Finance Bill. Conservative Members have illustrated the rising tax burden under this Administration and we have suggested ways in which we can deal with that problem.
  Other right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the national crisis that has resulted from foot and mouth disease. It has implications for the farming economy, the rural economy and food industries. A call has been made for proposals to try to tackle the economic consequences of this dreadful disease, and I wish to suggest several measures that the Bill could introduce. For example, one clause deals with the enterprise investment scheme and new clauses could touch on the venture capital trust scheme, which is the other issue that I wish to mention.
  The enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme are financial vehicles that aim to encourage investment in sectors of higher than normal risk. They do so by providing the investor with income tax relief at 20 per cent. on the amount invested. They deal with capital gains made under the investment and also allow for the losses incurred to be deployed in other areas of financial activity.
  There is a problem, however. The qualifying conditions of those two financial schemes and the corporate venturing scheme—which is the third strand of help for rural Britain—prevent them from being used to help land-based industries. They expressly rule out agriculture and horticulture as qualifying trades. I can understand that when the schemes were originally devised, there may have been extremely good reasons for those conditions, particularly in the light of the old business expansion scheme. There was also the worry about investing in land when the existing inheritance tax proposals were already fairly generous in respect of people buying farms as a means of securing capital wealth for future generations in their families.
  We now face a national emergency, and, if we want to encourage more new investment of a slightly riskier nature, I ask the Paymaster General to consider amending the qualifying provisions to allow either of the two schemes to be used for the benefit of agriculture, the food industry, tourism and rural Britain. If the Treasury is concerned about the extent of the impact of removing the qualifying conditions, it is possible to draft the Bill so that the beneficial amendments that I have suggested are restricted to the areas affected by foot and mouth.
  772
  What enterprises would benefit from the changes? Farmers could use the rural development plan and work together to establish new cattle-breeding enterprises to overcome the strictures of foot and mouth, for which they might seek outside capital. The enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme could open up the flows of capital that they need. Farm-based food businesses, tourism and other rural industries could also be encouraged, perhaps by taking advantage of the farm business tenancy arrangements that enable tenant farmers to create new business on their enterprises. Tenant farmers will be hardest hit by foot and mouth. They have no asset base to fall back on and would benefit from my proposals.
  Corporate venturing is designed in a similar mode to the enterprise investment scheme. It enables people from the world of corporate business to invest so that they gain a tax advantage in the financial vehicles that I have outlined. The food industry and supermarkets have a role if they truly want to invest in and sustain Britain's rural economy. By amending the qualifying conditions in the corporate venturing scheme, the Treasury could induce a new flow of money to be made available to those two schemes to act as vital seedcorn capital.
  I make those suggestions because of way in which the state aid rules limit the amount of public finance that can be used to help the process of recovery in Britain's rural economy. I hope that I have illustrated, in a simple and straightforward way, that three existing tax vehicles could be modified to help the rural economy at a vital time.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred to roll-over losses. If a farmer makes losses for six consecutive years, there is a presumption that the farm is not being run on a commercial basis and further losses cannot be used by the farmer to offset against other income. Given the problems that farming faced before foot and mouth and those that it will face in the recovery period when we get on top of the disease, we should consider those arrangements. Bearing in mind the rarefied circumstances of the disease, trading in those tax losses might also be considered as a way to help the enterprises derive other revenue, or at least to enable the losses to be used against other ventures in which farmers might become involved if they use any of those three schemes. We need a more creative approach to the tax mechanisms.
  I asked the Chief Secretary about the film industry partly because I wanted an economic justification for additional help, but also because it inspired the way in which I thought about the issue. The film industry, which has not had the problems of foot and mouth, is receiving extra help because it is a creative industry, just as the Government have maintained the extra-statutory concession that enables theatre "angels" to move losses from one west end venture to another. The same creativity must be used if the tax system is to assist our rural economies.
  I was intrigued to discover that we are to give VAT relief on children's car seats as part of the Government's package to help families. I sought a justification for that, but could find nothing in the press release REV/C&E 3. It merely says that the VAT will be reduced from 17.5 to 5 per cent. I wanted further information and tabled a question to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, asking the Secretary of State how many

  773
  child road deaths had been caused by defective child car seats in the past three years. I did that because the Red Book justifies the relevant clause by saying:
  "Around 6,000 children under eight years old are killed or injured each year on Britain's roads."
  I thought that defective car seats might be responsible, but the Red Book gives a further piece of advice. It says:
  "It is vital that child car seats are correctly fitted and used to help protect children from harm when travelling by car."
  That is true, but hardly borne out by the facts issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  In clause 94, proposed new paragraph 7(2) of schedule A1 states;
  "The following are 'children's car seats'",
  and the definition includes
  "the combination of a safety seat and a related wheeled framework",
  so the measure is a way to reduce the cost of children's buggies. Every manufacturer of buggies will add a few straps and claim that they are a new car safety seat. I alight on this aspect of the Bill because I can find no justification for it. Indeed, it falls into the same category as further help for the film industry, which the Chief Secretary could not justify.
  I am mystified. What is the Government's strategy on VAT? We recently learned of the extra losses in revenue from VAT, but the Government are cutting it further. When the local Blind Society recently asked me why VAT could not be reduced on aids for the visually impaired, I was left struggling for an answer. Children's car seats—cheap buggies—can have a totally unjustified reduction in VAT, but the aid that makes life bearable for the visually impaired has to bear its full weight. We are owed an answer to that.
  Clause 81 deals with life assurance. As the Financial Secretary courteously dealt with my question on that last year, will he this year see whether it is possible to make the capital gains tax changes in life assurance policies so that the holders of those financial assets will have the same benefits that have been visited on those who hold assets outside them? It is high time that the corporate rate was brought up to date.
  I mentioned the climate change levy, which is dealt with in clause 103, in the context of the horticulture industry. I note with interest that although clause 100 relates to the landfill tax, it fails to make a corresponding reduction in national insurance charges.
  I think we all feel a bit odd about the Bill because we were not expecting to be here debating it. We thought that we would be out on the streets arguing about its content, where there would be more raw meat for us to get our teeth into. However, we are discussing it and have to take note of the missed opportunities. Bearing it in mind that foot and mouth is the nation's main problem, I hope that by our making positive suggestions, the Bill might be modified so that it can benefit rural Britain.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I shall begin by asking a question that Opposition Members have not answered tonight: do they propose to make £16 billion of
  774
  cuts if they come to power? Perhaps the key to the answer lies in the fact that they have performed a U-turn. Proposals for cuts were certainly being touted some time ago, but the suggested figure was £8 billion. Now they say that they will make Whitehall so efficient that they will save all that money without making cuts in services. The Opposition should not be ducking and weaving because it is not only the House but the country that is entitled to an answer.
  The point has been made that the Chancellor is not interested in business. If that is so, why has he made allowances on VAT for small businesses and cut corporation tax? Those are not the acts of a Chancellor who is not interested in business. According to the Opposition, the Budget is not interesting, perhaps because interest rates and inflation are low. It might be more exciting for them interest rates and inflation were high, and perhaps that is what they would like. Low interest rates and inflation help to foster competition and to create jobs. Low interest rates affect people who under the previous Government would have suffered negative equity—a little thing that the Opposition forget.
  I welcomed the introduction of the minimum wage and I welcome also the increase in the basic rate. The Government should be proud of that, and both the introduction of the minimum wage and the increase should excite some Members. I welcome, too, the reduction in youth and adult unemployment because under the previous Government there were between 3 million and 4 million in unemployment, and it was the scourge of young and middle-aged people throughout the country. Ageism was dragged into the argument as a form of selectivity for jobs. People have never really understood what that was all about.
  I understand why my hon. Friend the Paymaster-General introduced the 1R35 rules, but I also accept the point made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). There have been abuses of the rules, as I am sure he agrees, but my hon. Friend should do everything in her power to reach agreement on the matter. Several constituents have approached me about it, and we must consider the definition because I am concerned about the possibility of individuals losing their jobs or contracts. I have raised the matter a number of times with my hon. Friend. I agree with the hon. Member for Esher and Walton that everything must be done to encourage both sides at least to get talking to try to resolve the issue.
  In Coventry, we have had bad news today that Marconi will shed jobs, but I do not know the exact figure yet. We know that Marconi will also increase the number of jobs in Coventry, but I do not know whether that will be a restructuring exercise or something else, because the company has said that it is considering restructuring worldwide. I do not want to be alarmist, but we must be vigilant. I must once more highlight the fact that several months ago, Rolls-Royce said that it was to restructure, with jobs in Coventry going to Canada. However, through the good offices of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, discussions are taking place between the trade unions and Rolls-Royce's management to try to save as many jobs as possible. Although we feel reasonably confident that things are going well, it is worth while now and again pointing out blips that affect us as constituency MPs, and I have highlighted two in particular.

  775
  I welcome the cuts in fuel duty, which demonstrate that at least the Government listen to the public on that matter, as they always have. The question was whether they should introduce a mini-Budget and erode confidence or wait for the proper time to make changes. I welcome, too, the help given to hauliers and the environmental rebate scheme that has been introduced to the tune of £35 million. I welcome the tax help given to companies such as Rolls-Royce for research and development.
  Under the previous Government, 47p in the pound was going to pay off interest on Government debt. We have got that figure down to 16p in the pound, and the money saved is being ploughed into services. I hope that the Opposition are listening because they could avoid the charge that they will make £16 billion of cuts by being creative.
  I welcome the financial measures to help disabled people, which have not had much mention today or in earlier Budget debates. The disabled person's tax credit must be welcomed because over the years we have had many debates about how we should help people with disabilities. I welcome also the guaranteed minimum income of £250 a week for families with a provider or other adult who is disabled. That should be applauded, but it has not been highlighted.
  The charge that the Chancellor does not do much for business can be answered by the fact that many small businesses with a turnover of more than £100,000 per annum will not pay VAT. If that is not a measure that helps small businesses, I do not know what is. Recently, however, my attention has been drawn to retention payments. I would not claim to have great Treasury experience, but I know that the issue affects small businesses who employ only a few people as well as larger businesses. Of course, it may take them years to get retention payments back, and many have a small cash flow, which can present major problems. I hope that Ministers will consider whether something can be done to help small businesses on that matter.
  We must welcome the Government's news that over the next five years there will be a 50 per cent. increase in NHS funding. I have not heard the Opposition say very much about that tonight. One of the big problems facing the NHS, as we all know, is recruitment. The Government have made available £135 million for that, and we must applaud it.
  I want to draw the Government's attention to a matter that has been raised with me by pensioners and groups representing the elderly—the worry about how they will finance community care for themselves. We know about the cost of caring for elderly people in residential homes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will say something about that because in some areas people who run such homes are going out of business. I do not expect any ready-made answers tonight, but the matter should be considered.
  Another area that concerns me personally, because I have experience of it, is the need to restore dignity to public services. We could do a lot more about that. I have said that before, but it is always worth saying it again. I refer in particular to local government, because in the past it has spent its fair share of time being the whipping boy on which we blame every ill in society, from cuts to legislation that affects the delivery of services. I do not need to go through every aspect of that legislation because most hon. Members will know what I am referring to.
  776
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has started to take action to improve education by reducing class sizes. We must review teachers' salaries and do more to encourage more people into the profession, as Ministers are doing. We must ensure that teachers feel that they are doing a full-time job and that—to return to the dignity of public service—the public once again respect their teachers.
  I have two universities in my constituency, so it would be remiss of me not to raise issues affecting students. The House must consider the Cubie report and how soon its recommendations can be implemented, although that will obviously not be during this Parliament. My hon. Friends should consider other ways of ensuring that students do not end up with massive debts when they leave university, which remain a millstone round their neck when they get a job.
  Universities are looking at various devices to raise resources. Laptops have been an issue recently in Coventry—anyone who did not have a laptop might not get a place at a certain university there. There has also been the suggestion of top-up fees, although I know that my right hon. Friend has set his face against that. We must be vigilant about such matters in the next Parliament.
  A further matter of concern is the plight of mature students who want to go into the medical profession and take night school courses, but find those difficult to sustain because of their lack of income. I hope that Ministers, especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, will look into that.
  The Government have done much that we should welcome. We welcome the £200 winter fuel allowance, which was a major step. We welcome pension increases, although some pensioners are still pressing for a link with earnings. No doubt we shall return to that debate in future. The Government have done much, and we want to do more, in relation to concessions for pensioners on public transport.
  An issue that concerns me in Coventry is the amalgamation of schools that is currently taking place. To some extent, that can result in school closures. The formula is under review, and I hope that the review will be speeded up. More flexibility in the formula is needed so that schools in my constituency can be kept open, and the buildings can be used for other community or medical purposes. There is much to welcome in what the Government have done for the national health service, the education service and small businesses. The Opposition may find the Budget dull, but it gives people confidence to know that inflation is low and that interest rates are low, which helps investments and avoids negative equity.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Robert Walter: I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests—not that I think that the Bill will make any difference, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) had some interesting proposals, which would have made a slight difference. Alas, he is no longer a Treasury Minister.
  Introducing the Bill, the Chief Secretary spoke of a balanced approach, and made quite an issue of that. In a number of areas, the Bill and its proposals present a precarious balance, especially in respect of excise

  777
  duties, where the balance is still tipped in favour of the criminal and foreign business, and against the law-abiding, otherwise successful British business.
  Since the implementation of the single market, the failure of Government to recognise the enormous divergence between excise duties in Britain and those in the near continent has encouraged the smuggler and damaged British business. In my North Dorset constituency, three pubs have closed in the past two months. That had nothing to do with foot and mouth, although that is having a devastating effect on pub takings. It had much to do with business rates, council tax increases and the minimum wage. Most of all, the availability of cheap booze, both legally and illegally acquired, has brought about the closure of The Silent Whistle at Shillingstone, The Sir Winston Churchill at Wimborne and The Damoury Arms in Blandford.
  I am grateful to Mr. David Woodhouse, the managing director of Hall & Woodhouse, an extremely successful independent family brewer in Blandford, for providing me with up-to-date data on the subject. As a premium beer producer, the firm has just won the Tesco "Beer of the Year" competition with a new brew, "Golden Glory", which goes on sale next month. Mr. Woodhouse faces the possible closure of more pubs in the future. Outside the House, I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Chief Secretary, a pub in his constituency, which is under serious threat.
  The Government will claim that they have not increased beer duty this year. However, the problem has not gone away. The problem is the fact that beer is significantly cheaper in France and, in a single market, the population will seek to arbitrage the difference if there is an economic benefit to be gained. Let us consider the price advantage of duty-paid imports of beer from France.
  Many factors affect the net profitability of duty-paid imports: the type of beer imported—whether it is canned or bottled, whether it is premium or standard beer, and whether it is a French or a UK beer; the destination in the UK to which the beer is being taken; the capacity and type of transport being used; and the type of operation—whether it is a smuggling gang, a lone bootlegger or just a home shopper. I shall deal in a moment with those three very different but not untypical types of importer, all of whom have a similar net profitability, which is estimated to be about 8p a pint.
  Since the start of the single market, four major factors have changed that price advantage. There have been changes to the rate of UK beer duty—thankfully, no change in the upward direction this year; changes to French beer duty, which has gone up, and exchange rates; higher ferry fares, following the end of the duty-free allowances in July 1999; and the recent increasing success of Her Majesty's Customs in deterring smugglers from using their Transit-style vans, thereby increasing confiscation rates.
  Data for the past five years indicate that volumes have borne a close relationship to the net price advantage. The exception was in 1999, when smuggling volume was particularly high, but that was probably distorted by those stocking up for the millennium celebrations. In the first three years after the single market was established, volumes were lower than might be expected, which
  778
  probably reflects the time taken by importers and suppliers fully to recognise and exploit the financial opportunities.
  Many factors have altered the profitability of personal imports of beer from France to the UK over the past decade. The rate of UK beer duty was increased by a penny a pint in 1993, 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2000. The change of the duty system in July 1993 meant the equivalent of a further penny on a pint.
  On the other side of the equation, France increased its rate of beer duty in 1995. The abolition of duty-free sales in July 1999 resulted in increased ferry fares, which raised the cost of the average day trip by about £10. For the average day tripper, that was the equivalent of about 7p a pint. As I mentioned in recent years, Customs and Excise has deployed increased resources at Dover to stop and confiscate a fair proportion of the larger vehicles, such as the Transit vans used by smugglers. That has forced many smugglers to use smaller and less conspicuous vehicles. It has also added to the smugglers' costs over the past four years. It has been estimated that their costs have increased by about 9p a pint.
  Does that mean that the Government are winning this war? I should like to demonstrate that they are not winning it. The spectrum of duty-paid beer imports covers a wide range of importers and products. I should like to give three short examples. Although they relate to different types of enterprise that involve the importation of widely different loads and types of beer, I want to show that the net profit in each case is less than 8p a pint.
  My first example is that of the genuine personal shopper and day tripper. Although the indicative limit that is imposed by the customs is 110 litres of beer per head, most people bring back far less. The average quantity brought back by legal shoppers is about 10 litres per head. My example assume s a load of 13 cases of been, which can be packed relatively easily into the boot of a family saloon car, but represents slightly more than six months' average consumption for a UK adult. Although most of the gross profit of such an exercise is spent on travel, the day tripper makes a small saving and has a free day out in Calais. He would bring back bottles of beer at 86p a litre, which he can buy at Tesco or Sainsbury's in Calais. As he is bringing back 13 cases, he will have bought about 78 litres. That represents a saving on Tesco's prices here of about £66, which consists essentially of duty. The ferry will have cost about £40, and let us say that his petrol will have cost £15, if he was travelling from London. That produces an overall saving of £11 on an investment of £122, which is a net saving of 7.7p per pint.
  Let us now consider the more serious side of the equation, and turn to the criminal fraternity. I want to speak about those who are in the business of bootlegging and smuggling. My second example is that of the bootlegger who sees the financial opportunity of smuggling. He buys the cheapest possible beer and fills his estate car with as much as it can hold—usually about 60 cases. He will not use a Transit van, because of the risk of being obvious to Customs as he comes back through Dover. The weight of 60 cases of beer is almost a tonne—a load that makes the car illegal and potentially dangerous. Our bootlegger then sells his cheap beer to his friends and neighbours when he gets back, but to do so he must offer better value than the traditional source, which is the supermarket. To beat that competition, he

  779
  must undercut the supermarket price by at least a third, so he is unlikely to achieve a profit of more than about £5.50 a case.
  Nevertheless, the bootlegger will expect to make from his beer a profit of about £50 on a trip. He will probably supplement that gain by trading in tobacco and cigarettes, about which I shall speak more in a moment. Of course, he runs the risk of vehicle confiscation and imprisonment, but he will probably not factor that risk into his calculation, on the assumption that it only ever happens to somebody else. His arithmetic is likely to be as follows: he buys the cheaper beer for £3.70 a case, probably from Eastenders in Calais. He fills up his D-reg Volvo or Peugeot estate with 360 litres of beer, T, or 60 cases. The average UK price is probably about £8 a case, but he will sell the cases on at £5.50 each, making a gross profit of £1.80, or £108 for the trip. After he has taken out his travel costs, he will have made a profit of £48 on an investment of £282, with a margin of 7.6p a pint.
  Now for the real criminal: Mr. Big. My third example is the organised gang of criminal smugglers. They are remotely controlled by Mr. Big, who hires drivers to import his beers in Transit vans, or, increasingly, in pick-up trucks. The beers will usually be English brands, as they can be resold in the UK without arousing suspicion. They might have been legally exported to French shed warehouses, of which there are many within striking distance of Calais, Cherbourg and so on. To maximise the load, the smuggler will probably bring back 12-litre cases of cans, which weigh less than glass. His pick-up truck will have been fitted with specially stiffened springs to enable it to carry a load of more than a tonne. The observations of the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association suggest that 90 cases would be a typical load for such an operation.
  Mr. Big may run a fleet of up to a dozen such vehicles, with arrangements for transfer on to a lorry near Dover for onward transportation to the midlands and the north. With a fleet of that size, he would expect probably to lose a vehicle a week to confiscation by Customs. Such losses will be built into his calculations. As he is dealing in UK brands, the saving is essentially the duty difference between the UK and French rates. The beers will be distributed via a large network of cornershop off-licences, van sales on housing estates and so on, but the retailers will need a reasonable incentive to risk their licences by selling illegally imported beers, so there is an estimated sales cost of, say, £2 a case.
  The criminal in question will be bringing in more than 1,000 litres of beer in his pick-up—or 90 cases—and saving duty of about 50p a litre. Obviously, he will have ferry costs and he will have to pay the driver and perhaps a mate, which will probably add another £60. He has probably built into his costs a premium for losing the occasional vehicle—perhaps one in 20—of about £75, and there will also be sales costs. That means a net profit of about £145 to £150 a trip. On an investment of £1,300 or £1,400, that is a profit of about 7.5p a pint.
  So, it is clear that, for beer, the margin remains. That margin is revenue lost to the Treasury. It is the criminal smuggler who is in business, but it is my business men, my brewer, whom I mentioned, and my publicans who are losing money and, in some cases, going out of business. The margin is not the 26p duty differential
  780
  between Britain and France. As my figures demonstrate, the margin—the bootlegger's margin—is less than 8p a pint.
  On Friday I spoke to another publican in my constituency, Mr. Charlie Hancock, who runs the Fleur de Lys in the village of Cranborne. His concern related to tobacco duty. Five years ago, his off-sales of liquor and tobacco amounted to about £1,000 a week, three quarters of which were accounted for by cigarettes and tobacco. They are now virtually zero. The story is repeated in pubs, off-licences, convenience stores and village shops in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the country.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman speaks of what was happening five years ago. Would he like to tell us what was happening seven years ago, under the previous Administration? What he has described is nothing new. I recall that the then Paymaster General was asked to investigate, and did not exactly deliver.
  Mr. Walter: The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that the problem is not particularly new. I referred to what was happening five years ago because that was the example given to me by the publican. The revenues on tobacco duty that the Treasury is receiving are at best static, and fell dramatically in the last full financial year—1999–2000—as a result of smuggling.
  Mr. Letwin: The point that my hon. Friend has just made is seminal. We argued year after year that the time would come when there was a crossover, and revenues would decrease. The constant refrain from the Government was that that would not happen for years, if ever. Now here we are, in the year in which it has happened.
  Mr. Walter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me return for a moment to beer duty. Figures for which I asked the House of Commons Library show that, in real terms, the Treasury take from beer duty has not really moved in the past 10 years, although consumption of beer, wines and spirits has increased significantly. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Treasury take from tobacco duty has fallen, despite all the evidence that tobacco consumption has risen in the intervening period, while duties have risen as well.
  May I now return to my publican in Cranborne, a delightful village? The villagers have not stopped smoking; that is not the reason for the fall in his off-sales. The problem is that the villagers now have another source, a man who can get whatever they want—cigarettes or tobacco—and at a fraction of the price. What has been the Government's response? Even in this Finance Bill, it has been simply this: blindly to increase the duty on cigarettes by 6p a packet, and to continue to line the pockets of the bootlegger.
  Since May 1997, the price of a typical packet of cigarettes in the United Kingdom has risen from £3.12 to £4.22. That is more than three times the rate of inflation. From each of those packets the Chancellor collects £3.37 in excise duty and VAT—80 per cent. of the retail price, and a much higher amount than is collected in any other European Union country. In fact, United Kingdom cigarette taxation is the highest in the world.
  The Chancellor lost potential tax revenue—excise duty and VAT—of almost £5 billion between 1997 and 1999, not because less tobacco was smoked but because the

  781
  smuggling of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco has accounted for an ever-increasing share of the total market. As I have said, UK tobacco consumption has increased since 1997, following 25 years of substantial decline.
  There is a root cause of all this: the exceedingly high and ever-rising level of tobacco taxation. The Government have estimated that in 1999–2000 total cigarette consumption was around 76 billion, of which 13.6 billion—18 per cent.—were smuggled. The Tobacco Manufacturers Association has estimated consumption in 1999 to be 84 billion, of which 21 billion were non-UK duty paid, and 17 billion—about 20 per cent. of cigarette consumption—were smuggled. Total consumption of hand-rolling tobacco, the equivalent of some 21 billion cigarettes, had doubled since the opening of the single market, and nearly 80 per cent. of that consumption was non-UK duty paid.
  Liz Blackman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the tobacco industries of countries such as Spain and Italy, where tobacco duty is considerably lower than in the United Kingdom, are being undercut by non-EU tobacco that is not subject to any duty? The logic of his argument would seem to be that he wants tobacco duty to be cut. Given the examples of Spain and Italy, his argument does not stack up.
  Mr. Walter: Illegal imports into Spain and Italy, especially of counterfeit tobacco products, are another problem and the subject of another debate.
  It has taken the Chancellor almost two years to take steps to attempt significantly to curb tobacco smuggling. His steps have been too little and too late. Over about three years, the extra financial resources made available to Customs and Excise have amounted to less than £300 million, compared with an admitted tax loss of at least £5 billion. The Tobacco Manufacturers Association anticipates that in the year 2000 the tax loss as a result of smuggling will be about £4 billion.
  Even by the Treasury's reckoning, the measures that have been introduced are designed only to contain smuggling at a level of slightly below 20 per cent. of the market. Although the seizures of smuggled tobacco products in the UK are running at a higher level than they were in 1999, Customs and Excise still believes that what it knows about smuggling is only the tip of the iceberg. The industry believes that the iceberg is significantly larger than the Government admit. Whichever view we take, it is clear that the more effective policing of smuggling will not by itself be an adequate remedy. The root cause is tax, and that issue must be tackled as well.
  In August 1999, the Chancellor commissioned a report from Martin Taylor on tobacco smuggling, and he claims to have implemented its recommendations. A recent Treasury Select Committee report deplored the manner in which the Government published only snippets of Mr. Taylor's advice that support the new strategy for dealing with tobacco smuggling. The Government refused to publish in any form Mr. Taylor's advice in full.
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is developing a powerful argument. Does he agree that if what the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) said was material,
  782
  the Government would have had no trouble in publishing the full text of Martin Taylor's observations? Mr. Taylor would have acknowledged that the duty differential was not the cause of the problem. The Government's extreme reluctance to publish suggests that Martin Taylor was aware that the duty differential had a serious effect on the smuggling problem.
  Mr. Walter: The reports that I have of the contents of Martin Taylor's report—I do not know whether I quote accurately because we have not seen the report—suggest that it would not be possible to halt tobacco smuggling into the United Kingdom without cuts in the high level of UK tobacco taxation.
  In his pre-Budget statement in 1999, the Chancellor stated that he would form his Budget judgments on the appropriate level of tobacco duties, taking into account a wide range of factors. In his Budget this year, the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to demonstrate that even if he considers tobacco taxation to be a morality issue, he none the less recognises that the policy that he has pursued so far has not worked.
  The Chancellor has seen revenue from tobacco taxation reduce. He has failed to reduce tobacco consumption, contrary to the Government's health policy targets. He has increased the level of criminality with the increased number of smugglers. Most important, he has failed to protect children, who potentially are the targets of indiscriminate selling by illicit traders.
  The Chancellor should launch a full and independent review of the UK's tobacco market, the extent of illicit market penetration and the Government's tobacco taxation policy and its fit with other policy objectives. Such a review should be undertaken urgently and published. That would make it clear that a market, a significant proportion of which is in the hands of criminals, is out of control. Such a market cannot be regulated to control under-age smoking or fulfil the Government's health objectives.
  The figures for liquor and tobacco suggest a law of diminishing returns. At a time of increasing consumption, the tax revenue is static or, in the case of tobacco, declining. That is nonsense.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I shall make a few short comments on the Bill. Some relate to those of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on smuggling, which I have raised in such debates in the past. He described it in considerable detail.
  I warmly welcome much of the Budget. Many of the Bill's provisions are welcome in my constituency, especially the assistance for families and children, such as the working families tax credit and the children's credit. The reductions in fuel duties are also welcome. However, in the debates that we have conducted on fuel duty in the past few months, insufficient attention has been paid to oil companies' profiteering. We are debating differences of 1p or 2p in fuel duties while oil companies register record profits and the oil-producing countries meet to try to restrict oil production even further so as to increase those already obscene profits.
  Although I warmly welcome much of the Budget, many of its benefits for my area will be eclipsed by one or two other matters that the Chancellor could have tackled.

  783
  I pay tribute to him for his excellent stewardship of the country's finances, to which the moneys that we can provide for education and health are a testament. However, in the next few weeks, my area will suffer because of our local government settlement, which has again left us several million pounds short of our budget target. We are used to that predicament, because it began in 1990 under the present system for local government finance. My area was one of 20 that were capped by the previous Government when they introduced the poll tax and the standard spending assessment formula. The latter has always worked against my area, and the problem is therefore historical. If one starts from a low base, one will always be at the low end of the scale.
  Benefits such as the tax credits and lower tax starting rate for people on low incomes—there are quite a few of them in my constituency—could be overshadowed by the fact that the local authority has to cut services or introduce charges for them because of the shortfall in its budget. It is saddening that, despite the excellent Budget and interesting Finance Bill, we face cuts in our local government budget for a different reason. That takes a little of the gloss off the Budget.
  My local health authority is one of the lowest funded in the Trent region and the country. It has a shortfall of approximately £3 million, which will prevent it from fulfilling many of the important targets that the Secretary of State for Health has imposed on it. We have considered tobacco smuggling, about which I shall speak shortly. My area has high rates of lung cancer stroke and heart disease. Reducing tobacco consumption is therefore vital. The explanatory notes to the Bill state:
  "Smoking is the single greatest cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK. Tobacco use is detrimental to health with significant wider social costs. The Government is committed to reducing smoking".
  I sign up to that and agree that, as well as educational programmes, one way of achieving that is to increase duty to dissuade people from smoking—basically, to make it too expensive. However, as the hon. Member for North Dorset pointed out clearly and in considerable detail, that policy has been undermined to some extent by the number of cigarettes brought in from abroad.
  There are areas in my constituency where retailers, tobacconists and newsagents cannot se11 legal cigarettes. The amount of smuggling that goes on in those areas makes it unprofitable for them to continue selling certain types of cigarette, if not all cigarettes. When I go out and about in my constituency, retailers tobacconists and newsagents constantly complain that they cannot sell cigarettes in their area.
  The hon. Gentleman went into great detail on the revenue losses and all the rest of it. I do not want to follow him down that path, but newsagents and tobacconists in my area can point to the points of delivery. Articulated lorries bring in a huge number of smuggled cigarettes. They are brought to one central point: an entrepreneur, for want of a better word, brings in the tobacco. He then sells on to a network of "runners". They will purchase the packs of cigarettes and sell them to an even wider distribution network. By using that system, the penetration within the local area is extremely deep, covering huge areas.
  Last year, I raised the matter in the equivalent debate. A few months ago, a retail trade magazine decided to publicise smuggling to draw more attention to it and to
  784
  reduce it in its own way. It was aimed not at those in the example that I have just quoted, but at newsagents and tobacconists who were selling smuggled tobacco: legitimate traders who had decided that the only way to make money from selling tobacco products was to go the way of the smugglers and to sell the stuff more cheaply from their own shops.
  Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that legitimate, law-abiding newsagents, tobacconists and off-licences in my constituency who do not wish to sell smuggled and contraband goods are being intimidated into doing so, with threats of damage to their property and sometimes threats to their children?
  Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend has anticipated my next point. I am grateful for her intervention because it emphasises the point that I am about to make. The retail magazine in question decided to draw attention to the issue of legitimate traders selling contraband goods at a lower price. Members of Parliament—I am sure that many colleagues took part—were invited to go to newsagents who had volunteered to take part in the scheme and who had, in so doing, allowed their names to be published in the magazine.
  On the day that I visited one particular newsagent, I was surprised to pull up outside his shop at the same time as the local constabulary and the local press. I went into the shop and found out that, that morning, the newsagent had received an anonymous message on an answering machine telling him that, if he went ahead with the promotion to reduce the number of smuggled cigarettes by drawing attention to the problem, he would face the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) has outlined. He was frightened out of going ahead with the idea that the magazine had promoted. The publicity event at which that newsagent and I were to speak to the local press had to be cancelled because he was so afraid of the consequences of going through with it. He felt that way not because of the criminal element to which the hon. Member for North Dorset referred, but because of a semi-criminal element among his fellow retail newsagents and tobacconists.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East said, newsagents and tobacconists seem to be in a catch-22 situation: either they stop selling cigarettes or choose to sell smuggled cigarettes, or perhaps they are forced to sell smuggled cigarettes because their colleagues want to do so. It is a difficult situation.
  As the hon. Member for North Dorset said, the retail price of a packet of cigarettes is about £4.20, whereas a packet of smuggled cigarettes typically costs £2. Additionally, all brands are available from those who will take the risks associated with smuggling. However, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) that I am not sure that reducing our tobacco duty to bring it into line with other European countries' is the answer to the problem. As she said, sales of cheaper European cigarettes are undercut by even cheaper eastern European cigarettes.
  We have to pay more attention to the issue. We have either to try harder to prevent smuggling by providing more money for that effort or to re-examine tobacco duties within the overall European context. Hand-rolling

  785
  tobacco is one of the biggest earners for smugglers, as the price paid for it here is very substantially more than that paid in the rest of Europe.
  Dr. George Turner: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the long term, if the Government are to achieve their health objectives, they will have to accept a reduction in revenues from tobacco duty? Is it not therefore logical for the Government to attack the smuggling problem rather than to reduce the price of cigarettes? As we know, cigarette pricing is one of the greatest influences in encouraging people to stop smoking.
  Mr. Illsley: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. We have to find solutions other than reducing tobacco duty to tackle the smuggling problem. Although we can consider that option, as I said, the idea is to increase the duty to try to stop people smoking, and perhaps to prevent young people from taking up the habit by pricing them out of the market. However, I am worried that that policy is being defeated by the general availability of very cheap cigarettes. There is no easy answer to the problem; if there were one, I am sure that previous Governments or the current one would have found it.
  People in my own area have health problems such as heart disease and lung cancer that are caused primarily by smoking. I should like extra resources to be provided to stop smuggling and for education programmes to appeal to young people not to smoke. As I am sure my hon. Friends will agree, banning tobacco advertising is a step in the right direction.
  I am the honorary adviser to the Northern Licensed Victuallers Association, which has made representations to the Government on alcohol smuggling. The hon. Member for North Dorset dealt in great detail with alcohol smuggling. Contraband alcohol is often sold in legitimate retail outlets by publicans, licensees or off-licensees. In the past, however, wholesale licences were one way of stopping such sales. Wholesalers had to have a wholesale licence to operate, but would lose their licence and have to cease trading if they were found to be selling contraband alcohol. I again suggest that Ministers consider that approach. I know that it was abolished a few years ago, but perhaps that measure could be revived to combat smuggling.
  The climate change levy is referred to only briefly in the Bill. The levy, along with the 80 per cent. rebate for the integrated pollution prevention and control industries, is administered by the Treasury, but much of the detail of how to qualify for rebate and exemption is dealt with by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) is no longer here, because I agree with what he said about certain processes being exempt from the levy. He referred to air separation. That industry supplies gases for industrial use, but it is also a process in itself. Certain glass furnaces in my constituency are fuelled by an oxygen process, but following the climate change levy negotiations they no longer qualify for a rebate. The gas consumption of a glass furnace also increases with its age, so a furnace that qualifies for an 80 per cent. rebate today
  786
  may fall foul of the targets some years down the track, at a point in the cycle where the company cannot afford to refurbish it.
  I hope that the Government will bear those difficulties in mind in future years when they consider the rate of the levy and the exemptions. They should be aware of how the levy works in practice and how it affects air separation companies, for example. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton mentioned the British Oxygen Company, which has a plant in my constituency. Glass companies are also very concerned about these issues.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) setting out his latest criticisms of the climate change levy, an earlier complex stealth tax that we were given too little time to consider in the previous Session. He told us of some of the many problems that it is causing. We shall no doubt hear a similar story in a year or two if the aggregates tax goes ahead. The problem with stealth taxes is that no one, not even in the Government, understands them. It is only later, when they hit people between the eyes, that the problems become apparent.
  Mr. Illsley: In my defence, I should say that I raised the issue of the climate change levy more than 12 months ago, not only in meetings with Ministers but in debates on industry. Many of the fears of industries such as the glass industry were allayed by the 80 per cent. rebate.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman was brave enough to defy the Millbank thought police and give his own view. I congratulate him on that, but the Government cannot have listened to him, because there are still problems, as he said, that are a great worry to business. The same will be true of the aggregates tax and all the other stealth taxes.
  The problem lies not only in understanding the stealth taxes but in quantifying them. A year ago, the Chancellor predicted how much he would raise in revenue in the year now ending. According to his estimate in this year's Budget, he has raised £8 billion more than he expected to raise just 12 months earlier. That shows how inaccurate Government forecasts are from one year to the next.
  Mr. Letwin: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if one looks at the figures for the public sector net cash requirement and the repayment of the public sector debt, over the last two years, the forecasting error of Her Majesty's Treasury is some £55 billion, which is the single largest forecasting error in British economic history?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was not aware of that fact, but I do know that the Government are hopelessly off-target when they try to project what is happening to our economy and even what is happening to their own finances.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster rose—
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I shall give way in a moment.
  The Government preen themselves on the fact that, this year, there has been a substantial debt repayment. However, over the next few years, their own predictions

  787
  forecast massive borrowing nearly twice the size of that repayment. Indeed, given their forecasting error, according to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), it could be several times as big. With their stealth taxes and lack of clarity, the Government have created a far more volatile situation for tax collection and the economy as a whole.
  That is why we shall take no lectures from the Government when, for example, we announce that we are concerned about the history and performance of the tobacco tax regime. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), as we know that the amount raised by tobacco tax has gone down. When we call for a review of that area of policy, we should be mindful of the fact that, under the previous Chancellor, the Conservative Government undertook a review of alcohol taxation. Following that review, we decided to have lower rates of alcohol tax.
  The Government's policy on alcohol of duties has been influenced by the previous Government's review, and it is significant that, in the current Parliament, the take from alcohol duties has been sustained; in fact, it has gone up by nearly 10 per cent. By contrast, the Government have ratcheted up the rate of tobacco duty and receipts from tobacco duties have declined significantly. Therefore it is not enough for the Government to say that any discussion of a review of tobacco taxes would inevitably mean less money for our schools and hospitals, because their strategy on tobacco tax has failed. Their aggregate levels of tax are so volatile and their predictions so uncertain that they cannot possibly argue that a small change in one area of tax policy would have consequences for spending on our schools and hospitals.
  That brings me to a much more important point. The Conservative Opposition have identified savings that might be made in the running of government, which add up to £8 billion a year without affecting a single penny of the money spent on our schools and hospitals.
  Mr. Letwin: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but he has reminded me of something. He may recall otherwise, but I believe that a member of the Treasury team said that the purpose of raising tobacco duties would be, by hypothecation, to raise more funds for the health service. Does he remember that and does he think that, mysteriously, the Government should now be cutting health expenditure if that were a genuine promise?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend is obviously more willing than I am to embarrass the Government at this stage of the proceedings. He is right; we were told that the additional duty would go directly into the health service. I agree that we are now told that, despite the fall in the take from tobacco duty, the Government can still afford to increase spending on health, education and other key areas. The Government themselves have detached the debate about the optimum rate of tax on tobacco from the debate about how much we spend on our school is and hospitals.
  We have identified £8 billion of savings. The Chief Secretary has studied those savings carefully and I thank him for doing so. I am sure that he agrees that we have identified £8 billion of savings that will not affect schools and hospitals.
  Mr. Andrew Smith indicated dissent.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I shall gladly give way to the Chief Secretary if he can tell me which part of the £8 billion
  788
  that we shall save will affect our schools and hospitals. I am sorry that the Chief Secretary is not willing to engage in debate. We must assume that the £8 billion of savings that we have identified will not affect our schools and hospitals.
  We have identified savings in other areas by managing the business of government better than this Government have done. That is why we can talk about measures such as abolishing the basic rate of tax on savings. We feel that it is unfair that people who, out of their earned and taxed income, have put money aside should then find that their reward—the interest on those savings—should be taxed again before they receive it. That has had something to do with the fact that the amount of savings in our economy—the savings ratio—has declined savagely since the Government took office.
  It is striking that, at a time when the Government are preening themselves about the amount by which they are repaying Government debt, consumer debt has gone through the roof. Economists are worried by the prospect of debt repayment being a real constraint on consumers in the coming years. That is one of the reasons why they raise questions about the Government's sometimes absurdly confident assertion that they have abolished the economic cycle and boom and bust. That claim becomes hollow to anyone in farming or tourism, or in the other, smaller industries that support those two sectors. They know all about boom and bust under this Government. That goes to show that no Government—even one as intent on central planning as this one—can prevent the hiccups and surprises that different sectors of the economy throw up from time to time.
  The Conservative party will not only abolish the basic rate of tax on savings, but will help married couples and take 1 million pensioners out of tax altogether. Above all, we must have a less complex tax system, and it is that aspect of the Bill that I find particularly objectionable. The Bill piles on the complications in our tax system. For example, there are 22 rates of company car tax; there are different rules depending on whether one takes out a mini-ISA or a maxi-ISA; the Government have introduced the working families tax credit, the children's tax credit and changes to child benefit, and baby bonuses are to be introduced.
  All of those clawbacks, reliefs and tapers add to a complex system. Witnesses to the Treasury Select Committee have made it clear that the trouble with complex allowances and incentives is that, if no one understands them, they will not incentivise anybody. That is why the waste in administration dwarfs any potential gain at the micro level in the economy by stimulating people to do whatever civil servants and the Government decide is the latest fad.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman tells us that tax credits are a waste of time, yet they are the very elements of the Government's policy that are tackling poverty—particularly by giving those on the lowest wages an incentive to stay in work. His party has said that it will scrap those tax credits. What will he do for the lowest paid?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: We find complex tax credits and incentives to be self-defeating. They become so specific and obscure that no one understands them. A third of

  789
  those entitled to the minimum income guarantee for pensioners have yet to take it up. What good is that? Pensioners do not understand why they should fill out a 48-page form in which they are asked such absurd questions as whether they are on strike or whether they are expecting a baby.
  Mr. Flight: Might I point out that 500,000 parents have failed to take up the children's tax credit because that is so complex?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  At the beginning of winter, 1 million people who were entitled to winter fuel payments from previous winters still had not received their money.
  Mr. Levitt rose—
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I shall give the hon. Gentleman another chance.
  Mr. Levitt: First, the hon. Gentleman is criticising a children's tax credit that has existed for only three days. Secondly, is he aware that the take-up of working families tax credit is far higher than it was for family credit? His party's past policies relied on people not taking up their credits. We want people to take them up.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: The working families tax credit is so complicated that the Government are reforming their own system. That says all that need be said about the complexity of their policies.
  The Finance Bill gives us the aggregates tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has brilliantly exposed as an appalling example of the worst evils that stealth taxes bring to bear. That raises a fundamental issue. Are we to achieve a tax base through a series of insidious, invidious and stealthy measures, as has been the Government's systematic approach over the past four years? Alternatively, are we to develop a tax system based on rates that businesses and people accept are broadly reasonable? Under such a system, people could spend more of their time generating new business and paying their tax along the way, rather than having to employ an army of accountants to figure out the Government's latest wheeze and how to get round it.
  We believe, fundamentally, that an internationally competitive economy needs a clear and simple tax system, in which the burden is reasonable. Quite apart from the fact that taking money from people who live and work in our country is a drain on the growth of our economy, if those people feel that the system is unreasonable, not knowing how the money is being taken but realising that it has been, the brightest and best will have a massive incentive to make their way elsewhere in the world where the climate is far more friendly.
  That is an underlying reason why the Government's strategy, as exemplified by the aggregates tax, is leading us down a treacherous path. The Government will wake one day to find their economic forecasts as unreliable and unsustainable as their tax forecasts have proved to be over the past four years.
  790
  I have many constituents—perhaps more than most Members—who are consultants. They have followed with great interest court proceedings against the Government over the infamous IR35. While the Government won that case, it was extraordinary—unprecedented, I—believe—that anyone was allowed to bring a case in an English court of law against the Government on a tax measure. Although the case was lost, I believe that those who brought it won the principle and the argument. In particular, they exposed a disgraceful practice that the Inland Revenue intended to employ.
  The Revenue was not going to apply the mutuality of obligation test—a critical test of whether someone is employed or self-employed. It appears that the Revenue told its staff that that test was not to be mentioned unless the taxpayer mentioned it first. That is a fundamental breach of duty. If we must have the hugely complex tax system that the Government have given us, Inland Revenue civil servants should, at least, give the taxpayer a level playing field. They should bring their expertise to bear fairly on the points brought before them. The Revenue should not hold cards up its sleeve to try to deceive taxpayers into putting themselves into a category in which they pay far more tax than they were intended to pay in reason or in what the House agreed to.
  I hope that there will be sufficient opportunity in Committee to investigate the Government's proposals in more detail. It is clear, however, that they have set a course on which, given the chance, they will continue. If they return after a general election, there will be more stealth taxes, more complexity and far more barriers to business. At a time when the world economy is, at the very least, uncertain, that is the last recipe that we need if our country is to survive as the type of prosperous economy that the Government inherited four years ago.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. John Grogan: One of the mantras of the long-serving 19th-century Tory Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, was a warning to his colleagues not to interfere with what he described as the "people's pleasures". During the past hour, we have heard powerful speeches about cigarettes and beer from the hon. Members for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), so it would be wrong to let the few minutes of the debate available for my speech pass without some reference to clause 6, which, to all intents and purposes, abolishes the existing duty on betting—another of the people's pleasures.
  It is proposed that, from next January, duty will no longer be levied on bets, but that there will be a tax of 15 per cent. on bookmakers' gross profits. That is a great step forward.
  At this point, I should declare an interest: I am still buying drinks with my modest profits from a bet on Red Marauder on Saturday. It followed a win on Papillon last year. Like many punters, I look forward to tax-free bets next year. Indeed, the only possible argument for the Prime Minister delaying the general election until next May is that we could all place tax- free bets on that possibility. That may, of course, not be the overwhelming argument.

  791
  The views of the industry are revealing. John Brown, chairman of William Hill, who is to be credited with coming up with many of the ideas that influenced the Chancellor, said:
  "This is great news for the British punter, for UK plc and the Treasury … The punter wins, because this will make it possible to offer deduction-free betting for the first time since betting shops were introduced. The Treasury wins, because we will be able to repatriate our offshore operations, enabling the taxman to share in all the profits we make on our international business. UK plc wins, because we have a real opportunity to be the world leaders in online betting."
  I shall briefly consider those three propositions. It is worth remembering that 50,000 people work in the betting industry, which is valued at between £6 billion and £7 billion. The forecasts for the development of e-betting show that it is not a future aspect of e-commerce; it is very much with us at present. A recent report from Merrill Lynch stated:
  "UK gambling is poised to enter a golden era of long-term structural growth".
  The global online market is set to soar to £123 billion by 2015.
  The changes that the Chancellor is making to betting duty, combined with the strengths of the industry in this country—of integrity, which is recognised worldwide; of an IT infrastructure; and of a skilled work force—mean that the UK can look forward to being a dominant force in the industry. It is encouraging that William Hill, Coral and Ladbroke have all said that they will abandon their offshore operations and come back to the UK. The Tote is abandoning plans to set up in Malta. The industry has great prospects.
  There are great prospects also for an increase in the Chancellor's tax take. He is taking a bit of a punt—a bit of a gamble; Treasury predictions are that if there is no increase in betting, the tax take could fall by about £150 million over the next two year—about a third of the current rate. However, all the predictions are that, as in Ireland, with a reduction in duty there will be a considerable increase in betting turnover and that, within a few years, the Treasury will take more in revenues than under the current system. Indeed, if it persisted with that system, given the threat of offshore betting, there is every likelihood that its take would decrease over the coming years, thus reducing the amount of money to be spent on schools and hospitals.
  Finally, the measure will be good news for punters. Obviously, there must be an infrastructure to deal with problem gamblers. One should never forget that gambling causes a great deal of misery for some people and the industry must always be aware of that.
  Ultimately, of course, we must all remember—even those of us who won on the grand national—that the bookmakers win. The effect of the Chancellor's measures would be that, if one started off with £100 to bet on horses or on football, the current tax take would allow one to make £460 of bets before all the money was lost. Under the Chancellor's new measures, that amount will increase to £700, but the bookmakers will get the whole £100, either way. However, I commend this neglected measure to the House.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: The House has had an interesting debate on what is a tired and dull Finance Bill; it is hardly the radical, vote-winning
  792
  stuff that we expected in an election year. The main measure is the new stealth tax—the aggregates tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, that tax was not even mentioned in the Chancellor's speech. As with IR35, the defining measure of a stealth tax is whether the Chancellor mentions it in the Budget speech. Of course, there was no mention there of the 33 clauses that comprise the Budget's main new tax.
  There are 292 pages of further tax complication. As various hon. Members have said, the volatility—nay the inaccuracy—of economic forecasts should cause the House to worry about the Government's economic judgment as we enter an economic period more difficult than the past eight years have been. When the Chief Secretary opened the debate, I could not help but think that his speech was motherhood and apple pie. Like the Budget and the Finance Bill, it had been drafted before the American economy started to go off a cliff and before stock markets fell seriously. We are likely to experience the knock-on effects in Britain. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary has seen the national institute figures for the first quarter, which came out at the end of last week. They estimate that growth will be only 0.3 per cent., and that growth for the year will be about 1 per cent. That still trails behind euroland and is hardly 2.6 per cent., but he confidently glossed over the fact in his speech.
  The Chief Secretary concentrated on the progress of economic events that had broadly been forecast in 1996 by the then Conservative Chancellor, except that taxation has been some £28 billion per annum higher—about 3 per cent. of gross national product. I cannot resist referring to the Chief Secretary's comment, with which all Conservative Members agree, that a healthy economy and good investment require sound money. I assume that that was his code for saying that he cannot, therefore, support the euro, given that it is such a weak currency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset gave a splendidly cogent tour de force of the Bill and its background. We all know that there have been four years of taxation by stealth to build up the necessary surpluses, allegedly, to sweeten the electorate in an election year. The disappointment has been the fact that there has been little sign of the delivery of additional Government expenditure to date.
  Dr. George Turner: The hon. Gentleman says that there has been no delivery. In Norfolk, the capital input from Government was £4 million in the final years of the previous Conservative Administration; it is nearly £30 million this year. Delivery is under way.
  Mr. Flight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he makes my point. It is no good talking about the money—whether that point is true or false—because the question is about delivery. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) also said that actual expenditure on health and education was higher as a proportion of national income under the previous Administration than under this Government.
  The main task of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset was to expose the 33 clauses that deal with the aggregates tax. It is not, in fact, a tax on aggregates, but a land tax. As the Chief Secretary's comments suggested, it echoes the development land tax. The aggregates tax and the climate change levy—which is also purely a

  793
  tax-raising measure—are the two main politically correct stealth taxes. The Government have not set in stone the promise that tax revenues will be offset by alleged reductions in national insurance.
  Both taxes are designed to raise revenue and clothed in language that pleases the politically correct, but neither will benefit the economic life of our country. The climate change levy will severely damage manufacturing industry and the aggregates tax will put up the price of roads, housing and everything else that is built.
  My hon. Friend hoped that the Government would at least accept amendments to measures outstanding from the previous Finance Bill, such as the new onshore pooling arrangements, the new arrangements for controlled foreign companies and fair taxation arrangements for restructuring. He also pointed out that, surprisingly, there was nothing in the Bill to deal with foot and mouth problems, but he has given clear notice of the issues on which we shall look to table amendments. Problems need to be anticipated. We should not just wait for things to happen, because the farming industry and related sectors are suffering from this terrible crisis.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli—[Interruption.] I apologise for my pronunciation—and I am a quarter Welsh, too. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made an interesting speech. It is true that a lower rate of saving is partly a function of economic confidence, but it is usually a function of declining disposable incomes. The one statistic that has been glossed over is the fact that there has been a near halving of disposable income growth after tax in recent years. People have borrowed to finance consumption even though they have tried to keep up their gross savings.
  The right hon. Gentleman echoed the worry that, in the current climate, there is the risk that people will seek to rebuild their savings too quickly and will cut their consumption substantially. That will cause economic volatility, so he argued in favour of fiscal management and he has a perfectly fair point. Monetary management is still necessary. We should never forget that the Federal Reserve's failure in the 1930s to keep up the money supply led to the great depression. The cause was monetary not fiscal.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton clearly asserted himself as a man of the 1980s, or perhaps the 1990s. He saw monetary policy as all important and attached less importance to the scope of fiscal policy. He said that the Chancellor had misinformed the Treasury Committee about the figures for taxation. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the changes to European Union definitions meant that the 38 per cent. figure was roughly equivalent to 36 per cent., so it was not correct of the Chancellor to claim that there had been no change in the proportion of gross national product taken in taxes. Even if people are not aware of the specific figures, they are well aware of the fact that there has been a massive rise in the tax take as a result largely of the stealth taxes that have been inflicted upon us.
  Mr. Levitt: Surely the rise in the tax take can be explained by the fact that fewer people are unemployed,
  794
  so more people are working and paying tax, and by the economy's success, which means that more people are paying higher rate tax.
  Mr. Flight: We could debate that at length, but the hon. Gentleman knows that corporation tax is the biggest source of increased tax revenue. That is due only in part to the growth of the economy; the substantial reason for its increase is the introduction of tax liabilities, the quarterly payment and the failure to reduce the thresholds. As usual, we have had the fine spin. It told us that corporation tax rates have been reduced, but the net effect of the policies has been to increase them greatly. The key point is that the tax take is up by £28 billion, which is substantiated in all quarters and by the Red Book. Any assertion by the Government that they have not upped taxes or increased them as a proportion of national income is manifestly wrong.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton also said that spending on health and education as a percentage of national income is lower under this Administration than under the previous Government.
  The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) began by suggesting that his constituents had been sceptical of the Labour Government's ability to increase public spending. That is hardly surprising given the poor delivery in recent years. I advise him to be a little sceptical of the Chancellor's promises. It is clearly impossible to maintain an increase in public spending of 3.7 per cent. per annum for long without increasing taxes substantially. If the electorate are foolish enough to return this Government, they will face either a spending cut or much higher taxes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) came out with some splendid phrases. He described the Finance Bill as tired, which explained why much of the debate centred on other subjects. He said that the Government had the misfortune to draft their Budget prior to the major change in global economic circumstances in the past two or three months. In particular, he said that they should be wary of the buoyancy of corporation tax, which they predict will rise by £5.7 billion in a climate in which corporate profits are under pressure. He also alluded to our economy's problems being a result of the euro's acute weakness and the lack of confidence in it. However, he did not refer to the German poll in which 75 per cent. of people wanted to keep the deutschmark.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend is immensely perceptive, but I am not sure that that is exactly what I said. The euro has been a stable and strong economy if one has regard to the internal effect of the store of value of money and the level of inflation. Of course there have been problems on the external exchanges. The strength and volatility of sterling is a major issue for the Government and the country.
  Mr. Flight: I think that the euro is a currency, not an economy. If my hon. Friend spoke to any of his friends in Germany and France, they would be concerned about it being weak among the major currencies, when it should be a relatively strong reserve currency. For better or worse, the relative weakness of the euro against the dollar, with sterling in the middle, has been the problem for us.
  My hon. Friend was the first to say how the high levels of tax on tobacco, alcohol and fuel have led to a massive increase in smuggling. He also referred to the

  795
  common-sense argument, which prevailed in the past, that it is unwise for taxation of such staples in this country to be hugely different from that in adjacent European countries. Indeed, as Labour Members will note, under the 18 years of Conservative Government the differences were much smaller than they are today.
  My hon. Friend also referred to clause 103, which makes certain amendments to the climate change levy. He put it politely when he said that he had some support for the objective but doubted the means of achieving it. He referred in particular to the damage that will be done to the industrial gases industry. He also highlighted the continuing problems of IR35. If I understood the Paymaster General correctly, the measure having been passed, she is now inviting everyone to come to see her to achieve a sensible resolution of tilt many outstanding problems. It cannot be the Government's aim for the surviving high-tech economy in this country to be damaged by a foolish tax regime.
  Attention was also drawn to the lack of anything in the Bill to implement the recommendations of the McDonald report and to end the obligation to buy an annuity at the age of 75. The Governor of the Bank of England has made it clear that he views long-term interest rates as artificially low in the yield curve owing to the distortions created by the obligation to buy an annuity. The volume of money coming on to the market from money purchase pension schemes is rising by 20 per cent. per annum, and it was about £9 billion last year. The Government have boasted of the gilts that they have bought in, but even they can see that soon there will not be enough gilts to go round to finance the annuities market.
  McDonald's recommendations contain nothing that would cause a loss of revenue or constitute an additional cost, as has been asserted in recent replies, and the members of the McDonald committee will respond strongly to the Government's misapprehensions. Above all, those reaching retirement age strongly object to being obliged to subsidise Government borrowing by being forced to buy annuities at artificially low rates of interest. The effect is to lock them into bad value for the whole of their retirement.
  The hon. Member for Cunningham, South (Mr. Donohoe) gave loyal support to his Government. In essence, he said that the Chancellor and the Budget were wonderful. He usefully drew attention to the problems caused by the different levels of prosperity in east and west Scotland, and sought more policing of the minimum wage legislation.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)—[Laughter.] There is something wrong with my pronunciation. I come from south of Watford. He pointed to the Chancellor's inability to resist the temptation to tweak the figures and echoed the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset of the aggregates tax. My right hon. Friend usefully made the point that if the Government were seriously concerned about the environment, they would do something to protect fish spawning grounds in the mid-channel. Nothing in the aggregates tax addresses marine extraction; indeed, one of its effects will be to increase marine extraction.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the iniquities of the climate change levy and the damage that it will do to the horticultural industry, which is dear to my heart. Given
  796
  the considerably greater efficiency of that industry compared with most of its European competitors, there is no logic in that measure.
  On another subject dear to my heart, my right hon. Friend welcomed the employee share ownership measures and the reforms of the enterprise management incentive scheme and venture capital trust rules. As I recollect, those changes adopt most of the recommendations made by the Opposition in the Standing Committee that considered last year's Finance Bill. My one plea is for those provisions to be made simpler. Such schemes are for small, unquoted companies. The legislation is so complex that those businesses will say that they cannot afford the lawyers necessary to explain and implement it. They need simpler legislation that works, not something that may be a wonderful deal, but is too complicated.
  I remind the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) that the Conservatives are modestly committed to paring back the Government's £72 billion spending commitments by a mere £8 billion, not £16 billion. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that all our sampling has told us that the Labour poster about the cuts has done us, not the Government, a great deal of good.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) made a valuable contribution by pointing out in considerable detail how excessive taxation of alcohol and tobacco has led to massive smuggling, reduced tax revenues by £5 billion and corrupted large numbers of citizens. That has all happened before. Historians among us may have heard of Parson Woodforde, a country clergyman who, like every other respectable member of society, used to buy his coffee from the smuggler. Over-taxed coffee had turned everyone into a coffee smuggler. The law of diminishing returns has not only reduced Government revenues, but vastly increased smuggling, which the Government are unable to tackle. I am sure that, had he been here, the Chancellor would have enjoyed my hon. Friend's contribution.
  Many of my hon. Friend's comments were echoed by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who gave a frank and decent commentary on the Budget and expressed concern that the benefits to his constituency would be damaged by the local government settlement and the lack of health funding.
  Finally, the hon. Member for Selsby—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) gave us a fascinating exposition of clause 6. Would that the Government had followed the political incorrectness of clause 6 and acknowledged the realities of the world with the climate change levy and the aggregates tax. We welcome clause 6, which brings sanity to an industry and increases revenue. If the Government applied the same logic to IR35 and everything else, the Budget would be popular.
  9.42 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan) for their contributions. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby on his excellent gain on Saturday. I understand why he can speak so eloquently about the reform of betting tax.

  797
  I also thank the hon. Members for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), and for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and, finally, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who described the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton as a man of the 1980s. If I remember correctly, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton would have been about 15 years of age at the beginning of the 1980s. I know that Liberal Democrats mature quickly, as they must because of the short tenure of their position in the House, but I do not believe that they mature that quickly.
  The debate has been good humoured. We were entertained particularly by the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. In the short time left to me, I shall answer the various points that have been made. Several hon. Members raised issues connected with foot and mouth disease and suggested measures that could be taken. I shall deal with those remarks towards the end of my speech.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset commented on double taxation relief. I remind him that the changes announced when the pre-Budget report was published will enable companies to obtain relief for tax suffered of up to 45 per cent. in lower-tier subsidiaries. That and other changes will ensure that many companies do not need to restructure to obtain the relief. Of those that decide to restructure to optimise their tax position, many will be able to do so without a foreign tax cost. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that one of the reasons for multinationals' use of offshore holding companies is precisely to avoid tax on capital gains in respect of the sale of subsidiaries. He should be aware that companies that are setting up activities overseas for the first time will now be able to do so without the complications and costs that are involved in using an offshore holding company.
  We hear a lot from the Opposition about unnecessary burdens and complexities. Under the previous Tory Government, however, the UK company investing abroad was forced to use an offshore holding company or be disadvantaged by the tax system. The new system ensures direct investment that is not penalised. I am sure that we will return to that matter in Committee.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset expressed regret that the Government have not introduced a relief in the form of deferral or exemption. I am sure that British business deeply regrets the fact that the previous Government did nothing about that throughout their 18 years in office. The matter is currently subject to detailed consultation. I recall that the previous Government were not especially keen to consult people on business tax issues, but this is an important issue. Anyone with the best interests of British business at heart will want to ensure that the reform serves the competitive position of the UK for some years to come. Business has shown a strong desire to engage in discussions on the matter, and the Government have said that we plan to be committed to introducing legislation in the Finance Act 2002.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble answered eloquently the points that were made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. He is to be congratulated on
  798
  the 13 business breakfasts that he has attended and on telling the House about all the matters that were debated during them. He is also to be congratulated on having visited 20 schools in his constituency since Christmas. Clearly, he can testify to the fact that the money is coming through in terms of investment and buildings. He also made a special plea about the research and development tax credit on vaccine development. I paid close attention to his points about consultation.
  The hon. Member for Escher and Walton—[HON. MEMBERS: "Esher."] I am sorry, it is catching; I am sure that Front-Bench Members will continue to prompt me. The hon. Gentleman expressed regret that this was the least controversial Finance Bill, and went on to say that it was therefore of no benefit. Presumably, the Bill is not controversial because the Opposition agree with many of the measures that it contains. It is rather odd to hold the view that Finance Bills are good only if they can cause huge rows across the Floor of the House, instead of concentrating on whether they benefit our communities.
  For instance, the hon. Gentleman did not comment on the children's tax credit or its extension in 2002 in respect of the baby tax credit. Neither did he refer to the extension of the working families tax credit, the reduction on duty for ultra-low sulphur diesel and petrol, the green technology challenge fund, changes in vehicle excise duty, the package of VAT measures to help small and medium-sized companies or the VAT reduction for museums and galleries. All those issues are relevant and important to the people who watch the proceedings of this House.
  No Conservative Member who suggested that this was not a good Finance Bill pointed out that the Government were tackling climate change and improving air quality, or that they had put together a package to regenerate our towns and cities and to protect the countryside. Nor did any Conservative Member mention the VAT reforms in respect of housing for which the empty homes campaign had lobbied so long and hard. All those moves will immediately benefit the community, but Conservative Members say that the Bill is not relevant and does not matter. That just shows how out of touch they are with the priorities of people outside and what those people want to be changed.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde made a number of comments about foot and mouth, to which I shall return; but for some reason he specifically alighted on the subject of VAT on children's car seats. Perhaps I can help him a little. In 1999, more than 1,000 children were killed or seriously injured while travelling by car. If children are to be protected, it is vital that they sit in children's safety seats that are appropriate to their age, weight and height, meet the latest safety standards and are correctly fitted each time they are used. Some parents currently use second-hand car seats that may or may not meet the latest safety standards. We therefore considered it right to cut VAT on brand-new, better-quality car seats by some £15. I am sure that that has given the right hon. Gentleman more of an answer than he received in response to his parliamentary questions, but if he wants more detail I shall be happy to give it to him.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset referred specifically to tobacco receipts. The fall in revenue receipts in 1999–2000 was due primarily to changes in the timing of

  799
  the Budget and changes in duty rates. The revenue receipts for 2000–01 have exceeded the Revenue's forecast.
  There are a few points that need to be made again. The vast majority of cigarettes that are smuggled are smuggled from beyond the European Union: they come from places where there is no duty on such products. The Government have clearly stated that they will not allow criminals to dictate either our tax or our health policies—of which tax is the prime mover.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs spoke of harmonising duty rates. I remind him that harmonisation with French duty rates would cost £1.5 billion. A man who describes a reduction of £8 billion or £16 billion in public expenditure as necessitating merely a pruning, rather than a cutting, of public services needs to be more careful about making such sweeping statements.
  The Government's strategy of using £209 million over three years to clamp down on smuggling is having results. In the first nine months of this year, 2.1 billion cigarettes did not reach the United Kingdom, or were prevented from being circulated in the United Kingdom, and 6,700 vehicles were seized from people trying to smuggle products into this country. Smuggling of tobacco products is a terrible scourge of our community: it undermines legitimate trade, increases criminality—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central—and denies the Exchequer he money to which it is entitled. It also undermines our health policy. The Government's tactics are the right way to deal with smuggling.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Paymaster General give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: My time has been shortened because the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs spoke for longer than had been agreed. I will say what I want to say about foot and mouth disease, and I will return to the hon. Gentleman if there is time.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset asserted that Customs and Excise was not paying back input VAT quickly enough and that that was causing problems. When he was pressed, he said that problems might be caused in future. The tax authorities are required to repay within 30 days, and the arrangements that the Government have put in place will ensure that the return is made as quickly as possible. If he has examples of cases where that is not occurring, he must surely bring them to the attention of the authorities.
  The hon. Gentleman referred also to the working families tax credit and those who are in tied accommodation and have a second home, and the capital value of the second home counting towards the capital that is held as a family, which means that they were not entitled to the tax credit. The situation is slightly more complex than that for people who are in tied accommodation. However, there are ways in which the situation can be dealt with. A great deal of information is being given to communities that are suffering from the economic effects of foot and mouth, whether in tourism, the food industry or farming. The latest information about people's rights to receive benefits comes from the Benefits Agency. I understand that the leaflet is about to go on to the internet. It is being circulated to the communities to which I have referred.
  800
  The right hon. Member for Fylde asked a series of
  questions about our enterprise investment schemes, venture capital schemes and venture capital trusts. In particular, he asked that further consideration be given to the qualifying conditions. He was generous in saying that he did not expect a response immediately from me this evening, and I am grateful for that. I will consider carefully what he said. I think that he acknowledged that the Government were not in a position to give blanket exemptions in major parts of the tax system.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned roll-over relief for agriculture. The Government extended it to six years in December 2000. Again, I will pay careful attention to his arguments. Where help already exists within the tax system or through sensitive application of the system, we can help communities. I am sure that all hon. Members would expect us to do so. As part of that, the Treasury, Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue have been working hard to identify ways in which the Government can offer practical help to businesses in rural areas that are being damaged by the outbreak of foot and mouth. They will continue carefully to examine all the suggestions that are coming forward.
  We want rural businesses to survive, and to survive the outbreak. They need to continue to generate jobs and prosperity for our communities. However, the Government have done a great deal, including many things for the non-farming business community in rural areas: there are powers to grant hardship rate relief, the introduction of a small firms' loan guarantee scheme, and the work that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise can do to give as much help as they can to local communities. An emergency helpline operates seven days a week from 7 am to 12 pm. The very companies that the hon. Member for West Dorset said could be anticipating problems should be contacting that helpline before problems occur, not afterwards. In those ways, we shall be able to ensure that we are giving the maximum help that we can to the communities that are affected.
  The Bill contains support for families and for pensioners. It sets out clearly a choice for Britain's future. The Government are building on a platform of economic stability as a foundation for future prosperity. We have made the choice to build on that stability. We have chosen to invest more in our public services, not less. We have made sensible tax cuts for hard-working families. There will not be under-investment and cuts in public services, which are the undeniable consequences of the Conservative party's policies.
  The Finance Bill is a measure for families and children, and it will tackle poverty and unemployment among our poorest communities. It is a Bill for companies; it will help Britain's businesses grow and secure a long-term rise in prosperity for all. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 175.

  Division No. 183]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Allen, Graham

  Ashton, Joe

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Austin, John

  801

  Bailey, Adrian

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Banks, Tony

  Dismore, Andrew

  Barnes, Harry

  Dobbin, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Battle, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bayley, Hugh

  Doran, Frank

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dowd, Jim

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benton, Joe

  Edwards, Huw

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Efford, Clive

  Berry, Roger

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Best, Harold

  Ennis, Jeff

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blackman, Liz

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Flint, Caroline

  Borrow, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Foulkes, George

  Fyfe, Maria

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike

  Buck, Ms Karen

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burgon, Colin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate

  Coleman, Iain

  Hood, Jimmy

  Colman, Tony

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Connarty, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cox, Tom

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cummings, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jamieson, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

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

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Joyce, Eric

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  802

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pond, Chris

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pope, Greg

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pound, Stephen

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Lammy, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Laxton, Bob

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lepper, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lock, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Love, Andrew

  Roy, Frank

  McCabe, Steve

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Salter, Martin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McFall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Spellar, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Maxton, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Meale, Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Miller, Andrew

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stringer, Graham

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardriff N)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

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

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Timms, Stephen

  Mudie, George

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Olner, Bill

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Tynan, Bill

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pearson, Ian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pike, Peter L

  Watts, David

  803

  White, Brian

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes: Mrs. Anne McGuire and Mr. Mike Hall.

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wood, Mike

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Allan, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Amess, David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Duncan, Alan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Baker, Norman

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bercow, John

  Flight, Howard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Boswell, Tim

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gibb, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gray, James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Green, Damian

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Greenway John

  Burns, Simon

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burstow, Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Butterfill, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Hammond Philip

  Cash, William

  Hancock, Mike

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Harvey, Nick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chidgey, David

  Hayes, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Collins, Tim

  Horam, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cotter, Brian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  804

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Ruffley, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Key, Robert

  Sanders, Adrian

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Shepherd, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

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

  Lansley, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Letwin, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Spring, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Livsey, Richard

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Loughton, Tim

  Syms Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  McCrea Dr William

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor Matthew (Truro)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Thomas Simon (Ceredigon)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Madel, Sir David

  Tredinnick, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Trend, Michael

  Maples, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Viggers, Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Walter, Robert

  Moore, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Webb Steve

  Norman, Archie

  Wells, Bowen

  Oaten, Mark

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Whittingdale, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Paice, James

  Willis, Phil

  Paterson, Owen

  Wilshire, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Prior, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Randall, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Rendel, David

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Robathan, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

Finance Bill (Programme)
10.14 pm
The Paymaster General: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Finance Bill:—

Committee
1.—(1) Clauses 1 to 3 and 16 to 53 and Schedules 4 to 11 shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
(2) The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
2.—(1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two allotted days.
(2) The proceedings to the taken on each of those allotted days shall be as shown in the second column, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the third column, of the following Table:—

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Clauses 16 to 22

7.00 p.m.

Clauses 23 and 24, Schedule 4,

9.00 p.m.

Clauses 25 to 27, Schedule 5,

Clause 28, Schedule 6, Clause 29,

Schedule 7, Clause 30

Clauses 31 and 32, Schedule 8,

Midnight

Clauses 33 to 35, Schedule 9,

Clauses 36 to 46, Schedule 10,

Clauses 47 to 49

Second Day

Clauses 1 to 3

7.00 p.m.

Clauses 50 to 53 and Schedule 11

10.00 p.m.

(3) If either of those allotted days is Thursday, the times specified for that allotted day in the third column of the Table are brought forward by three hours.
(4) On the first of those allotted days, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall, notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) of that paragraph, apply to the proceedings on the Bill for only two hours after ten o'clock or, if that day is Thursday, for only two hours after seven o'clock.
(5) On that allotted day, any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after ten o'clock (or, if that day is Thursday, seven o'clock) by virtue of paragraph (4) or (5) of Sessional Order I (provision in the event of a debate under Standing Order No. 24) made by the House of 7th November 2000 shall be in addition to that period of two hours.
(6) Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(7) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day.
3.—(1) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
(2) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 24th May 2001.
4. When the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill shall be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.
The motion sets out the allocation of the various clauses and schedules of the Finance Bill between the Committee of the whole House and the Standing Committee.
The motion also sets out the timetable for the clauses and schedules to be debated in the Committee of the whole House. On the first day, it will discuss clauses and
806
schedules on the aggregates levy, and on the second day it will consider clauses and schedules on hydrocarbon oil duties and income tax.
There is a lot of business to get through on the first day, so the motion provides for a midnight finish. On the second day, there will be fewer clauses and schedules, so it provides for the normal 10 o'clock finish. It also specifies that the proceedings of the Standing Committee shall be completed by Thursday 24 May, which will allow for a total maximum of 18 Standing Committee sittings.
10.15 pm
Mr. Letwin: The programme motion has two deficiencies: it is the wrong motion, and it is wrong to have it in the first place: otherwise, it is perfect.
What is wrong with the motion? I do not quite know the answer. I do not know what error the Whips fell into, but I know what the whole process illustrates. The Paymaster General and I had a conversation some time ago in which she properly and generously offered to allow us to debate what we wanted in the Committee of the whole House. We wanted to debate the items that I described on Second Reading.
Had there not been this barbaric and unusual practice of introducing programme motions, which have never before been imposed on a Finance Bill, there would have been no problem, because there would have been agreement through the usual channels. Even Treasury Ministers, in an honest moment, will accept that, during the entire proceedings on last year's Finance Bill we never once sought to filibuster or prolong proceedings unnecessarily. We treated the Bill seriously and helped constructively to improve various parts of it. Of course we had arguments with the Government, but we never sought to create unnecessary delay.
This year, simply because the Government are wedded to programme motions, they are curtailing debate on the Finance Bill. That is shown by the fact that it has proved impossible to come up with the right kind of programme motion, because the new clauses for which time in the first day in Committee of the whole House should have been allocated—I hope that it will be allocated in a subsequent motion tomorrow—could not have been tabled at the time when the motion was constructed, because it is a rule of the House that one cannot table amendments or new clauses before the completion of Second Reading. There was a structural inability to produce a programme motion to allow the debate that is by convention allowed on the Floor of the House on matters of concern to the Opposition.
A Finance Bill is the centrepiece of our democratic system—the Gladstonian system of control—and if we cannot debate on the Floor of the House what the Opposition consider to be essential propositions related to it, we are very close to the end of parliamentary democracy. I do not say that the Government intended that result, but they brought it about through their dogmatic adherence to programme motions and their inability, or that of their business managers, to recognise that if one tries to draft such a motion in the absence of the new clauses, because under the rules of the House they could not be tabled, one will end up with the wrong debate on the wrong subject, which is what has happened.

807
The problem goes wider and relates to the very idea of programme motions. The problem is not, with the exception that I have outlined, that the substance of the motion is obnoxious—Thursday 24 May is a reasonable date—but that there is something wrong altogether with the idea that there should be imposed on Parliament a time limit for debate on matters that are necessarily complex. I admit that, on this year's Finance Bill, because there is not so much material and the matters are not so contentious, it is unlikely that our debate would have extended beyond 24 May.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend made the point that these are very technical matters. He will get representations from the accountancy profession and others on the content of the Bill. That being so, does he agree that we do not and cannot know whether 24 May is, or is not, an appropriate end date?
Mr. Letwin: I was coming to that precise point. The Bill is relatively uncontroversial, with the exception of the aggregates tax in its current form, but it involves complex and technical matters, so we cannot know how the debate will carry us as we proceed. However, last year's Finance Bill, which may be a precursor of next year's Finance Bill and other future Finance Bills, was 500 pages long and dealt with immensely complex matters. On that evidence, no one can be expected to make even a reasonable guess at the right date.
We are establishing a precedent for successive attempts by the Government to guess the right date for the end of debate on a Finance Bill that, as I said, is an attack on something that is fundamental to the nature of our democracy. I do not know what, if anything, still makes the House of Commons important perhaps. Ministers regard it as wholly unimportant. However, if it has any importance, the scrutiny of Finance Bills is at the centre of that importance. The power of the House to give the Government money to spend confers on the House such power as it possesses over other matters. Had it not established the right to control taxation some centuries ago, it would not have established the power over the Executive that it then developed.
By any account, a Finance Bill is at the centre of our democracy. An attempt to guess in advance how long it will take to cash out the details of what is often an immensely complicated piece of legislation is an attempt to stifle to debate. Conservative Members will have nothing to do with that. As a result of dogmatic adherence to the idea of programme motions, the Government have managed to come up with what is, even by their own standards, the wrong programme motion. I shall therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose it.
10.22 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: Liberal democrat Members support the argument of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). In many debates on programme motions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has expressed our principled opposition to such motions, but tonight our arguments involve both the principle and the substance of the motion on the Order Paper. As the hon. Member for West Dorset said, Opposition Front Bench spokesmen were contacted by Ministers, who asked courteously what we wished to
808
debate in the Committee of the whole House. Liberal Democrat Members made it clear that they wished to table new clauses and to debate issues, especially in relation to foot and mouth. We wished to make sure that such issues were debated in a Committee of the whole House because they are important. Foot and mouth is not a minor matter; it affects the whole country, not just rural areas, as I made clear in my speech on Second Reading.
Both Opposition parties feel strongly about that important matter, and we should be able to debate a new clause on how to reduce the tax burden on industries hit by foot and mouth. That is our main concern about the substance of the motion: it does not enable the Committee of the whole House to debate new clauses that could relieve the tax burden confronting sectors hit by foot and mouth. I anticipate that, in replying to the debate, the Paymaster General will say that there is no precedent for debating new clauses in a Committee of the whole House. However, given the grave crisis before us, I submit that we should set a precedent. What is wrong in principle with a Committee of the whole House debating a new clause to the Finance Bill? There is nothing wrong with that. It is disgraceful for Treasury Ministers to dismiss that notion as outrageous.
Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be difficult for the Government to use that argument in any event, because there certainly is precedent—from last year and many other years—for debating amendments? The procedure that the Government have used in this case has prevented us from debating amendments on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Government talk about modernising the procedures of the House, yet here we have an example of where we could modernise and debate issues of key importance to our country.
I ask Ministers to state where in "Erskine May" or the Standing Orders there is a barrier preventing us from debating new clauses. If they cannot produce that barrier, could they not come back to the House tomorrow with a new motion to enable Opposition parties to table new clauses, so that we could debate the way in which we can help the struggling sectors of our economy?
10.25 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: This is yet another example of the Government riding roughshod over the House of Commons, and it is disgraceful. It is interesting that no Labour Member stood to defend the motion, which the Paymaster General moved in a most perfunctory manner. She did not attempt to justify it and merely said what we would be discussing.
This is a programme motion too far. The Finance Bill is—using the word properly—a unique part of the parliamentary calendar; this is where the House of Commons, properly, has full control. This is where the House of Commons, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has said, must vote Supply, exercise its judgment and call the Government to account properly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said in his admirable speech, last year—notwithstanding the fact that the Government have an

809
enormous majority—the Finance Bill was improved as a result of rigorous scrutiny and proper debate. For the Government to deny opportunity in this way and to place a straitjacket on the House of Commons is an insult, not just to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the other Opposition parties, but to the whole House of Commons.
Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government have often relied on the other place to cure Bills in respect of which they have imposed a timetable but that, in respect of the Finance Bill, the other place is under particular inhibitions in curing errors?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course, and that is why I referred to the Bill as unique. The other place, quite rightly, has no control over supply. What it can say about financial matters is, by precedent and by statute, limited, as the Government know only too well. The motion is an insult to every single Member of the House of Commons. It is not just a question of rubbing the noses of the Opposition parties in it. The Government, with high-handed arrogance, are saying what we will do on particular days and in what way we will debate the clauses.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made a good point when he talked about the new clauses that we would have wished to debate on foot and mouth. We are gripped by a crisis, the like of which the British countryside has not seen for a century or more, but the House of Commons has not been given a single opportunity by the Government to debate foot and mouth. The Opposition have provided two opportunities.
There is nothing in the parliamentary calender, as far as one knows from the business announced last week, to enable us to debate foot and mouth in the foreseeable future. Yet on 23 and 24 April, it would have been possible for Members with real knowledge and experience of the countryside—we are getting stories every day, some of which are immensely tragic—to debate these things. In our new clauses, we could have made suggestions on which, we hope, the Government would look sympathetically.
Ministers always talk, as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did this afternoon, about wanting a bipartisan approach. They want us to tackle this great crisis together, they say. We are more than willing to do so, and, to be fair, so are the Liberal Democrats. There is no opposition to acting in that way, but when the Government set us the example of this motion, what do they expect? It is disgraceful that we should be faced with such a motion.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned precedent. When Ministers return to the Treasury, I hope that they will reflect on the precedent that they are setting tonight. When the mantle of power passes to my party—as it undoubtedly will, either at the next general election as I devoutly hope and believe, or at some subsequent one—they will not want to be ridden over as roughshod as they are riding over us. If they have the duty of scrutinising a Finance Bill from the Opposition Benches, they will not want it to be subject to diktat from the Government of the day.
A Government with a majority as immense as that enjoyed by the present Government have an obligation even greater than that of a Government with a narrow
810
majority to have regard to the niceties of parliamentary democracy. The Government have, time after time, shown scant regard—indeed, contempt—for the House of Commons. Never have they shown it more graphically than in the motion perfunctorily and embarrassingly moved by the Paymaster General this evening. I hope that every hon. Member will vote against it. I hope that Labour Members will recognise what is happening and will, at the very least, have the decency to abstain.
10.32 pm
Mr. Tom King: I have not before spoken on a programme motion, and I did not expect to do so tonight. As I listened, however, to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), I was struck by the decision to curtail any opportunity to speak about the problems faced by people in our country at present. We have questions about the Treasury position, but there will be no opportunity to move any amendment or make any proposal that might help.
That announcement followed the earlier confirmation by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that there will be no statement tomorrow about the rural taskforce, the chairman of which appears to have disappeared without trace. There will be no statement on whether there will be any help beyond the inadequate measures that the Paymaster General faithfully read from her brief. She told us about the Inland Revenue, value added tax, encouraging banks to be sympathetic and the small business guaranteed loans scheme. [Interruption.] I am sorry if the Paymaster General does not know that those are the Government's proposals, but that is what she said about being helpful. She may not have known what her own proposals were, but they are in the Government advertisement that is advising people on what assistance is available.
The Chief Secretary can take some pride in having played a part in accumulating a substantial Government surplus, so he cannot plead a shortage of funds for the one-off crisis that we face. He has made a point of saying, in fact, that the Government are flush with funds, and the Chancellor certainly did not understate that case in his Budget statement. Since the Chief Secretary is here, I must tell him that it is widely believed that the Treasury is blocking matters. It has been reported, and I have it on good authority, that the chairman of the taskforce, the Minister for the Environment, was going to make a statement last week—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating a programme motion, and the right hon. Gentleman is going beyond its scope.
Mr. King: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. The point that I am trying to make, however, is that the programme motion allows us no opportunity to bring before Treasury Ministers the case that must be made. We want to table amendments, for which I understand no time is provided. That complaint has been made by spokesmen on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches and is entirely in accordance with the motion.
Why do we want additional time under the programme motion? It is because the Government are concerned about tourism; I believe that the Prime Minister is genuine

811
about that. In my constituency, agriculture and tourism are closely interlinked. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is in the Chamber, as are other hon. Members who know Exmoor and Dartmoor. Anyone who represents a rural constituency knows about the problems for businesses at present. At this time last year, a business in my constituency had a turnover of £25,000; for the comparable period this year, the amount was £9.47.
In those circumstances, it is no good telling people that they will receive a VAT refund or that the Inland Revenue will look sympathetically at their problems. It is no good telling a chap that he can have a guaranteed loan under the small business scheme when he will have to pay 8.5 per cent. and add to his borrowings and outgoings.
My right hon. Friend the Member for it Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made proposals in as bipartisan a way as he could and gave the Prime Minister time to consider them. Unless the Treasury is prepared to put in real money and to offer interest-free loans, we can forget the rest. I would not bother about it—it is a waste of money. If other schemes are to be proposed—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House. As I said to him, this is a programme motion; he puts a case that must surely relate to the Finance Bill itself. He must talk about the programme motion.
Mr. King: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It is entirely my fault for not making my case earlier.
My case is that there must be time under the programme motion for Opposition Members and Government Members, who care deeply about the issues and who see inadequacies in the Bill, to move amendments. The motion does not provide enough time for that. I thus have to make the case for why more time is necessary—indeed, imperative. That needs an understanding of the situation. I am trying to point out clearly to Treasury Ministers that the worrying situation in the tourism industry needs more than temporary palliatives; we must have more time to move amendments to the Bill.
With your courtesy, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will let me give one fact. I was talking to Business Link advisers today. They told me that people in the tourism industry initially thought that the problem would last between four and six weeks. They considered their financial situation and thought that they could just about sweat it out. However, what has just hit them is the realisation that the problem will certainly last for six months and that, because their season is only six months, this year is a write-off.
If the Government said that that was tough and that people cannot expect the Government it to help—that we cannot expect public money to be given to individual private businesses—that would be their position, although I would not agree with it.
Mr. Paul Tyler: In support of the right hon. Gentleman's point that the programme motion is wholly inadequate, he might be interested to learn that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends met representatives of all four clearing banks today. Their view is that six months is an underestimate of the time that it is likely to take to move beyond the crisis.
Mr. King: If there is not to be a statement, we must find a way to deal with the matter in the Finance Bill.
812
There must be time during its proceedings to table amendments that address the problem. The situation is grave. We are about to go into recess and will return in two weeks. During that Easter period, people will have experienced the effects of the problem in various ways—through the banks, for example. After the recess, it may be too late to deal with the matter.
I take this opportunity to tell Treasury Ministers how grave the situation is. It will not take long to prove me right or wrong.
10.39 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to support what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has said. I suppose that I have spoken in a dozen programme motion debates, and it gives me no pleasure to have had to do so, but I am deeply opposed to programme motions in general. They are wholly offensive, and they are yet more offensive when they relate to Finance Bills.
I want to put before the House a number of objections, the first of which builds on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). The control of Supply is the beginning of the authority of the House of Commons. If we go back in the history of the House—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may sneer, but one needs to keep a grip on history. When we got a grip on Supply, we began to diminish the control that the Executive exercised over the people. When control over Supply is lost, the control that Government have over the people is enhanced. I do not want to enhance the control that any Government have over the people—far less that lot over there. Thus on a Finance Bill more than most, a timetable motion is contemptuous of the House and its history.
I come to a point—my second, not my last—made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). In all Governments, the Treasury exercises a very great control. I suspect that, with the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, this Government seek to exercise yet greater control—but they do it from the shadows. They are seldom exposed to public argument; they do things in Cabinet Committees. [Interruption.] There is no point in hon. Members making moaning noises. I speak with authority; I have attended endless Cabinet Committees, and I speak from considerable experience.
In the end, the Treasury exercises almost total control over the affairs of other Departments, so Finance Bills are a particularly important way for the House, by amendments and new clauses, to express to Treasury Ministers—even inadequate ones, as we have now—the concerns that affect our constituents and the House. When the debate on the Finance Bill is restricted so that Treasury Ministers are not exposed to arguments from the Opposition or elsewhere, the quality of government, not to mention democracy, is seriously diminished.
There was an interesting little piece from the Paymaster General. She said that we shall be very busy on the first day in Committee on the Floor of the House. However, she did not reflect on the fact that while we may be busy on her business, she does not know what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, those on the Liberal Democrat Front Benches or those on the Conservative Back Benches will table. So the truth is that we shall be

813
busy dealing with Government business, but no attention at all has been paid to the business that the rest of us will introduce. Where lies the democracy in that?
Mr. Letwin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Treasury knows one fact—because of the way in which it has designed the programme motion, it will be necessary for hon. Members, especially those in the Opposition parties, to table amendments on 33 of 108 clauses within 24 hours of the time when it was first possible to do so, and without the benefit of consulting industry, which would be the normal practice under such circumstances? Is that not absolutely astonishing?
Mr. Hogg: It is absolutely astonishing. The Bill is 292 pages long and the timetable motion provides for two days of debate on the Floor of the House, but we have not yet had an opportunity to table a single amendment or new clause. No one can tell whether we will have sufficient time to debate the clauses that have been grouped for those days. That is an absolute scandal.
You and I, Mr. Speaker, arrived in the House at the same time, so you know I have been here a long time. Let me say in deference to my hon. Friends in the Whips office—they always like to know the intentions of Back Benchers—that I propose to stay here a lot longer. The interpretation of the Finance Bill and the consequences for the taxpayer are usually a matter of considerable difficulty for the courts, but those consequences are critical. Our ability, and that of our constituents, to pay taxes, and their liability for penalties if they get things wrong, are the consequences of the business that we do on the Floor of the House and in Committee. If debates are so constrained that the Finance Bill is not properly considered, we can be sure that the law will be in error.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Bill has already been out for 10 days? I urge him to use the time available in the recess constructively to consult industry so that he can achieve the results that he wants.
Mr. Hogg: It is clear to anyone who has just heard that intervention that the hon. Gentleman, wherever he comes from, has no idea about legislation. Does he suppose for a moment that interested groups—accountants, lawyers, tax specialists, my constituents and even his constituents—have got to grips with this Finance Bill? Does he suppose that they will spend the Easter recess pondering it? That is nonsense. Only the folly of those on the Government Benches would lead to the suggestion that that would happen.
Mr. Letwin: My right hon. and learned Friend is being much too charitable to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies). I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend realises—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman does—that if people spent the recess considering those matters, it would not do the blindest bit of good, because the Standing Orders of the House mean that we cannot table amendments following the recess.
Mr. Hogg: That is right. I hope that I have not been unduly generous to the hon. Gentleman; that was not my
814
intention. He and the Labour party have been undermining democracy since 1997. I, for one, have had enough of it. This place is being treated in a scandalous, discourteous and tyrannical manner, and it is the business of the House to protest, protest and protest again.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is my right hon. and learned Friend's argument not supported by the fact that the Government know how badly they are behaving, because they have not yet dared to bring forward motion 2, under "Remaining Orders and Notices", on the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and three of my—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating the programme motion.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend may very well be right, but I suspect that, if I tried to expand on that line of argument, you, Mr. Speaker, would call me to order.
Mr. Bercow rose —
Mr. Hogg: It is always a pleasure to give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Bercow: In the context of the programme motion, what does my right hon. and learned Friend think is the relationship between the time available for debate and Treasury Ministers' comprehension of the Bill? Does he not agree that one reason why those on the Treasury Bench are reluctant to have adequate debate on the subject is that they know that allowing such an opportunity would enable the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and the British Chambers of Commerce to develop in detail their critiques of the Bill?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. I had charge of many Bills and took, I suppose, 12 or 15 of them through the House. I was not too bad at doing that and came to one clear view: no Minister can handle more than about 30 clauses, top whack I suspect that two or three junior Ministers who are not up to the job will be responsible for the Bill. They do not like lengthy scrutiny because it proves their inadequacy. That is why they want the Bill to be completed after two days on the Floor of the House and out of Committee by 24 May. They know that an extended Committee stage—no matter where it takes place—exposes them to the criticism that they are unable to withstand because they are personally incompetent.
I want to summarise my objection—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to a hearing.
Mr. Hogg: Let me take advantage of—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I gave an instruction, and I expect better from a senior Whip.
Mr. Hogg: I want to take advantage of this burble to say that I shall never be shouted down, or intimidated by, Labour Members because, in truth, I despise them. For the past four years or so, they have consistently and persistently—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are entitled to hear temperate language. I do not expect him use the word "despise". [Interruption.] Mr. Bercow, you talk too much.
Mr. Hogg: Never has my hon. Friend talked too much in my hearing. I am sorry that you do not feel the same way, Mr. Speaker. If "despise" is too strong, perhaps you will accept the term "hold in disregard". I hold Labour Members in disregard because, since 1997, they have consistently and persistently undermined democracy in this place. Some did it knowingly; the others have no business being here.
The significance of the fact that we are debating a Finance Bill is lost on Labour Members because they do not understand our history. They think that the Bill can be tucked away as if it were nothing. Well, it cannot. In addition, they are denying my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, who has served in the House for 20 or 30 years, the opportunity to raise on behalf of his constituents matters of fundamental importance, especially to the agricultural sector. They are also denying hon. Members the opportunity to ensure that legislation is put in proper order. Those are grave failings.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The charitable view of the Government's approach is that, to use their language, they are trying to modernise our procedures, but why does that always appear to result in less, rather than more scrutiny? Surely it will be possible for the incoming Conservative Government both to modernise our procedures and to increase scrutiny.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend —my constituency neighbour—is right. When Labour Members talk about modernisation, they always mean reducing scrutiny. That is characteristic of the Government When we get back into power, it will be my business, and that of my hon. Friend, to ensure that we increase scrutiny; in fact, we will do that whichever party is in power.
10.54 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: When I came here this evening I did not intend to make a contribution, but given the passion with which my right hon. and hon. Friends have made their it case, I felt minded to make my few points. Night after night, we have sat through the charade in the democratic process that is the debate on the programme motion. This one is a programme motion too far. Programming consideration of a Finance Bill is an absolute abuse of the House. My right hon. and hon. Friends were right to say that the perfunctory, nonchalant way in which the motion was moved by the Paymaster General was beneath contempt.
In my short time in the House, I have sat on two Finance Bill Committees, and at no point during those proceedings was there any filibustering by Conservative Members. If there had been, the Chairman would have ruled us out of order. My experience of those Committees
816
is that the longer they go on, the more the wheels fall off the Government's wagon; and the more details emerge from the clauses, the more lacking the Government's case is felt to be.
Why do the Government feel it necessary to guillotine consideration of this Bill? What is the urgency? After all, the Budget speech was over a month ago. The Government have had plenty of time to initiate these proceedings. This is the most important legislation in the parliamentary calendar, but we have been messing around with minor Bills in the past month, so why the hurry now? Will it not appear strange to the public that the day before the House breaks for a two-week recess, the Government are steamrollering through the House a programme motion to curtail debate on the most important legislation in the parliamentary year? It will appear very odd indeed to my constituents.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, the Bill is unique. There might just be a case, as the Government always try to make out, for saying that Bills might be frustrated in the other place and that their Lordships might seek to prolong debate beyond the time that is legitimately required. However, that case cannot be made with the Finance Bill, because their Lordships have limited powers in that respect.
Is it not also disgraceful that the Government have singularly failed to live up to some of the timetables that they have sought to impose on measures in the Finance Bill? Only last week, we heard that the introduction of stamp duty exemptions for deprived areas, which were promised at the beginning of the new financial year, which was last week, have been postponed because the Government are incapable of coming up with the details. As we warned at the time, the measures that were heralded in the pre-Budget report, and which the Chancellor proposed in the Budget, would result in people who owned houses worth £750,000 in places such as Islington getting a £40,000 windfall. Yet it has taken the Government until now to work out that there are serious problems with the measures. The Government have failed on their own timetable, but tonight they are trying to impose a timetable on consideration of the entire Bill and its passage through Parliament. Is that not yet another abuse of the whole system?
As other hon. Members have said, the foot and mouth situation is fast moving—
It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 158.

Division No. 184]

[10.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Battle, John

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Bayley, Hugh

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Bennett, Andrew F

Atherton, Ms Candy

Benton, Joe

Atkins, Charlotte

Bermingham, Gerald

Austin, John

Berry, Roger

Bailey, Adrian

Best, Harold

Banks, Tony

Betts, Clive

Barnes, Harry

Blackman, Liz

Barron, Kevin

Blears, Ms Hazel

817

Blizzard, Bob

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Foulkes, George

Borrow, David

Fyfe, Maria

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Gapes, Mike

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Bradshaw, Ben

Gerrard, Neil

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Gibson, Dr Ian

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Godman, Dr Norman A

Browne, Desmond

Godsiff, Roger

Buck, Ms Karen

Golding, Mrs Llin

Burden, Richard

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Burgon, Colin

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Hain, Peter

Cann, Jamie

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Caplin, Ivor

Healey, John

Casale, Roger

Hendrick, Mark

Caton, Martin

Hepburn, Stephen

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Heppell, John

Clapham, Michael

Hill, Keith

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hinchliffe, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hoey, Kate

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hood, Jimmy

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Clelland, David

Hope, Phil

Clwyd, Ann

Hopkins, Kelvin

Coffey, Ms Ann

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Cohen, Harry

Howells, Dr Kim

Coleman, Iain

Hoyle, Lindsay

Colman, Tony

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Connarty, Michael

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hurst, Alan

Corston, Jean

Hutton, John

Cousins, Jim

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cox, Tom

Illsley, Eric

Crausby, David

Jamieson, David

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Jenkins, Brian

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Cummings, John

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Darvill, Keith

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Joyce, Eric

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

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dean, Mrs Janet

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Denham, Rt Hon John

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Dismore, Andrew

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dobbin, Jim

Khabra, Piara S

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Kidney, David

Donohoe, Brian H

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Doran, Frank

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Dowd, Jim

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Lammy, David

Edwards, Huw

Laxton, Bob

Efford, Clive

Lepper, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Leslie, Christopher

Ennis, Jeff

Levitt, Tom

Etherington, Bill

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Linton, Martin

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Lock, David

Flint, Caroline

Love, Andrew

Flynn, Paul

McCabe, Steve

Follett, Barbara

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

818

McDonagh, Siobhain

Roy, Frank

Macdonald, Calum

Ruddock, Joan

McDonnell, John

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McFall, John

Ryan, Ms Joan

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Salter, Martin

McIsaac, Shona

Sarwar, Mohammad

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Shaw, Jonathan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sheerman, Barry

McNulty, Tony

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

MacShane, Denis

Skinner, Dennis

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McWilliam, John

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Mallaber, Judy

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Martlew, Eric

Spellar, John

Maxton, John

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Steinberg, Gerry

Meale, Alan

Stevenson, George

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Miller, Andrew

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Mitchell, Austin

Stringer, Graham

Moffatt, Laura

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morley, Elliot

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

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mountford, Kali

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Mullin, Chris

Timms, Stephen

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Tipping, Paddy

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Touhig, Don

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Trickett, Jon

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Olner, Bill

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

O'Neill, Martin

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pearson, Ian

Tynan, Bill

Perham, Ms Linda

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pickthall, Colin

Walley, Ms Joan

Pike, Peter L

Ward, Ms Claire

Plaskitt, James

Wareing, Robert N

Pollard, Kerry

Watts, David

Pond, Chris

White, Brian

Pope, Greg

Wicks, Malcolm

Pound, Stephen

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Wills, Michael

Primarolo, Dawn

Winnick, David

Prosser, Gwyn

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Quinn, Lawrie

Wood, Mike

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Woodward, Shaun

Rapson, Syd

Woolas, Phil

Raynsford, Nick

Worthington, Tony

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Mike Hall.

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Rooney, Terry

Rowlands, Ted

NOES

Allan, Richard

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Amess, David

Baker, Norman

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Baldry, Tony

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Bercow, John

819

Beresford, Sir Paul

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Blunt, Crispin

Kirkwood Archy

Body, Sir Richard

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Boswell, Tim

Leigh, Edward

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Letwin, Oliver

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Brady, Graham

Lidington David

Brand, Dr Peter

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Brazier, Julian

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Loughton, Tim

Browning, Mrs Angela

Luff, Peter

Burns, Simon

McCrea, Dr William

Butterfill, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Cash, William

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Madel, Sir David

(Chipping Barnet)

Malins, Humfrey

Maples, John

Chidgey David

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Chope, Christopher

May, Mrs Theresa

Clappison, James

Moore, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Moss, Malcolm

Oaten, Mark

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Collins, Tim

Öpik, Lembit

Cormack, Sir Patrick

page, Richard

Cotter, Brian

Paice, James

Cran, James

Pickles, Eric

Curry, Rt Hon David

Portillo, Fit Hon Michael

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Prior, David

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Rendel, David

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Robathan, Andrew

Duncan, Alan

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Evans, Nigel

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fabricant, Michael

Ruffley, David

Fallon, Michael

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Fearn, Ronnie

St Aubyrl, Nick

Flight, Howard

Sanders Adrian

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Fraser, Christopher

Shepherd, Richard

Garnier, Edward

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gibb Nick

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

Gidley, Sandra

Soames Nicholas

Gill, Christopher

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Spicer, Sir Michale

Gray, James

Spring, Richard

Green, Damian

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Greenway, John

Streeter, Gary

Grieve, Dominic

Stunell, Andrew

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Swayne Desmond

Hague, Rt Hon William

Syms, Robert

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Taylor, Ian Esher & Walton)

Hammond, Philip

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hancock, Mike

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Harvey, Nick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hawkins Nick

Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)

Hayes, John

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Heald, Oliver

Tredinnick, David

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Trend, Michael

Tyler, Paul

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Tyrie, Andrew

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Viggers, Peter

Horam, John

Walter, Robert

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Waterson Nigel

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Webb Steve

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Wells, Bowen

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Whitney Sir Raymond

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Whittingdale, John

Jenkin, Bernard

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wilkinson, John

Willetts, David

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Willis, Phil

Key, Robert

Wilshire David

820

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Owen Paterson and Mr. Stephen Day.

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Yeo, Tim

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Finance Bill:—

Committee
1.—(1) Clauses 1 to 3 and 16 to 53 and Schedules 4 to 11 shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
(2) The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
2.—(1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two allotted days.
(2) The proceedings to the taken on each of those allotted days shall be as shown in the second column, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the third column, of the following Table:—

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Clauses 16 to 22

7.00 p.m.

Clauses 23 and 24, Schedule 4,

9.00 p.m.

Clauses 25 to 27, Schedule 5,

Clause 28, Schedule 6, Clause 29,

Schedule 7, Clause 30

Clauses 31 and 32, Schedule 8,

Midnight

Clauses 33 to 35, Schedule 9,

Clauses 36 to 46, Schedule 10,

Clauses 47 to 49

Second day

Clauses 1 to 3

7.00 p.m.

Clauses 50 to 53 and Schedule 11

10.00 p.m.

(3) If either of those allotted days is Thursday, the times specified for that allotted day in the third column of the Table are brought forward by three hours.
(4) On the first of those allotted days, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall, notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) of that paragraph, apply to the proceedings on the Bill for only two hours after ten o'clock or, if that day is Thursday, for only two hours after seven o'clock.
(5) On that allotted day, any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after ten o'clock (or, if that day is Thursday, seven o'clock) by virtue of paragraph (4) or (5) of Sessional Order I (provision in the event of a debate under Standing Order No. 24) made by the House of 7th November 2000 shall be in addition to that period of two hours.
(6) Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(7) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day.
3.—(1) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
(2) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 24th May 2001.
4. When the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill shall be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.

ADOPTION AND CHILDREN BILL
Ordered,
That Mrs. Liz Blackman, Mr. Julian Brazier, Ann Coffey, Caroline Flint, Sandra Gidley, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Jonathan R. Shaw, Mrs. Caroline Spelman, Mr. Desmond Swayne and Ms Dari Taylor be members of the Select Committee on the Adoption and Children Bill.
That three be the Quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers, either to supply information which is not readily available or elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Adoption and Children Bill.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The Colchester Institute
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
11.11 pm
Mr. Bob Russell: Instigating this debate gives me no pleasure. A little under 40 years ago, I was a student at the Colchester Institute when it was called the North-East Essex technical college and school of art. I am proud to include that in my curriculum vitae, and tonight I show my pride by wearing the institute's tie. What I hope will result from the debate is a pledge that the Department for Education and Employment will investigate the management and strategy of the Colchester Institute under its quango leadership.
I am grateful to the Minister for the meeting that I had with him two weeks ago, along with a representative of the lecturers. He is thus already well informed of what the local community considers to be an unacceptable state of affairs. Regrettably, despite our meeting, the institute refuses to reconsider its position.
Between 50 and 60 jobs are threatened, involving both teaching and support staff. That represents more than 10 per cent. of the core work force. The ending of full-time A-level courses has been announced. Staff, students and the public are opposed to what is happening, but the institute has refused to engage in debate to justify its actions. It is to be hoped that wiser counsel will prevail as a result of the Government intervention that I seek, and that the institute will halt what many believe to be an assault on the provision of lifelong learning that has been offered throughout its history.
The Minister is aware that the lecturers' union, NATFHE—the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education—is in dispute with the institute and has not ruled out strike action over the redundancies and change of direction. A vote of no confidence in the senior management team has been passed. Union members are not alone in thinking that the institute's strategy is a shortsighted act of educational vandalism that will leave young adults in Colchester—indeed, mature students of all ages—with severely restricted options when they wish to return to academic courses.
Until a few years ago, the institute was an integral part of the democratically accountable education system. Its roots, and its democratic accountability to the local community, go back to 1886, when the Albert school of art and science was established in a building in the high street. It was run by a committee of Colchester borough council. Following the Education Act 1902, the forerunner of today's Colchester Institute transferred to the jurisdiction of Essex county council. It developed and progressed over the next 90 years, first on North Hill and then on its present site in Sheepen road. Without such parentage and continued management within the democratic accountability of local government, what we now know as the Colchester Institute would never have been conceived or developed. It is a story of progress made by a first-class education establishment responding to the wishes and aspirations of the local community. In contrast, in today's quango Britain the community's views are ignored.
The institute has 10,000 full-time and part-time students, as well as a further 3,000 on short courses over the year attending its professional training centre.

823
It provides an extensive range of courses, and in some subjects its excellence is recognised nationally, if not internationally—in music, art and catering, to name but three.
However, all is not well; all is not what it should be. If it were, tonight's debate would not be needed. The root cause lies with the previous Government's decision to remove education establishments such as the Colchester Institute from the democratic framework of local education authorities and hand them over to quangos.
The quango in charge of the Colchester Institute runs a public facility with funds provided by the public purse, but it is neither accountable nor answerable to the community that it serves. Concerned members of the community are up in arms about what is happening, but those who run the institute are operating a closed-door policy, refusing to enter into a dialogue or debate with the community.
Indeed, when lecturers decided to hold a public meeting, the institute refused to allow it to be held on the campus. Instead, it took place at the town hall. I chaired the meeting, and there were noticeable absentees at the packed gathering. The institute declined to be represented and did not even have observers. It was thus very much a one-way discussion with those present—staff, students and the public—who were unanimous in their demand that jobs should not be lost, and likewise that A-level full-time courses should not be axed.
I shall quote from two of the many letters that I have received on this matter. The first is from the mother of a student, the second from a retired lecturer. Both have given me permission to mention their names. The mother, Mrs. G. E. Phipps, told me:
"As the parent of an A-level student at Colchester Institute I feel compelled to express my concerns over the discontinuation of A-level courses. In my daughter's case she left school and went to the Sixth Form College. After two terms she decided it wasn't for her and left to take up full-time employment. She soon discovered the job she had held no prospects and the only way to find a decent career was to return to college and become better qualified.
Thanks to the Institute she had a second chance. Unfortunately this will no longer be the case. From September, for 16-year-olds who either choose not to attend or do not qualify for any of the town's sixth forms there will be no opportunity to study for A-levels in Colchester.
Another point that concerns me is the tuition of the current A-level students like my daughter and the first years who will still have the major part of their courses to complete. Although the Institute has assured us that the present students will be catered for, it is unrealistic to think this will be the case. With the A-level lecturers having no option but to take 'voluntary' redundancy in June, morale amongst staff is extremely low and the quality of teaching is bound to be affected. To add to that, the question of who will be teaching next year's second years remains."
Those are not my words but those of a mother who speaks for many. Perhaps the Minister may care to respond in particular to the concluding paragraph of Mrs. Phipps's letter. She writes:
"At a time when the Government puts so much stress on the importance of education, how can such a retrograde step be taken? With an average of about 200 applicants for A-level courses at Colchester Institute each year, how can it be allowed to so badly let the young people of Colchester down?
I do hope together we can provide a loud enough voice to reverse this decision."
I shall quote from the letter of retired lecturer Mr. Guy Scott. He worked at the institute for 25 years and was
824
head of the school of automobile engineering when he retired in 1990. Observing that he is
"very concerned at the manner in which things are being handled at the Institute",
Mr. Scott states:
"I believe the rot set in about ten years ago when the Institute was taken out of Essex County Council control and became a Corporate Body, not answerable to the local community which it was set up to serve."
He added:
"Since that time the emphasis of the Institute has swung from course provision to income acquisition."
I shall let the Minister have a copy of Mr. Scott's letter, because in some detail he sets out the demise of the school which he helped build into one of the best in the country.
So that Mr. Scott's comments are put firmly on the record, let me quote the following paragraphs:
"For all too many years morale amongst Institute staff has been worryingly low. Conditions of service have been changed and staff have been squeezed and pressurised into giving more and more, for no extra return, until the 'juice has all but gone from the lemon'. As a result they now volunteer for less and less.
Enthusiasm and drive, all so important in an establishment like the Institute, has gone; and the Institute Management including the Corporate Board must be held accountable."
He concludes:
"It cannot be right that the Corporate Board is not accountable to the community the Institute was set up to serve."
The Minister may be aware that Mrs. Phipps wrote to the Secretary of State to express concern at what is happening at the Colchester Institute. She received a reply dated 4 April from the school and college qualifications division, which provided her with the soothing words:
"The Government is committed to encouraging young people to lifelong learning."
If true, it would be very encouraging, but it is somewhat meaningless in the real world, for the letter goes on to add:
"However, education at post-16 is non-compulsory and educational establishments are not obliged to run courses that they do not wish to. Decisions about the courses that a school or college may offer are made entirely by the institution, depending on the resources that are available, and the demand for specific courses."
Should I therefore assume that the Colchester Institute is being deprived of the funds that it needs to maintain its A-level courses? If so, who is to blame: the institute, the Learning and Skills Council, or the Government?
Indeed, is the Colchester Institute acting at the behest of Government directives, either direct or indirect? In a pointless exercise, the letter from the Department for Education and Employment's school and college qualifications division advises Mrs. Phipps to write to the principal of the Colchester Institute about her anxieties. It states:
"If you are not satisfied with the response, you could then take it up with the Learning and Skills Council."
I do not believe that she will waste her time on that advice.
At first glance, the position at the Colchester Institute may appear to be a local issue, but I believe that it has national implications. Not only the Colchester Institute, but every further and higher education establishment in the United Kingdom is run by a quango.

825
The quango culture pervades so much of our public life nowadays. The democratic framework of elected accountability no longer exists in education, health services and the police. All who value democratic principles should be alarmed about that aspect of life in the first part of the 21st century. We should legislate to make our public bodies democratically accountable. I therefore maintain that we should not regard what is happening at the Colchester Institute as a local issue. It has much wider implications in our quango-run society.
Not only is the Colchester Institute run by a quango, but the body that oversees its operations—the quaintly named Learning and Skills Council—is also a quango. That organisation appears to have less influence over the Colchester Institute than the Strategic Rail Authority has over our railways.
I have no problem with the Colchester Institute wanting to run on business-like principles. Efficiency and enterprise are important. However, I object to the fact that the comprehensive provision of education opportunities appears to be of secondary importance to operating the institute as if it were a business, like a supermarket, with areas of profitability being encouraged and those perceived to be less profitable either closed down or sidelined. Education should not be run on the philosophy of "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap". To adapt a well-known phrase, lifelong learning should be all about, "mind the quality, and feel the width".
If "lifelong learning" and "education for all" are more than soundbites, educational opportunities at a large community college such as the Colchester Institute must not be axed. The institute must continue to provide the breadth and depth of academic courses alongside all the vocational and specialist courses whose excellence is rightly acknowledged.
To say that the community of Colchester and north Essex, and even further afield, is shocked is an understatement. We are shocked by not only the decisions, but the institute's refusal to engage in dialogue with the community. The local media have become exasperated at the institute's total refusal to discuss the position with them. I have been fortunate enough to have a meeting with the principal, but I remain of the view, as do staff and students, that the institute's strategy of job losses and ending full-time A-level courses is not the right one.
As I said earlier, such is the unhappiness that staff have passed a vote of no confidence in the senior management team. That does not bode well for the future of the Colchester institute, hence my hope that the Government will investigate what is going on.
Further confusion seems to have arisen with the announcement that the principal, Mrs. Helen Parr, will leave at the end of this academic year to take up an appointment at another education establishment elsewhere in the home counties. Having been involved in drawing up the strategy of job losses and ending full-time A-level courses in Colchester, the principal will not be in place when they are implemented, if the current so-called consultation is nothing more than the cosmetic exercise that many of us fear.
826
The Colchester Institute sees its skipper jumping ship while the vessel remains all at sea, with the crew and passengers wondering about the direction in which it is sailing and unsure of the ultimate destination.
However, the principal's departure provides an opportunity for a face-saving solution for the governors. They should consider the current intentions afresh. I invite the Minister this evening to say that he will urge those responsible for the Colchester Institute—most importantly, its governing body but also the Learning and Skills Council—to take stock of the comments of the local community, staff and students before a final, irreversible decision is taken.
The regional office of NATFHE has provided me with copies of correspondence between it and the institute management. Time does not permit me to quote at length from that, but suffice it to say it shows that relationships are not good. They are perhaps best summed up in a letter of 9 March from regional officer Elizabeth Martins to the chair of the corporation, Mr. Ken Leeson. It states:
"It is NATFHE's view that meaningful consultation is not taking place and the College's policies/procedures are not being followed prior to consultation. Furthermore, there appears to be an inconsistent, inequitable and lack of transparent approach in relation to the introduction and implementation of the restructuring proposals resulting in an unfair selection of individuals for redundancy."
The letter further states that the joint trade unions proposal for using the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service was rejected by the institute's senior management team.
The overall picture of education provision in Colchester is excellent. It is one of the reasons why the town is so attractive not only to the local population, but to people who wish to move there. With the range of pre-school establishments and nurseries, infant, primary and junior schools, first-class comprehensives—none of them, by the way, remotely fitting the offensive description of being bog standard—a couple of grammar schools, arguably the best sixth form college in the country, the adult community college centred on Grey Friars, and the internationally famous university of Essex, the Colchester Institute completes an educational jigsaw picture that is, I believe, without equal.
What is being proposed is the removal of some pieces of the institute jigsaw. As such, the total picture of educational provision in Colchester will be diminished. It is not something that the community wants. Staff, students and the public are opposed to the Colchester Institute proposal. I invite the Minister to refute the claim by the institute's principal— who also describes herself as chief executive—in a letter issued to all staff just four days ago that what is happening at the Colchester Institute
"is in line with Government guidance."
It cannot be right that quangos can behave in the way that we are witnessing at the Colchester Institute. We are looking to the Minister tonight to put in motion the necessary steps to save the jobs and to retain full-time A-level courses. I invite him to use all the powers at his disposal to prevent the quango regime at the Colchester Institute from proceeding with its plans.
11.26 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on obtaining the debate and am grateful for his permission to take part in it. I shall be extremely brief, noting how economical he has been with his time.

827
Many constituents of mine attend the institute, and many teach there. They have expressed concern to me about the present situation. It is about not just the availability of courses—we understand that A-levels are not the mainstream of the institute's work—but the way in which cutting A-level courses will affect the viability of exceptional departments such as music and, indeed, the institution's overall ethos. The institution provides vocational education in a context that also provides A-level and degree courses. That is important for everyone who attends it.
I would like the House to be aware that, on Friday, I had a private meeting with Mrs. Helen Parr, the principal of the institute. She was able to assure me that no current students attending existing courses would be affected by the changes that she proposes. She was also at pains to stress that she ran an open-door management policy and that any member of staff was welcome to see her. I asked whether I could attend such a meeting. She agreed that, provided that it was about general issues rather than particular employment issues pertaining to those members of staff, I could attend such a meeting. I hope to be able to do so and invite the hon. Gentleman to attend too, if he can.
The hon. Gentleman touched on a particular point. He asked whether it was Government policy to deprive the institute of the funds necessary to provide the courses that it currently provides. The principal described the bible of the institute as being the document entitled, "Colleges of excellence and innovation", which was accompanied by the remit letter from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to the Learning and Skills Council. That advice has been reflected by a consultant paid for by the Further Education Funding Council, which has constructed the strategy for the institute and for A-level provision in north Essex. I ask the Minister to take responsibility for what is happening at the institute and to say as constructively as he can how things could be taken forward in a less confrontational way, with more consensus than is currently being achieved.
11.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): I listened with interest to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and congratulate him on securing this debate on behalf of his constituents. I listened also to the brief speech by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who made some not dissimilar points.
I know that the hon. Member for Colchester is as passionately committed to maintaining and improving the provision of education and training in his constituency as he is to his beloved Colchester United. As someone who is not intimately involved with either institution, I wish them both well in coming seasons. I shall do my best to respond to his concerns. As he noted, we had a useful meeting in the Department on this very matter.
Further education colleges are independent corporations, and the governing body of Colchester Institute is responsible for management of the institute. It is that body that is responsible for the effective it management of its resources to safeguard the solvency of the college and its assets.
I noted the intervention of the hon. Member for North Essex, who urged the Government to intervene directly in the intimate affairs of that institution, but it was of course
828
the previous Government who established FE colleges as independent corporations. Although it is too late in the night to ask him whether that request for intervention represents another U-turn, he is asking me to intervene in an arrangement made by a Government so that Governments could not intervene in the business of FE corporations. I think that he is shaking his head, but I should be happy on another occasion to debate his inconsistencies with him.
The governing body and the principal are required to secure the efficient and effective management of all the college's resources and expenditure, capital assets, equipment and staff, so that the investment of public funds in the college is not put at risk. They are also required to plan and conduct their academic and financial affairs so that their total income, taking one year with another, meets their total expenditure. Those arrangements are subject to annual audit and a quadrennial inspection programme.
The institute was most recently inspected in March 1998, and it received good and satisfactory grades in its curriculum and cross-college provision. In February 2001, the Further Education Funding Council's regional office reviewed the college, with other colleges in the region, and was satisfied with the management of the college. Meanwhile, its latest external audit, undertaken by a reputable local firm, produced a satisfactory report. The institute is in financial health category A, which means that it has the financial strength to implement its strategic plans.
I should add, not least for the hon. Member for North Essex, that this Government are investing record resources in further education and our record compares well with that of the 18 years of the previous Government. I should add also that, in July 2001, the institute's principal, who is well regarded by local partners, is to leave the institute to take over a larger college.
The institute has decided that, with the introduction of the new Learning and Skills Council, and the more collaborative approach of education and training providers, it should concentrate on the provision of vocational programmes, for which it already has an excellent reputation. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) has brought to my attention some recent developments at the Clacton campus of Colchester Institute. He has been advised by the principal of the institute of additional new provision at Clacton that has been developed better to meet the vocational needs of local people. I am sure that the hon. Members for Colchester and for North Essex, who are from that region, will welcome that. The developments include the provision of call centre training, adult-friendly outreach information technology training and a variety of new vocational provision.
All that is consistent with the centres of excellence model that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced last November in his speech to the Association of Colleges. Our target is that half of all general further education colleges should have a vocational specialism in which they are regarded as a centre of excellence by 2004–05. The institute has kept the Further Education Funding Council fully informed of its plans, which build on a rationalisation study supported by the council's rationalisation fund.

829
As for the future, the recent introduction of the Learning and Skills Council—launched only last week, with a budget of £6 billion and about 6 million learners—ensures that that new non-departmental public body will assume responsibility for post-16 education.
I note that the hon. Member for Colchester was severely critical of the Learning and Skills Council. It has been operational for one week. No doubt his criticism is justified, but he is not its first critic, and I am sure that he will not be its last. Some were criticising it some months before it came into being. The council will include further education colleges in its ambit. They account for more than £3 billion of the total budget and have more than 3.5 million learners.
The Learning and Skills Council will be responsible for local learning strategic planning. A particular challenge for the new councils, as they take over responsibility for co-ordinating school, college and other 16-to-19 provision, will be to deliver the right combination of quality, flexibility and choice. They are charged with delivering education and training that meet local learners' and employers' needs.
That is why I have ensured that Alison Webster, the executive director of the local Essex learning and skills council—one of the 47 local learning and skills councils—has been kept fully informed of the developments at the institute. I have already drawn her attention to the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman about how the consultation exercise was undertaken. I know that she will want to ensure that all providers of post-16 education and training are accountable and responsive to the needs of students as well as of the wider community, including industry and commerce.
I understand of course the concerns of the people directly affected by possible job losses—the individual lecturers and support staff involved—but we also have to
830
consider the prospects of current and potential learners in Colchester. Their interests are best served by colleges and providers of learning that are demonstrably good at what they do and well managed.
I know that the institute has given a categorical assurance that existing full-time A-level students will be able to complete their courses of study at the institute. I have had assurances that there will be alternative, equally good provision of full-time A-level courses at Colchester sixth form college and at other local schools with sixth forms, and I am assured that they will respond positively and helpfully to the needs of all learners, including those who may not have at achieved very high grades at GCSE.
Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will recall that I gave him those assurances when I met him at the Department less than two weeks ago, and I shall write to him soon with the additional assurances that I have received from Alison Webster. I am equally certain that the institute will make every effort to try to help the individual members of staff who may be affected by the changes.
I am satisfied that the governing body has exercised its proper function. Its decisions are based on business and education considerations. Existing A-level students at the institute have been assured that they will be able to complete their courses of study, and there will be a choice of other local providers of full-time A-level courses for prospective students from September 2001.
The Learning and skills Council is in the lead in terms of post-16 arrangements designed to ensure that patterns of provision best meet local needs, drive up standards and encourage greater collaboration. Further education colleges have a vital role to play in delivering the high-quality education and training that people need to enable them to make the most of themselves and of the opportunities that are available to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve midnight.

DEFENCE

  Logistic Information Systems Agency
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future status of the Logistic Information Systems Agency [157803]

  Mr. Spellar
  As part of the restructuring of the Defence Logistics Organisation, the Logistic Information Systems Agency will cease to be a Defence Agency with effect from 1 April 2001. Its functions will then become part of the unified Logistic Applications Integrated Project Team (IPT) within the Defence Communication Services Agency. The removal of Agency status will avoid potential complications in the management arrangements for the new IPT. This is largely an administrative measure and will not, in itself, result in any geographical relocation or redundancies for staff.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will order a public inquiry into the programme of human experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down.[157299]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. A public inquiry could not answer the central question of whether volunteers had suffered unusual mortality or illness. Only an epidemiological study can do that. Advice from the Medical Research Council has been sought for the feasibility of such a study. Furthermore, Wiltshire Police are conducting an investigation into aspects of this programme. We already make available to the volunteers any information we possess which is relevant to their individual cases. We also plan to conduct further work as outlined in my answers to the hon. Member on 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 655W, 5 March 2001, Official Report, column 20W and on 26 March 2001, Official Report, column 525W.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has received a report from the Operation Antler team of the Wiltshire Police regarding its inquiries into allegations that the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment had experimented on NHS patients during the 1960s; and if he will make a statement.[157306]

  Dr. Moonie
  Allegations dating from 1970 that the Chemical Defence Establishment conducted experiments during the 1960s on old and sick NHS patients who were subsequently put to death were thoroughly investigated at the time. The then Minister for Defence Equipment and the Prime Minister both refuted these allegations on 30 January and on 19 February 1970 respectively. Following inquiries by the Wiltshire police in January 2001, the Operation Antler inquiry advised 364W
  my Department's officials that these allegations were in one case fabricated, and in another case did not involve Ministry of Defence staff.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former service volunteers have visited the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down to inspect records of their experiments and discuss their tests with member of staff since 1 January 1998.[157300]

  Dr. Moonie
  All former service volunteers who inquire about their participation in studies at the Chemical Defence Establishment are invited to visit Porton Down to view the original record books and discuss their experiences with current members of Porton Down staff.

  In the period 1 January 1998 to 6 April 2001, 25 former service volunteers have visited to inspect the records of the studies they were involved in.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times since 1 March 1998 the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down has supplied information about former volunteers to the War Pensions Agency in response to a claim by such.[157329]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1 March 1998, the staff at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down have supplied information in response to 29 requests from the War Pensions Agency.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 300W, regarding Porton Down, if he will request the Medical Research Council to consult the Operation Antler team of Wiltshire police regarding its advice on an independent epidemiological study for service personnel who took part in experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down.[157342]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. The Medical Research Council are aware of the Wiltshire police investigation and should they wish to consult the Operation Antler team, they will do so.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals have contacted the Porton Down Volunteers Helpline since February 1998.[157345]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since February 1998, the Porton Down helpline has received 626 inquiries in the form of telephone calls and letters.

  Procurement
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the(a) original in-service date, (b) current in-service date, (c) estimated or actual cost, (d) years of peak expenditure and (e) prime contractor for (i) BOWMAN, (ii) Ptarmigan, (iii) Euromux, (iv) Cyprus Fixed Telecommunications System, (v) Fixed Telecommunications System (Germany), (vi) Falkland Islands Trunk System, (vii) BRINTON, (viii) Brunhilde, (ix) Telephone Exchanges Worldwide, (x) Cyprus Fixed Telephone System, (xi) Deployable Local Area Network, (xii), ADLBS MLU & IADS Interface, (xiii) UKADGE ICCS, (xiv) UKADGE CMP, (xv) P-JFACHQ Deployable Air C2, (xvi) P-JFACHQ Receive Only Link 11 System, (xvii) P-JFACHQ Deployable Air C2 Incremental Assessment Demonstration and

  365W
  Manufacture, (xviii) P-JFACHQ Deployable Shelter System, (xix) P-JFACHQ Quick Win 1, (xx) P-JFACHQ Increment, (xxi) Initiative Local Data Communications Network (LDCN), (xxii) Hourglass, (xxiii) Lambeth, (xxiv) PABX Transportable JAPNMS Facility, (xxv) Tactical Air Control Centre, (xxvi) Ship-Shore-Ship Buffer Tranche 2, (xxvii) Ship-Shore-Ship Buffer Tranche, (xxviii) HF Broadcast Modernisation, (xxix) ITACC LFS, (xxx) RN HF Ship-Shore-Ship Modernisation and NATO Interoperability Programme, (xxxi) Falcon, (xxxii) Saturn, (xxxiii) Cormorant, (xxxiv) Successor Interrogator Friend or Foe, (xxxv) VHF ICAO, and (xxxvi) Defence HF System;[157519]

  (2) if he will list the (a) original in-service date, (b) current in-service date, (c) estimated or actual cost, (d) years of peak expenditure and (e) prime contractor for the (i) Sonar 2087, (ii) PAAMS-Principal Anti-Air Missile System, (iii) Sonar 2193, (iv) Improved Ammunition,
  (v) Sea Dart IR Fuze, (vi) Seawolf MLU, (vii) T967M Interference Mod, (viii) Seawolf CA/CD, (ix) T911 Interference Mod, (x) Seawolf VL CACD Read ACross; Radar T996, (xi) Radar T996 AVIMP, (xii) LFE; LFB, (xiii) LFC, (xiv) Seawolf Enhanced Low Level Fuze, known as the Seawolf Mk 4 Fuze, (xv) Remote Influence Minesweeping System, (xvi) DLH; Seawolf Telemetry Kits, (xvii) Seawolf PADT, (xviii) Gun System Automatic 8 & General purpose Electro Optical Director, (xix) T23 Frigate Command System, (xx) Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, (xxi) Seawolf Block 2, (xxii) Harpoon, (xxiii) Harpoon Mod and (xxiv) SWELL Mk 4 Fuze;[157494]

  (3) if he will list the (a) original in-service date, (b) current in-service date, (c) estimated or actual cost, (d) years of peak expenditure and (e) prime contractor for the (i) Eurofighter, (ii) Merlin HC Mk 3, (iii) Hercules Rolling Replacement Tranche 1-C-130J, (iv) Future Carrier Borne Aircraft, (v) Future Offensive Air System, (vi) Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft, (vii) Future Organic Airborne Early Warning system, (viii) Support Amphibious battlefield Rotorcraft, (ix) Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance and Attack Aircraft Mk 4, (x) Merline HM Mk 1, (xi) Attack Helicopter Crew and Special-To-Arm Collective Training, (xii) Watchman Middle Wallop, (xiii) Watchman Wattisham, (xiv) Attack Helicoper and (xv) Sea King Airborne Early Warning Mission System Upgrade (MSU)-Sea King AEW Mk 7; [157490]

  (4) if he will list the (a) original in-service date, (b) current in-service date, (c) estimated or actual cost,(d) years of peak expenditure and (e) prime contractor for (i) Guided Multiple Launched Rocket System, (ii) Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon, (iii) Area Defence Weapon, (iv) Light Forces Anti-Tank Guided Weapon, (v) SA80 Modifications, (vi) Aimed Controlled Effect Anti-Tank Munition, (vii) AS90 Training System, (viii) Battlegroup Thermal Imaging, (ix) Future Ground Based Air Defence, (x) Air Defence Command Information System, (xi) CHARM 3 Training Round, (xii) Integrated Ground Based Air Defence, (xiii) Extended Range Ordnance Modular Charge System, (xiv) High Velocity Missile System, (xv) MLRS Future Fire Control System, (xvi) Indirect Fire Precision Attack, (xvii) Tubed Artillery Conventional Ammunition System, (xviii) Advanced Sound Ranging Programme, (xix) Light Mobile Artillery Weapon System, (xx) Man-Portable Surveillance Target Acquisition Radar, (xxi) Mid-Life Improvement,
  366W
  (xxii) Joint Fire Support Battlefield Information System Application, (xxiii) Counter Battery Radar, (xxiv) Automatic Pointing System, (xxv) Mobile Artillery Monitoring Battlefield Radar, (xxvi) Fire Control Battlefield Information System Application, (xxvii) Future Integrated Training System, (xxviii) Field Electrical Power Supplies, (xxix) 4.5kW Genset, (xxx) Lighting Towers, (xxxi) Temporary Field Accommodation, (xxxii) Pumpsets Dewatering, (xxxiii) Filter Water Separator 2000 Litres Per Min, (xxxiv) Refrigerated ISO Container and (xxxv) Field Bulk Refuelling Equipment 680 Litres Per Min;[157586]

  (5) if he will list the (a) original in-service date, (b) current in-service date, (c) estimated or actual cost, (d) years of peak expenditure and (e) prime contractor for the (i) Crusader 21, (ii) Mk 5 EOD Suit, (iii) Re Mine Suit/Suit Combat EOD, (iv) CS 95 LT WT trousers, (v) CS 95 field jacket, (vi) CS 95 underwear, (vii) CS 95 glove,
  (viii) RN improved action working dress and (ix) RN improved foul weather clothing; [157492]

  (6) if he will list the (a) original in-service date, (b) current in-service date, (c) estimated or actual cost, (d) years of peak expenditure and (e) prime contractor for the (i) Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile, (ii) Microwave Landing System, (iii) RAIDS, (iv) Bomb Enhancement Kits Precision Guided Bomb, (v) TIALD, (vi) Beyond Visual Range Air-To-Air Missile, (vii) Saturn Lynx Mk 8, (viii) Additional Towed Radar Decoys for Tornado F3, (ix) Active Search Sonobuoy System, (x) Ship Helicopter Operating Limits Instrumentation System, (xi) Airborne Stand-Off Radar (ASTOR), (xii) SMGS, (xiii) Conventionally Armed Stand-Off Missile, (xiv) Aircrew Synthetic Training Aids and (xv) Directional Infra-Red Countermeasures;[157491]

  (7) if he will list the (a) original in-service date, (b) current in-service date, (c) estimated or actual cost, (d) years of peak expenditure and (e) prime contractor for the (i) Joint Tactical Information Distribution System for Sea Harrier FA2 and Sea King AEW Mk 7, (ii) RN Joint Tactical Information Distribution System, (iii) Satellite Tactical Data Link NATO Improve Link Eleven and (iv) Modular Field Catering System; [157493]

  (8) if he will list the (a) original in-service date, (b) current in-service date, (c) estimated or actual cost, (d) years of peak expenditure and (e) prime contractor for the (i) Roll-On Roll-Off Strategic Sealift, (ii) Future Attack Submarine, (iii) Future Surface Combatant, (iv) Type 45 Anti-Air Warfare Destroyer, (v) Alternative Landing Ships Logistic, (vi) Primary Casualty Receiving Ship, (vii) Future Naval Nuclear Fuel, (viii) Type 23 Frigates, (ix) Hydrographic and Oceanographic Survey Vessels and (x) T23 Helicopter Deck Handling Equipment (PRISM).[157495]

  Dr. Moonie
  The majority of the information requested is not held centrally and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I have already undertaken to provide the hon. Member with information on a number of the projects listed.

  Qinetiq
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries were made about the ownership of the name Qinetiq before its acquisition by DERA; and with what results. [157556]
  367W
  Dr. Moonie
  The naming process resulted in approximately seven candidate options, all of which were subjected to a series of high-level searches. For each candidate option, its Uniform Resource Locator (URL) availability was established and existing registrations of similar company name, trademarks and URLs investigated. A cultural name check was also undertaken. The results ruled out several options mainly on the basis of URL availability.

  The chosen name underwent a full and thorough examination by NewDERA's lawyers, Herbert Smith.

  The services they undertook included:
  Full URL name check
  Trademark search and registration in all relevant classes and countries including a third party rights research.
  Company name search.

  Trademark registrations have been filed in the UK, US, EU and a number of other countries During this period objections can be raised and the process is ongoing, expected to take several months. No notice of opposition has been received to date.

  Hawk Jets (Exports)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what support his Department has given to British Aerospace with regard to that company's contract to supply Hawk jets to India; [156871]

  (2) what Ministers from his Department have been involved in discussions with (a) BAE and (b) the Indian Government regarding the contract to supply Hawk jets to India. [156872]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: In accordance with the Ministry of Defiance's responsibility for promoting legitimate defence exports in co-ordination with industry, MOD has given full support to BAE Systems' bid to supply Hawk jets to India.

  In fulfilling this responsibility, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for Defence Procurement have met with BAE Systems and the Indian Government to discuss the Hawk proposal.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the number of occasions(a) UK, (b) US, (c) Soviet and (d) other NATO aircrews in jet aircraft used cannon armament in his assessing the need for a Eurofighter cannon. [156973]

  Mr. Hoon
  The historical pattern of operations, together with the improved short-range capability of the missiles with which Eurofighter will be armed, were taken into account in our assessment that the minimal value of a cannon on Eurofighter is more than outweighed by its considerable associated costs and disadvantages.

  The last occasion on which the UK used a cannon in air-to-air combat resulted in one successful hit during the Falklands conflict. Figures for other countries are not known, but historical success rates for fighter gun attacks
  368W
  suggest a 5 per cent. combat probability of kill for the Allies late in World War II, and perhaps 10 per cent. in the Korean War. While the probability of success with guns has advanced little over the years, the performance of air-to-air missiles is now far in excess of these statistics. Similarly, the modem precision-guided munitions with which Eurofighter will be armed make firing a cannon in Eurofighter's offensive support role difficult to justify, owing to the risk of collateral damage and the increased vulnerability of the aircraft.

  US Military Personnel (Compensation)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 300W, if he will request his Department's Liaison Officer in Washington to gather information on US arrangements for paying compensation to veterans who participated in chemical warfare trials in the US. [157305]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes, if there is a need to do so.

  Canadian Military Personnel (Compensation)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will send a team of his staff to Canada to evaluate the system under which the Canadian Government provides compensation to former military personnel who have developed illnesses as a result of taking part in chemical warfare experiments. [157307]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have no plans to do so.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent to date in support of former soldiers in connection with the Saville Inquiry; of that sum how much was attributable to lawyers' fees; and how much has been budgeted for 2001–02. [157559]

  Mr. Hoon
  The total cost to date to the Ministry of Defence of supporting former and serving soldiers in connection with the Saville Inquiry is £9,600,428. Of this, £8,845,503 was attributable to payment to the legal teams, covering both fees and other related costs which have not been recorded separately.

  The amount budgeted by the Ministry of Defence for payments to legal teams for 2001–2 comes to approximately £3.5 million.

  Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to date has been of the bid by DERA Boscombe Down for the main operating base for the future strategic tanker aircraft. [157454]

  Dr. Moonie
  The costs to date of the DERA Boscombe Down element of the bid for the main operating base for the future strategic tanker aircraft project are in the region of £240,000.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Regeneration Funds
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many projects submitted to the Merseyside objective 1 programme have been approved; what is the total value of those projects; how many projected jobs are related to them; and if he will make a statement. [156233]

  Ms Armstrong
  Priority Panels have approved 66 such projects, of which offer letters have been issued to 31 applicants and accepted by 22 of them. The total eligible value of these projects is £152 million and European Regional Development Fund grants of £59.75 million have been made towards these costs. The projects are expected to create 5,073 and safeguard 6,901 jobs.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much funding has been made available to Liverpool for regeneration purposes since 1997. [156235]

  Ms Armstrong
  Since 1997 £356.97 million has been made available to Liverpool for regeneration purposes. The table gives a breakdown of this figure.

  Source of funding

  Amount (£ million)

  Single Regeneration Budget

  80.87

  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund

  54

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  145.2

  New Deal for Communities

  61.9

  Partnership Investment Programme

  113

  Land Reclamation Programme

  2

  Total

  356.97

  1The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund figure is the total indicative allocation for Liverpool for 2001–04

  In addition, the Merseyside objective 1 programme 1994–99 has made available approximately £338 million for the regeneration of Merseyside since 1997. Unfortunately, it is not practicable to break down this figure by district. A further £844 million of European grants will be made available for the Merseyside sub-region for the 2000–06 programming period.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 2000,Official Report, column 312W, how many of the Merseyside objective 1 projects referred to the State Aids Policy Unit at the Department of Trade and Industry have been assessed by the unit; when the Government Office North West was informed about those decisions; which projects have been cleared; what their total value is; how many projected jobs relate to them; and if he will make a statement. [156371]

  Ms Armstrong
  The State Aids Policy Unit of the Department of Trade and Industry provided advice on 26 cases; Government Office for the North West was notified of the decisions between 22 January and 27 March 2001; 13 projects were cleared to proceed by the State Aids Unit. Of these only 10 projects will proceed through the appraisal process, with a total value of £16,806,303; they are expected to create 100 jobs.370W
  Projects cleared by State Aids Policy Unit

  Empire Reconstruction Phase 3

  Crawford House

  Mersey Forest Phase 3

  King George Bootle Credit Union Action Plan

  Kirby Lets and Credit Union Development Programme

  Northwood Star Community transport

  Dingle Community Learning Programme Building

  Stanley Dock Action Plan

  Beatles Themed Hard Days Night Hotel

  Oakmere Conference and Multi-Media Centre

  Scotland Road Gateway

  National Wildflower Centre

  Training Workshop Facilities.

  "Tiredness Can Kill"
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what role concessionaires at motorway service areas have in respect of the siting of "Tiredness Kills" notices. [156834]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency has occasionally provided "Tiredness Can Kill" signs at locations, like the main holiday routes, where motorists are especially likely to drive for long periods without a rest. Motorway service area (MSA) operators were not involved in these decisions.

  More recently, MSA operators have approached the Agency about providing these signs at their own expense. The Agency will normally agree unless there are site-Specific reasons for refusing. There are no formal rules, but we have sought to ensure that, where provided, these signs are placed no more than a mile or two ahead of an MSA where drivers can stop safely.

  Child Road Deaths
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many child road deaths were caused by defective child car seats in each of the last three years. [157096]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: Statistics on road accident fatalities in which defective child car seats were a contributory factor are not available.

  Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to strengthen enforcement action in relation to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. [157159]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In June I announced amendments we proposed to make to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. One of the proposals is an amendment to section 225 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to allow local authorities to act at their own discretion to remove posters where they consider them to be illegal. This would bring the legislation into line with current practice and protect the rights of property owners
  371W
  and those advertising legally. The amendment will be made when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Departmental Policies (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Amber Valley constituency, the effects on Amber Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157129]

  £million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  12001–02

  Amber Valley Borough Council

  Revenue Support Grant

  2.352

  2.271

  2.169

  1.993

  2.464

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  3.647

  3.696

  3.993

  4.441

  4.437

  Housing Investment Programme

  1.293

  1.355

  1.419

  3.476

  4.7932

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  —

  0.820

  0.858

  —

  —

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy (Management and

  £689.50 per

  £715.81 per

  £741.62 per

  £770.91 per

  £768.67 per

  Maintenance Allowance)

  property

  property

  property

  property

  property

  SRB funding3

  0.117

  0.449

  0.619

  0.564

  0.264

  Derbyshire County Council4

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  1.008

  1.060

  1.132

  —

  —

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  1.008

  1.060

  1.132

  —

  —

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  0.970

  0.891

  2.371

  5.939

  18.008

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant (from 1999–2001)

  —

  —

  0.800

  0.155

  0.600

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (from 1998–99)

  —

  0.714

  0.714

  0.714

  0.912

  1Where known.

  2Includes Major Repairs Allowance.

  3SRB scheme aims to improve industrial estates and enhance the environmental performance of the businesses, whilst tackling low levels of literacy and numeracy through training based projects.

  4Figures for Derbyshire County Council exclude funds allocated for the Derby Local Transport Plan area.

  Access Forums
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he will publish regulations on the establishment of access forums; [157155]

  (2) if regulations to be made under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 will require local authorities to advertise locally and notify relevant groups which already exist before access forums are established; and if he will make a statement.[157156]

  Mr. Meacher
  We expect to cons it on the proposed requirements for local access forums in England during the summer. Our proposals will include provision for the appointment of forum members and consultation by authorities with relevant interests prior to making appointments. We expect to lay regulations before Parliament before the end of the year.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and d e Regions if he will list those local authorities that have established an access forum; if, in each case, the proposed establishment of the body was(a) advertised locally and (b) notified to rights of way groups; and if he will make a statement. [157154]

  Mr. Meacher
  No local access forums can be established under Part V of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 until regulations have, been made by the Secretary of State under section 94 of the Act. Some local authorities operate informal consultative groups to discuss issues relating to access and rights of way. No information
  372W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to Amber Valley Borough Council and Derbyshire County Council between 1997–98 and 2001–02 is shown in the tables. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money Derbyshire County Council has spent on Amber Valley constituency. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  is held centrally about which authorities have done so. We welcome initiatives by local authorities to set up such groups ahead of any statutory system, and the Countryside Agency has issued guidance to authorities on how best this might be done.

  Motor Vehicle Repairs
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Vehicle Inspectorate routinely tests non-original equipment parts used in the motor vehicle body repair industry. [157122]

  Mr. Hill
  No. Testing and approval of components and vehicles prior to sale or registration is carried out by the Vehicle Certification Agency in the UK. However, there is no statutory approval standard for non original replacement body panels and so they are not tested or approved.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to require vehicles that have been repaired following a serious accident to be subjected to independent tests.[157126]

  Mr. Hill
  Under new provisions which have recently been approved by Parliament, such vehicles will, in future, need to be inspected by officials from the Department's Vehicle Inspectorate before they can legally be returned to the road.

  The objective of inspecting such vehicles will be to ensure that they are genuine, rather than having been stolen and disguised with the identity of similar

  373W
  accident-damaged ones. At present in the region of 40,000 stolen cars annually are sold on in this way to unsuspecting purchasers. The new inspection scheme will help to eliminate this criminal activity.

  The new inspection scheme is not intended to check on the adequacy of the accident repair—and this point will be made very clear to vehicle presenters. That would have made the scheme very costly and unnecessarily cumbersome. However, we are naturally very concerned to do all we can to see that only safe vehicles are used on the road and we will therefore be encouraging motorists to have vehicles independently checked by experts if there is any doubt at all about the quality of repair.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations govern the disposal of vehicles that have been written off after accidents. [157123]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no regulations which deal specifically with this subject.

  In practice when a vehicle is written off after an accident it might either end up being crushed or broken for spare parts. Alternatively, where the damage is not so severe, it might be repaired and returned to the road.

  In all cases where a vehicle is crushed or broken the owner is required by Regulation 13 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971 to notify the Secretary of State of that fact and at the same time to surrender the registration document to him. This requirement is to be strengthened by a European Directive concerned with the disposal of motor vehicles when they have reached the "end of life".

  In future, in all cases where a written-off vehicle is repaired and returned to the road it will firstly need to be inspected by officials from the Department's Vehicle Inspectorate. The objective of inspecting such vehicles will be to ensure that they are genuine, rather than stolen vehicles disguised with the identity of similar accident-damaged ones.

  £million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue Support Grant1

  100.6

  108.6

  113.9

  111.7

  117.6

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates1

  50.3

  52.1

  56.1

  62.9

  61.1

  Housing Investment Programme

  5.8

  5.5

  6.2

  16.5

  22.1

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  —

  4.0

  4.1

  —

  —

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.7

  Challenge Fund2

  3.9

  4.9

  1.7

  0.2

  —

  New Deal for Communities Funding3

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.1

  ERDF Funding4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  2.9

  0.8

  0.3

  —

  —

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline5

  2.9

  0.8

  0.2

  1.6

  —

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval3

  1.1

  1.0

  1.0

  3.8

  —

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant6

  —

  0.02

  —

  —

  0.2

  1These figures have not been adjusted to make year on year comparisons possible

  2The Salford Partnership—Round 2. A five year strategy within City Pride context comlining city-wide programmes on economic development, removing barriers to employment, community safety and crime reduction with concentration on physical development in areas of need. Challenge Fund total—£16.7 million. Scheme total £60.5 million

  3 2000–01 includes both Phase 1 and 2. 2001–02 is Phase 2 carried over into this financial year.

  4Two wards of the Eccles constituency are part of the Inner Salford Action Plan area which has been awarded £1.3 million ERDF grant, of which £453,448 has been claimed since July 1998. The claims do not follow the financial year so cannot be broken down The rest of the Eccles constituency will be included in the City Pride area which includes all he eligible areas of Manchester, Salford and Trafford; it is therefore not possible to determine how much ERDF will have been of benefit to Eccles. The amount of ERDF/ESF awarded to City Pride is approximately £36 million

  5 The figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 include the Metrolink Eccles extension which was completed last year. Transport figures for 2001–02 are not yet available

  6These figures are for Greater Manchester

  374W
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what annual usage of volatile organic compounds require motor vehicle body repair shops to register with their local authority. [157138]

  Mr. Hill
  The Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991, as amended, made under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 set thresholds for annual usage of organic solvents in coating processes. The regulations include a requirement that the following processes be authorised by the relevant local authority:"Any process for the repainting or respraying of or of parts of road vehicles if the process may result in the release into the air of particulate matter or of any volatile organic compound and the carrying on of the process by the person concerned at the location in question is likely to involve the use of 1 tonne or more of organic solvents in any 12 month period."

  Additionally, under the Solvent Emissions Directive (1999/13/EC) motor vehicle body repair shops that use between 0.5 and 1 tonne per annum of organic solvents will also be requited to be regulated to control volatile organic compound emissions. However, for existing processes, the provisions of the Directive will not fully apply until October. 2007.

  Departmental Policies (Eccles)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, including statistical 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. [157288]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal funding which this Department has provided to Salford in 1997–98 to 2000–01 is shown in the table. This includes grants and borrowings approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much money has been spent on Eccles. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are invested.

  Traffic Calming Measures
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what guidelines and specifications he issues about the installation of speed ramps; [157291]

  (2) what the specifications are for the size of speed bumps. [157292]

  Mr. Hill
  Road hump is the generic name for any vertical deflection for controlling vehicle speed. The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 state that a road hump should be between 25 and 100mm in height, with no vertical face higher than 6mm and have a minimum width in the direction of traffic not less than 900mm.

  The DETR has issued a range of traffic advisory leaflets to all local authorities in England and Wales giving guidance on the installation of road humps. Within the scope offered by the Regulations, it is for highway authorities to decide the most appropriate design and dimension of road hump for each of their roads.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he issues about traffic calming outside schools.[157290]

  Mr. Hill
  A wide range of advice, on traffic calming measures is available through the "Traffic Advisory Leaflet" series published by my Department and issued to all local authorities in England and Wales. The Road Safety Strategy, "Tomorrow' Roads—Safer for Everyone", published in March 2000, stated that local authorities are to be encouraged to use the increased powers they have available to them to introduce 20 mph zones and speed limits in residential areas, where appropriate. This should be a priority, particularly in areas where there are large numbers of children, such as in the vicinity of schools.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department(a) has undertaken and (b) plans to undertake about the action required to achieve a reduction of 60 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions in the UK; and if he will publish it. [157428]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK Climate Change Programme, published in November 2000, noted that the Government would review the options for longer term energy choices, considering the scale of emission reductions that might be needed in view of current projections for energy use and the scope and cost of low carbon on energy options that may exist to bridge the gap.

  The Government have recently published a report commissioned from AEA Technology, "Role of Technology in Emissions Abatement Under the UN-FCCC: the Medium to Long Term", and has placed a copy in the Library of the House. The study says that cuts of 70 per cent. to 90 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions are technically feasible over the next 50 to 100 years, but supportive policy decisions will be needed to achieve this.
  376W
  My Department also plans to commission a study this year to examine policy options for achieving cuts in greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2010, the time frame of the Climate Change Programme.

  The findings of both studies will contribute towards the Government's response to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report 2: "Energy—the Changing Climate".

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many households have been removed from fuel poverty by improvements to the energy efficiency of their home, referred to in paragraph 6.10 of The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy. [157427]

  Mr. Meacher
  Provisional estimates suggest that the number of fuel poor households fell by nearly one million between 1996 and 1999, due to reductions in energy prices and improved incomes. Data are not yet available to estimate the effect of improvements made to the energy efficiency of homes during the period. These data will be collected as part of the 2001 English House Condition Survey to be carried out later this year.

  Hydrogen Sulphide Leak (Southwark)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what level of hydrogen sulphide was emitted at Southwark tube station on 8 March 2001; how many London Underground staff were advised to seek medical attention following the discovery of the hydrogen sulphide leak; how many members of the public were advised to seek medical attention following the discovery of the hydrogen sulphide leak; and what public statement was made to inform the public as to the reason for the closure of Southwark Underground station on that date. [157251]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: London Underground (LUL) informs me that Southwark station was closed on 8 March 2001 and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) alerted following a report from contractors that the gas monitoring equipment was showing toxic gases present in a non-public area of the station. The LFEPA discovered sewage which had blocked the drainage system and had as a result caused a build up of hydrogen sulphide, though the level of gas found was very low. The LFEPA cleared the sewage therefore removing the source of the gas.

  As a precautionary measure five members of LUL staff were taken to hospital for checks and later released without problems. LUL confirm that the public were not at risk at any time during this incident as the gas was found in a non-public area and upon its discovery they had instituted normal evacuation procedures and the station had been closed immediately. As the incident was quickly resolved without any ongoing problems London Underground felt that it did not merit a public statement to be released following it.

  Abandoned Cars
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate how many cars are abandoned illegally each year.[157256]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: The Department holds no central records at present of the number of vehicles abandoned illegally each year but plans to collect information in the next Municipal Waste Management Survey later this year.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the Government are proposing to address the problem of illegally abandoned vehicles. [157263]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: The Government have improved registration arrangements to require the seller to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) when ownership of a vehicle changes. DVLA are encouraging local authorities to link electronically with them so that vehicle keeper information can be obtained more quickly and will shortly issue a Circular to all local authorities on the procedures for dealing with abandoned vehicles.

  Two pilot schemes are due to start this month—in Lewisham and Newham, who will target unlicensed vehicles using DVLA's wheelclamping powers. The boroughs will retain the wheelclamp release fees and storage fees. Both pilots will run for 12 months.

  We are also working with the Local Government Association, police and DVLA to identify good practice and exploit opportunities for cross-agency working in tackling the related problems of vehicle theft, vehicle excise duty evasion and abandoned vehicles and will consider from this the need for any legislative change.

  Local Government
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to delay the deadline for local authorities to submit proposals for new political arrangements under Part II of the Local Government Act 2000, following the postponement of annual council meetings. [157609]

  Ms Armstrong
  Subject to the enactment of the Elections Bill, we intend to issue revised statutory guidance under the Local Government Act 2000 about the submission of proposals. We intend any such revised guidance to provide that those councils which are holding local elections on 7 June 2001, or where due to local circumstances the usual conduct of business has been disrupted, should submit proposals by 14 September 2001 instead of by the current guideline date of end of June 2001.

  Windmills
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it a condition of planning permission for new houses to be equipped with a small windmill to generate electricity. [157542]
  378W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is for local planning authorities in the first instance to decide on specific planning conditions We are keen to encourage renewable energy initiatives that are feasible and effective.

  East Thurrock Port
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Trans port and the Regions if, in advance of the visit of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), to the C2C line in Thurrock, an examination will be made of anticipated additional freight movements consequent on the proposed new port development in East Thurrock, with particular reference to the impact on level crossing access to East Tilbury.[157361]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: The Strategic Rail Authority has consulted with Railtrack and freight operators to make outline assumptions on extra freight traffic as a result of the potential development. This is to help facilitate their London Freight Routing Strategy, ensuring sufficient network capacity is provided. The actual number of extra freight services that will use the C2C route as a result of the new development cannot be accurately forecast at present. It will be for the developers of the project in association with the rail freight operators and Railtrack to make predictions. I understand that Thurrock Council has convened a meeting in May involving the SRA, Railtrack, C2C and freight operators to discuss the impact of the options for the proposal.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which consultants have been engaged to undertake market testing in connection with the future use of the Millennium Dome site; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [157561]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government have asked English Partnerships to lodge and explore all expressions of interest, with a view to considering options and mechanisms for the future use of the Dome, before any announcement is made by the Government about the next process. English Partnerships, with Jones Lang LaSalle, are currently engaged in comprehensive market testing, to inform that process. The precise cost of this work is not currently known, as work is ongoing, but it is intended that these and any other costs incurred during the sale process will be deducted from the receipts generated by the disposal of the Dome site.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out his reasons for proposing GM trials in Mathry, Pembrokeshire and Sealand in north Wales; and if he will publish the baseline data on each site on which the impact assessment will be based. [157485]

  Mr. Meacher
  The sites used in the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSE) are found by industry and are assessed against scientific criteria by the researchers carrying out the fieldwork. The sites are finally approved by the independent scientific steering committee overseeing the Farm Scale Evaluations on the basis of scientific criteria
  379W
  alone. Ministers do not take decisions on the choice of sites. The scientific steering committee selects sites to reflect the geographic range across the UK where the conventional varieties of the FSE crops are already grown. This ensures that a full range of habitats is evaluated.

  The design of the Farm Scale Evaluation experiment does not require a pre-experiment assessment of baseline data other than pre-sowing seed sampling, which gives an indication of the potential for weeds t o grow in the field. This is because the experiment is designed to compare effects of herbicide use between the two sides of each experimental field. One half is randomly selected and planted with the GM crop, while the other half is planted with the non-GM equivalent crop. This design allows for the effects of the herbicides on wildlife in the two halves of the field to be assessed more accurately than would be possible by comparison with wildlife in the crop before the start of the experiment.

  The purpose of the Farm Scale Evaluations is to examine whether there are any differences in the diversity and abundance of farmland wildlife associated with the use of GM herbicide tolerant crops with the herbicides to which they are tolerant, as compared with equivalent non-GM crops. The wildlife fount in crop fields is affected by factors such as the vegetation and crop type. Wildlife present in the bare field before sowing or in a previous, different crop the year before, will not be the same as that to be expected in the experimental crop. Measurements of differences in wildlife between a pre-trial audit and within the experimental crop during the experiment would therefore not allow the effects of the herbicide to be measured.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who will be liable for providing compensation for farms in organic production or conversion if their(a) production and (b) status is damaged as a result of genetically mod fled farm scale trials being undertaken at Mathry, Pembrokeshire. [157571]

  Mr. Meacher
  Liability for the use of GM crops is an important issue, which is being addressed both at European and UK levels. I will be considering this year a range of options for possible new liability provisions in respect of any damage from GM crops. In the meantime an individual who has suffered loss may be able to commence an action in the courts. Each case will turn on its own facts and the question of who is liable will be determined in the light of all the circumstances.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the procedures are for informing(a) hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies. (b) the National Assembly for Wales and (c) local authorities about plans to use sites in their areas for genetically modified trial tests. [157569]

  Mr. Meacher
  Releases of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are controlled under European Union Directive 90/220. This recognises two types of release, those for research purposes (known as Part B releases) and those for commercial purposes (known as Part C releases).

  Any Part B releases in Wales would have to be notified to the National Assembly before sowing and would have to be advertised in a paper circulating in the locality. GM
  380W
  crops holding a Part C release consent, like the GM maize to be grown in Wales this year, are assessed by all EU member states. The consent is valid in all member states and once granted there are no requirements for individual sowings of the crop to be notified to the Government or consulted upon.

  Under an agreement with SCIMAC, the farming and biotechnology industry body, DETR publishes site location details of all the FSEs in England and Wales on its website "www. detr. gov. uk" including those of crops holding Part C approval. DETR officials informed National Assembly officials of the locations of the sites in Wales once they had been notified of the locations by industry. With the agreement of Assembly officials they then wrote to community councils and local authorities in Wales in which a trial was planned in order to provide information about the Farm Scale Evaluation programme.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who will be responsible for the monitoring of genetically modified trial test sites in the constituency of Preseli Pembrokeshire. [157567]

  Mr. Meacher
  The ecological study monitoring is carried out by scientists from the research consortium comprising the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), the Institute of Arable Crops Research (IACR) and the Scottish Crops Research Institute (SCRI).

  Scientists visit study sites during and after the sowing of the GM crop and also in subsequent years to assess the effects of the herbicide on biodiversity. These site visits are supplemented by inspections from the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) to check that the release of the GM crop is being carried out in accordance with the release consent.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what key indicators will be monitored on each of the genetically modified farm scale trials sites on a case-by-case basis in the constituency of Preseli Pembrokeshire. [157566]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Farm Scale Evaluations use a split field study design whereby half the field is sown with GM crops and half with conventional crops of the same type. The researchers compare key indicators of biodiversity between the GM and non-GM sides of the fields.

  The indicators being measured at each site are:
  Soil seed bank;
  Arable plant diversity, biomass and estimated seed return;
  Field margin and boundary vegetation, noting species in flower and signs of unintentional spray drift of weed-killer during its application to the field;
  Gastropods (slugs and snails): abundance, activity and diversity measures;
  Arthropods (especially insects and spiders) on vegetation, concentrating on plant bugs (Heteroptera), spring tails (Collembola), and the caterpillars of butterflies, moths (Lepidoptera), and sawflies (related to wasps (Hymenoptera); diversity and biomass measures;
  Ground (Carabid) beetles and other ground dwellings arthropods; abundance and diversity measures;
  Bees and butterflies; observational studies;
  Earthworm casts—observational studies.
  381W
  Full details on the science of the Farm Scale Evaluations are available from a scientific paper on the DETR's website: www.detr.gov.uk

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations(a) he received from and (b) he made to (i) the National Assembly for Wales and (ii) the Wales Office prior to the decision to allow field trials of genetically modified crops on three farms in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [157601]

  Mr. Meacher
  Meetings were held earlier this year with Ministers from the devolved administrations, including the National Assembly for Wales and the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales which discussed the Farm Scale Evaluation programme in general terms.

  Sites for GM crops under the Farm Scale Evaluations programme are found by industry and are assessed against scientific criteria by the researchers carrying out the fieldwork. They are finally approved by the independent scientific steering committee overseeing the evaluations. Ministers do not take the decisions on the choice of sites. Sites are selected on scientific criteria and the independent scientists on the steering committee have always been open about the need to have a range of sites across the UK representative of where maize is grown. This is to help ensure that a full range of habitats is evaluated.

  Carwyn Jones AM, the Minister for Rural Affairs, National Assembly for Wales. wrote to me on 23 March stating that he might issue a prohibition notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to stop releases of GM maize in Wales. He has asked that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment undertake an urgent scientific assessment into the adequacy of separation distances between GM and non GM crops, particularly organic crops.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Housing Investment Programme

  Bid for

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Allocated

  20,129,000

  27,752,000

  29 229,000

  45,946,000

  52,921,000

  Handed over

  20,129,000

  27,752,000

  29 229,000

  45,946,000

  52,921,000

  Spent

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy4

  Bid for

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Allocated

  130,861,916

  122,044,327

  115 504,573

  5117,290,559

  6—

  Handed over

  130,861,916

  122,044,327

  115 504,573

  5117,290,559

  6—

  Spent

  301,000,000

  294,900,000

  289 100,000

  7273,700,000

  6—

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  Bid for

  3—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Allocated

  3,253,000

  2,029,000

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Handed over

  3,253,000

  2,029,000

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Spent

  3,253,000

  2,029,000

  2—

  2—

  2—

  SRB Funding8

  Bid for

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  Allocated

  15,979,290

  16,105,921

  12003,091

  10,017,991

  96,865,558

  Handed over

  16,052,336

  15,848,064

  11917,262

  9,397,663

  6—

  Spent

  16,052,336

  15,848,064

  11.917,262

  9,397,663

  6—

  Railtrack
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers the Government directors on Railtrack have been given; and whom they will report to. [157701]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no Government directors on the Railtrack Board. On 2 April, Railtrack announced its intention to appoint a non-executive director to its main Board with a remit to provide a public interest and consumer voice within the Board. On reporting, normal corporate governance arrangements will apply, with the new director under the same obligations as other non-executive directors.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions have taken place on Government shareholding in Railtrack in exchange for(a) Government funding and (b)subsidy. [157700]

  Mr. Hill
  The package of rail measures announced on 2 April included an agreed Statement of Principles setting out the basis for a new relationship between Railtrack and Government. The package did not include proposals for Government to acquire more shares in the company.

  Housing (Southwark)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been(a) bid for, (h) allocated, (c) handed over and (d) spent on (i) housing and (ii) regeneration schemes in the London borough of Southwark in each of the last five years. [157264]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to the London borough of Southwark for (i) housing and (ii) regeneration schemes are shown in the table. This includes grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  These figures have been drawn together from a wide variety of sources and are the most accurate available at this time.
  383W

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  New Deal for Communities Funding Phase Two10

  Bid for

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Allocated

  2—

  250,313

  294,711

  2—

  2—

  Handed over

  2—

  13,050

  11531,974

  2—

  2—

  Spent

  2—

  13,050

  11—531,974

  2—

  New Deal For Communities Funding Phase Three12

  Bid for

  2—

  2—

  56,200,000

  2—

  Allocated

  2—

  2—

  56,200,000

  2—

  2—

  Handed over

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  370,768

  6—

  Spent

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6—

  6—

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

  Bid for

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Allocated

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3,956,000

  Handed over

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6—

  Spent

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6—

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit at d Basic Credit Approvals)13

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Bid for

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Allocated

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Handed over

  1,807,671

  4,182,000

  4,195,000

  2—

  2—

  Spent

  1,807,671

  4,182,000

  4,195,000

  2—

  2—

  Estate Action

  Bid for

  3—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Allocated

  7,049,933

  2,873,089

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Handed over

  6,653,316

  3,200,627

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Spent

  6,653,316

  3,200,627

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1Where known

  2Not applicable

  3Not available

  4Spend figures are for the whole HRA account, including figures from rent rebates, and HRA revenue contributions to capital spending. Housing revenue account subsidy is just a contribution to the whole HRA account.

  5Provisional figures

  6Not known

  7Estimated

  8The figures are the most accurate currently available, but the LDA SRB database is currently in the process of verification.

  9Projected

  10Developmental phase for working up full bid for Phase Three.

  11Over two years

  12Actual bid made in 1999–2000 for £56.2 million over 10 years.

  13Actual bid made in 1996–97 for £9,945,000 million over three years. Allocation of £10,188,000 made in 1996–97 over three years, spend commencing from 1997–98.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the outstanding debt is on Southwark council housing; and what his estimate is of the cost of the outstanding necessary capital works to Southwark council housing. [157265]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) credit ceiling is an assessment of the amount of an authority's outstanding debt that is attributed to its own housing stock. The 2000–01 mid-year HRA credit ceiling for Southwark borough council as at 30 September was £732,105,357.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) does not make estimates centrally of the outstanding necessary capital works to individual local authorities' housing stock. As part of the annual Housing Investment Programme local authorities are asked to provide estimates to the DETR of the amount they need to invest on capital works to their stock Southwark council estimated that at April 2000, they needed to spend £220 million to bring their own housing stock (of almost 48,000 units) into a satisfactory condition.

  London Underground
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff days have been lost(a) in the last 10 years and (b) in the past 12 months due to industrial action on London Underground. [157478]

  Mr. Hill
  Information on the number of staff days lost due to industrial action could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, information on the number of days when industrial action was taken which had at least a partial effect on service is available. In the last 12 months, industrial action took place on two days: 5 February 2001 and 29 March 2001.

  The following numbers of days of industrial action occurred in the last 10 years.
  385W

  Year

  Days of industrial action

  1991

  1

  1992

  0

  1993

  1

  1994

  1

  1995

  3

  1996

  7

  1997

  0

  1998

  5

  1999

  2

  2000

  0

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cases of graffiti have been reported on London Underground property in each of(a) the last 10 years and (b) the past 12 months; and how much money has been spent by London Underground in each of (i) the last 10 years and (ii) the past 12 months on removing graffiti. [157476]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground (LUL) who have provided the following information in the table as recorded by the British Transport Police.

  Year/month

  Number of graffiti cases reported

  1991

  642

  1992

  421

  1993

  402

  1994–95

  366

  1995–96

  257

  1996–97

  216

  1997–98

  304

  1998–99

  206

  1999–2000

  156

  2000–01

  1122

  Total

  3,092

  2000–01

  April

  7

  May

  37

  June

  7

  July

  10

  August

  6

  September

  5

  October

  5

  November

  3

  December

  9

  January

  16

  February

  17

  March

  tba

  1Excluding 1 March

  London Underground informs me that they estimate that the costs of preventive measures and removal of graffiti have been around £10 million per annum. However it adds that this figure has probably reduced over recent years as a number of security projects have been completed.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many signals were passed at danger by trains on the London Underground in(a) each of the last 10 years and (b) each of the last 12 months.[157692]
  386W
  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground. However, since December 1999 a report on signals passed at danger (SPADs) prepared by London Underground has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses each month. This was flagged in a reply to the hon. Member on 11 November 1999,Official Report, columns 687–88W. The report includes a table of SPADs by month since March 1993, prior to which the data were recorded in a different way that does not allow for meaningful comparison. The most recent version of this report covers the period up to January 2001.

  The report also highlights that on the Underground, signals and the mechanical stops are (except in a few cases) set back to greater than braking distance from the danger that they protect. So very few SPADs result in actual danger of collision.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) station staff and (b) train drivers were employed by London Underground in each of (i) the last 10 years and (ii) the past 12 months. [157477]

  Mr. Hill
  The number of station staff and train drivers in each of the last 12 months is as follows:

  2000–01

  Station staff

  Train drivers

  April

  5,726

  2,896

  May

  5,721

  2,892

  June

  5,760

  2,886

  July

  5,773

  2,869

  August

  5,776

  2,887

  September

  5,786

  2,895

  October

  5,777

  2,902

  November

  5,781

  2,929

  December

  5,810

  2,925

  January

  5,771

  2,928

  February

  5,814

  2,942

  March

  5,850

  2,933

  The number of station staff and train drivers in each of the five years 1995–96 to 1999–2000 inclusive is as follows:

  Year

  Station staff

  Train drivers

  1995–96

  4,568

  2,216

  1996–97

  4,779

  2,474

  1997–98

  4,815

  2,621

  1998–99

  5,113

  2,787

  1999–2000

  5,708

  2,907

  2000–01

  5,850

  2,933

  Data prior to 1995–96 can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the price was of(a) a zone one single fare on the London Underground and (b) a monthly zones one to six travelcard on the London Underground in January of each of the last 10 years. [157466]

  Mr. Hill
  Prior to July 2000, London Transport fares were the statutory responsibility of London Transport. Responsibility for fares policy for the Underground transferred to the Mayor for London in July 2000.
  387W
  The fare prices for a zone one single fare on London Underground and for a monthly zones one to six travelcard (valid on buses, national rail and Docklands Light Railway as well as the Underground) for the last 10 years are:

  £

  Zone 1 single

  Monthly Zl–6 travelcard

  2001

  1.50

  139.80

  2000

  1.50

  136.00

  1999

  1.40

  134.10

  1998

  1.30

  130.60

  1997

  1.20

  126.80

  1996

  1.10

  124.50

  1995

  1.00

  119.90

  1994

  0.90

  113.30

  1993

  0.90

  104.50

  1992

  0.80

  91.40

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Legions how many arrests were made on the London Underground by British Transport Police in each of the last 10 years. [157475]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for the British Transport Police who inform me that although it is not possible to provide arrest figures covering the last 10 years it is possible to supply crime analysis data as supplied to the Home Office. The table identifies the total number of offences reported over the last four financial years. It is not possible to provide information earlier than 1997, as the data are not kept in this format.

  Offences

  1997–98

  5,799

  1998–99

  12,949

  1999–2000

  18,220

  2000–01

  13,972

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many trains in use on the London Underground are(a) less than three years old, (b) between three and 10 years old, (c) between 10 and 15 years old and (d) more than 15 years old; and what the average age is of trains currently in use on the London Underground. [157474]

  Mr. Hill
  London Underground has provided the following information:

  Age of rolling stock

  Number of trains

  Less than 3 years

  165

  3–10 years

  90

  10–15 years

  0

  More than 15 years

  341.5

  It should be noted that over half of the stock older than 10 years has undergone refurbishment in the last 10 years.

  The average age of all trains is approximately 17.5 years.

  London Airport Rail Links
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will 388W
  take a decision on whether there should be a London airports rail franchise; when it is planned that London Heathrow airport will have direct rail connections to (a) Waterloo and (b) St. Pancras stations; and what the estimated cost is of the necessary work to complete these works. [157465]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority is currently investigating the possibility of a London airports franchise but an early decision as to whether or not to proceed is not expected. An airport service to St. Pancras will be dependent upon completion of CTRL Stage 2 and upon appropriate platform capacity being made available at the new St. Pancras station. A direct connection to Waterloo is a conceptual scheme currently being developed by BAA and Railtrack.

  Railways (Upgrading)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce, with the Strategic Rail Authority, plans for improvements to the Great Western Main Line; when it is expected that upgraded signalling and junctions and new flyovers for the Great Western Main Line mentioned in the SRA' s Strategic Agenda will be delivered; and what the cost of these upgrades will be. [157464]

  Mr. Hill
  The SRA' s Strategic Agenda lists a range of schemes which it would be possible to pursue. No decisions have yet been taken as to the priorities attached to particular projects which are not yet in progress. The timscale for infrastructure upgrading on the Great Western main line is driven by principal resignalling works that must be completed by 2011. It is not yet possible to give specific costs.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the projected cost is of the Joint Venture for the East Coast Main Line upgrade; what the projected amount is of public and private investment needed for this project; what the estimated start and finish dates are for this project; and how soon after revised bids are received he intends to make an announcement, together with the Strategic Rail Authority, on the preferred bidder for the East Coast Main Line franchise. [157462]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is currently establishing a project development group to take forward the upgrade of the East Coast Main Line and to develop the project to a sufficiently advanced stage for its construction to be competitively tendered. It is not expected that the joint venture approach will alter significantly the overall costs or timing of the upgrade.

  In view of the change to the structure of the upgrade, the SRA has asked shortlisted counterparties for a replacement Inter City East Coast franchise to review their original bids. The SRA currently expects to receive any changes to their proposals by 17 April. Once the SRA has received and considered these it will decide whether to proceed with a request to the Secretary of State for a direction to authorise early replacement of the franchise. Any such request will be given appropriate and timely consideration.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 26 February regarding a constituent, Ref. P/B H/005818/01. [157457]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Due to an administrative error in the ministerial correspondence unit, there was a delay in processing the original letter and enclosures.

  I understand that my hon. Friend has now received a response from the unit explaining that as the issues raised cover a pending planning application, the correspondence has been transferred to the Planning Inspectorate and a direct reply will be sent by the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate shortly.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the borough of Macclesfield is not included in the list of rural local authorities to which the emergency business rate relief scheme will be applied as a result of foot and mouth disease. [157496]

  Mr. Meacher
  The borough of Macclesfield is not an authority which meets the criteria of rurality used for the targeting of this scheme.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to review the list of rural local authorities to which the emergency rate relief scheme is applicable due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [157498]

  Mr. Meacher
  I will keep the operation of the scheme under review in the light of the representations made to me.

  Witney-Oxford Railway
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the proposed reopening of the Witney to Oxford railway line. [157120]

  Mr. Hill
  Neither the Department nor the Strategic Rail Authority have made any such assessment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an estimate of the number of British subjects born in Diego Garcia who are still alive. [157504]

  Mr. Battle
  It is not practicable for HMG to make a realistic estimate of the number of such British Dependent Territories citizens as we do not know where they are nor do we have any means of knowing how many may have died over the past 30 years or so.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the United States Government the numbers of(a) Filipinos,
  390W
  (b) Mauritians and (c) Ilois being employed by contractors on the Diego Garcia, air-base; and what steps he is taking to rectify imbalances in the numbers of different nationalities employed. [157501]

  Mr. Battle
  Under our arrangements with the United States Government it is agreed that the United States authorities and their contractors will use workers recruited in Mauritius and Seychelles to the maximum extent practicable. In recruiting workers there should be no discrimination between qualified Ibis workers and equally qualified other Mauritian workers.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Governor of Mauritius about the placement of anti-personnel mines in(a) Diego Garcia and (b) on 65 islands in the Chagos Archipelago designed to keep out Ilois people wishing to return to see ancestral graves. [157502]

  Mr. Battle
  There are no anti-personnel landmines on Diego Garcia or any of the other islands in the Chagos Archipelago.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe on 6 March 2000, Official Report, column 504W.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to include Diego Garcia in the feasibility study in exercise of his Department's obligations to balance the needs of those who were born in Diego Garcia with the interests of the British-American defence forces. [157500]

  Mr. Battle
  Access to Diego Garcia is restricted in accordance with our treaty obligations with the United States and hence Die go Garcia is not included in the scope of the feasibility studies being conducted.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to estimate the economic losses suffered by Diego Garcia as a result of the closure by the Government of the plantations in 1971; and what stops will be taken to restore economic activity, indicating(a) the estimated consumption of coconuts by the residents of Diego Garcia, (b) the appropriate price thereof and (c) what funds can be raised from this source to restore facilities on the islands for the benefit of residents. [157574]

  Mr. Battle
  The establishments of defence facilities necessarily entailed the closure of the commercial coconut plantations in Diego Garcia. There is no prospect of the resinstatement of these plantations in the forseeable future.

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's discussions with the United States on the potential use. of the islands(a) in the Chagos Archipelago and (b) in Diego Garcia for facilities for the US National Missile Defence. [157503]

  Mr. Battle
  We have had no discussions with the United States regarding the potential use of the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, for facilities for National Missile Defence.

  Chagos Archipelago
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the consideration of facilitating a temporary visit by the Ilois to the Chagos Archipelago, following the granting of permission to return there. [157517]

  Mr. Battle
  The question of a temporary visit to the territory for the Ilois has been discussed with their representatives who have undertaken to put forward proposals for consideration.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to encourage British subjects born in the Chagos Archipelago to co-operate with the Americans on Diego Garcia to establish areas of common interest. [157499]

  Mr. Battle
  I understand that representatives of a group of Ilois are in contact with the United states Government.

  Overseas Territories
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals to grant British citizenship to citizens of overseas territories. [157637]

  Mr. Battle
  As announced to Parliament by the Secretary of State in March 1999, we are committed to introducing legislation to give British citizenship to all British Dependent Territories citizens in the Overseas Territories. We will make parliamentary time available to introduce this legislation as soon as is practicable. Preparatory work to agree the principles of such a Bill along with drafting Instructions for Parliamentary Counsel has been completed.

  Cayman Islands
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the UK has made in support of lifting OECD blacklisting from the Cayman Islands prior to the review of the blacklist in June. [157638]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK takes seriously its duty to represent the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies internationally. We take equally seriously efforts by the Financial Action Task Force—of which we are a leading member—to combat money laundering. Over the last year, we have therefore sought at all times to ensure that the FATF's information about the Cayman Islands is accurate and complete and that the Cayman Islands are treated on exactly the same basis as all the other jurisdictions examined by the FATF. We have also helped and encouraged the Cayman Islands authorities to make the necessary changes to their system in order to meet international standards in this area. It would be inappropriate to seek special treatment for the Cayman Islands from the FATF, but we will continue to ensure that the Cayman Islands are treated fairly and objectively when decisions are made.

  Kyoto Treaty
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government plan to ratify the Kyoto treaty. [157140]
  392W
  Mr. Battle
  The UK aims to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, along with other EU member states.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Head of News Department saw a copy of the Foreign Affairs Committee's Second report of Session 1998–99 on Sierra Leone before its publication. [156824]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 16 March 2001, Official Report, column 775W, and to the evidence my officials gave to the Standards and Privileges Committee, whose report was published on 30 March 1999.

  French Lamb Exports
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the French Government on the non-payment by French companies and individuals for lambs exported via Farmers Ferry to France in January and early February. [155942]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the French legislation, published on 9 March, compensation will be paid to the exporter where sheep slaughtered by French authorities were still their property. The British Embassy in Paris has been actively pursuing the question of compensation, on behalf of some British sheep exporters, for sheep slaughtered in France. This has included passing documentary evidence of ownership of sheep to the French authorities. The British Embassy would be happy similarly to help other exporters.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Policies (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to London, the effects of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [152274]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrows Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational

  393W
  potential of culture and sport, £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established, through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a Taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have established the Greater London Authority and an elected Mayor for London. The Mayor now has responsibility for most aspects of culture in London and has appointed a Cultural Strategy Group to advise him and to draw up a cultural strategy for London.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made it clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including London.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.
  394W
  London

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 7,381 national lottery awards to the London Region totalling £1,069,301,551. This includes £50 million for Tate Modern, 76 awards from the Millennium Festival totalling £11,456,514 and £550,000 from the National Foundation for Youth Music for a Youth Music Action Zone which will work with young people across the whole of London.

  1,935 Millennium Award Winners have been identified from London and between them have received grants totalling £5,845,057.

  Under the Space for Sport and the Arts scheme, Lambeth, Newham, Southwark, Hackney, Islington, Barking & Dagenham, Brent, Greenwich, Lewisham and Tower Hamlets to al education authorities have been allocated up to £16.75 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in over 30 primary schools in London which can also be used by the wider community.

  Significant additional resources were made available to museums and galleries in this country as a result of the Government's 1999–2002 Comprehensive Spending review. This additional funding has also allowed free admission for all but one of the DCMS sponsored museums in London from 1 April 1999 and, from 1 April 2000, free entry for the over 60s at most of them.

  Additional funding will be offered to enable universal free access at nearly all of the DCMS sponsored museums and galleries from 1 December 2001.

  The following London boroughs have a DCMS sponsored museum or gallery within its boundaries:
  London borough of Camden
  The British Museum
  London borough of Greenwich
  The National Maritime Museum
  London borough of Hackney
  The Geffrye Museum
  London borough of Southwark
  The Homiman Museum
  London borough of Southwark

  The Design Museum

  HMS Belfast

  The Imperial War Museum

  Tate Modern

  London borough of Tower Hamlets
  The Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood
  City of London
  The Museum of London
  City of Westminster

  Apsley House

  The Cabinet War Rooms

  The National Gallery

  The National Portrait Gallery

  Tate Britain

  The Theatre Museum

  The Wallace Collection

  395W
  Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  The Natural History Museum

  The Science Museum

  The Victoria and Albert Museum.

  The benefits of extended access and the services provided by DCMS sponsored museums are available to the residents of all London boroughs and beyond.

  An additional part of the package of museum measures arising from the 1999–2002 Review was the introduction of the Designated Museums Challenge Fund (DMCF) to support some of the country's leading non-national museums.

  DMCF allocations of £581,000 were announced by London museums July 1999; a further £1,511,000 in May 2000 and £1,470,000 in March 2001 supporting a variety of projects in the institutions concerned.

  Information from English Heritage (EH) is:
  53 grants to churches, totalling £1,775,000;
  152 grants to historic buildings and monuments, totalling £3,243,000;
  contributions to 42 Conservation Area Partnership/Heritage Economic Regeneration schemes, totalling £4,135,000;
  79 local authority conservation officer posts funded, at a total cost of £1,742,000.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there are approximately 442,000 people aged 75 or over living in London.

  London Arts received £26,765,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £29,886,048 or by 11.66 per cent.

  Departmental Policies (Houghton and Washington, East)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Houghton and Washington, East of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [152986]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrows Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport, £40 million has been
  396W
  allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public Internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high-quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made it clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Houghton and Washington, East.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  397W
  Houghton and Washington, East

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 78 national lottery awards to Houghton and Washington, East, totalling £2,147,172. This includes an award from the Millennium Festival of £30,000.

  Forty Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Houghton and Washington, East and between them they have received grants totalling £79,993.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 4,000 people aged 75 or over living in the Houghton and Washington, East constituency.

  English Heritage have offered £48,874 for Freemason's Hall (Phoenix Lodge), Queen Street East, Sunderland; and £19,000 for St. Michael's & All Angels, Church Street, Houghton-Le-Spring.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Houghton and Washington, East constituency. These are:
  Northern Arts Board received £9,249,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £10.170,654 or by 9.96 per cent.
  Sunderland Library authority is a partner in the Information North consortium which received £498,000 in 1998–99 for an ICT project.
  Under the Space for Sport and Arts scheme Sunderland local education authority has been allocated up to £2.2 million and Gateshead local education authority up to £1.75 million, towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community.
  All Northern constituencies will be influenced by the Youth Music Action Zone in Gateshead, who have been offered £350,878 for work across the whole region.
  On 15 March Resource: The Council of Museums, Libraries and Archives announced a £470,000 Designated Museums Challenge Fund award for the joint Tyne & Wear Museums/Beamish. The North of England Open Air Museum project to create a new store to safely house large objects owned by the two partners. This follows previous allocations of £30,000 and £300,000 for this project in 1999 and 2000 respectively.
  DCMS became the direct sponsors of Tyne & Wear Museums, succeeding the Museums and Galleries Commission, from 1 April 2000.

  Departmental Policies (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information, relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Jarrow of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [153565]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrows Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts 398W
  and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport, £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high-quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made it clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.
  399W
  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities ones are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Jarrow.

  In delivering these initiatives we trim to make cultural and sporting inclusive activities ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  Jarrow

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 103 national lottery awards to Jarrow totalling £4,228,149. This includes three awards from the Millennium Festival totalling £130,000.

  Twenty Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Jarrow and between them they have received grants totalling £43,060.

  Under the Space for Sport and Arts SSA scheme, South Tyneside local education authority has been allocated up to £2.2 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community.

  The constituency of Jarrow is within the area served by Tyne and Wear Museums. On 15 March Resource: The Council of Museums, Libraries and Archives announced a £470,000 Designated Museums Challenge Fund award for the joint Tyne and Wear Museums/Beamish The North of England Open Air Museum project to create a new store to safely house large objects owned by the two partners. This follows previous allocations of £30,000 and £300,000 for this project in 1999 an(2000 respectively.

  DCMS became the direct sponsors of Tyne and Wear Museums, succeeding the Museums and Galleries Commission from 1 April 2000.

  South Tyneside Library authority was a partner in the Information North consortium which received £498,000 in 1998–99 for an ICT project.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 4,700 people aged 75 or over living in the Jarrow constituency.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the area which may have an elect on the Jarrow constituency. These are:
  Northern Arts Board received £9,249,000 in 2001–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to 10.170,654 or by 9.96 per cent.
  The National Foundation for Youth Music has awarded £350,878 for a Youth Music Action Zone in Gateshead.

  Departmental Policies (Truro and St. Austell)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Truro and St. Austell constituency, the effects on Truro and St. Austell of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154533]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on the hon. Member's constituency which 400W
  promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrow's Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport, £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper, "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high-quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made it clear

  401W
  in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Truro and St. Austell.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  Truro and St. Austell

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 205 national lottery awards to Truro and St. Austell totalling £8,690,170.

  Forty-six Millennium Award winners have been identified from Truro and St. Austell and between them have received grants totalling £157,092.

  On 21 February, I announced the 16 areas in which it is hoped Creative Partnership pilots will be developed. Cornwall is one of these areas. The Arts Council of England, which is delivering the initiative, will be consulting schools and creative organisations in each location over the next few months to establish which bodies will be involved. Details on how schools and cultural organisations can take part in Creative Partnerships will be available from the Arts Council from early May. Funding for the initiative will come on stream in April 2002.

  Under the Space for Sport and the Arts scheme, Cornwall local education authority has been allocated up to £3.1 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community.

  School Sport Co-ordinators will be based in families of schools, in areas of greatest need, linked wherever possible through local education authorities to specialist sport colleges. They will provide opportunities for young people to compete regularly for their school and take part in a wide range of sports. By 2004, there will be about 250 families established, with 1,000 secondary schools and up to 6,000 primary schools benefiting directly from this programme. Truro and St. Austell was awarded £945,689 in the first round of awards. It has three Partnership Managers, 15 School Sports Co-ordinators and 68 Primary Link Teachers.

  English Heritage have offered the following grants:

  £

  Site

  Grant offer

  Payment made to date

  St. Mylors Church

  4,956

  0

  St Just's Church

  21,062

  20,194

  St. Sampson's Church

  17,608

  0

  Caerhays Castle (two offers)

  115,341

  114,911

  Cornwall Monument Management Scheme (three offers)

  29,830

  19,421

  402W
  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 8,900 people aged 75 or over living in the Truro and St. Austell constituency.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of Cornwall and the south-west which may have an effect on the Truro and St. Austell constituency. These are:
  South West Arts received £6,694,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £7,766,575 or by 16 per cent.
  National Foundation for Youth Music has awarded £476,770 for a Youth Music Action Zone in Cornwall.
  The Eden Project, a landmark Millennium project, which received £43,150,000 from the Millennium Commission.

  Departmental Policies (Newbury and West Berkshire)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Newbury constituency, the effects on Newbury and West Berkshire of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154569]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: Since May 1997 ray Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on the hon. Member's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrows Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.
  403W
  We have made improvements in the way the lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high-quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made it clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Newbury.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quaky of life for all.
  Newbury

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 87 national lottery awards to Newbury, totalling £3,464,734.

  Six Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Newbury and between them they have received grants totalling £11,980.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 5,900 people aged 75 or over living in the Newbury constituency.
  404W
  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Newbury constituency. These are:
  Awards have been made to the Rural History Centre (Museum of English Rural Life), University of Reading.
  Southern Arts received £8,026,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £9,182,875 or by 14.4 per cent.

  Departmental Policies (Lancaster and Wyre)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, the effect on Lancaster and Wyre of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154687]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 21 March 2001]: Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrows Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over–60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing no-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.
  405W
  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high-quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Lancaster and Wyre.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.
  Lancaster and Wyre

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 99 national lottery awards to Lancaster and Wyre, totalling £8,858,790.

  Nineteen Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Lancaster and Wyre and between them they have received grants totalling £55,572.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 8,000 people aged 75 or over living in the Lancaster and Wyre constituency.

  English Heritage input

  Offered £

  Comment

  Victoria Pavilion, Lancaster

  5,000

  None paid as yet

  Leighton Hall, Lancaster

  1,145

  All paid

  Leighton Hall, Lancaster

  14,957

  Paid £10,826

  St. Wilfred's Melling, Lancaster

  34,700

  All paid

  Cockersand Abbey, Lancaster

  420

  All paid

  Twetfield

  323

  All paid

  Lancaster City Conservation Area Partnership Scheme

  144,000

  406W
  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Lancaster and Wyre constituency. These are:
  Under the Space for Sport and Arts scheme
  Lancashire local education authority has been allocated up to £1.75 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community.
  North West Arts Board received £14,061,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–2002 this will increase to £15,491,266 or by 10.17 per cent.
  More Music in Morecambe has worked with many school choirs. For Singing Challenge 1 there will be four open sessions as part of the local West End Festival to encourage new singers to participate. For Singing Challenge 2 there will be a set of linked local projects comprising workshops in the summer and autumn months.
  North Lancashire Youth Music Action Zone: £145,000. More Music in Morecambe is running the Action Zone working across the north-west. The Zone will provide a range of music opportunities to young people throughout the north-west these include a range of music activities exclusively for under-18s, a singing project for under-5s and an expansion of More Music in Morecambe's national training programme for musicians.

  Departmental Policies (North Devon)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the North Devon constituency, the effects on North Devon of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155901]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on the hon. Member's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrows Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward out aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £ 120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be

  407W
  extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a Taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public Internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years" setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high-quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made it clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including North Devon.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.
  North Devon

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 206 national lottery awards to North Devon totalling £4,867,877. This includes £20,000 from the Millennium Festival for a Millennium Celebrations Schools Pageant.

  Twenty seven Millennium Award Winners have been identified from North Devon and between them they have received grants totalling £94,839.
  408W
  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 8,300 people aged 75 or over living in the North Devon constituency.
  Information from English Heritage (EH):
  Nine grants have been offered totalling £221,079
  Conservation Area Partnership Scheme
  Ilfracombe 1997–98 offered £50,000.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the area which may have an effect on the North Devon constituency. These are:
  Devon Library authority, which includes the North Devon constituency, received an award of £113,647 from the DCMS/Wolfson Fund in 1997–98
  South West Arts received £6,694,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £7.766,575 or by 16 per cent.

  Departmental Policies (Hazel Grove)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Hazel Grove constituency, the effects on Hazel Grove of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156175]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on the hon. Member's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrows Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.
  409W
  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high-quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made it clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Hazel Grove.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.
  Hazel Grove

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 39 national lottery awards to Hazel Grove totalling £2,440,915.

  Seven Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Hazel Grove and between them they have received grants totalling £46,104.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 6,100 people aged 75 or over living in the Hazel Grove constituency.
  410W
  There are of course other initiatives in the wider area which may have an effect on the Hazel Grove constituency. These are:
  £20,090,000 for the Manchester Millennium Quarter Project nearby.
  North West Arts Board received £14,061,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £15,491,266 or by 10.17 per cent.

  Departmental Policies (Luton, South)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Luton, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156164]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrows Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding, we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived treas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over-60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to every one in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing nun-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public Internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.
  411W
  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years" setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high-quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made it clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Luton, South.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.
  Luton, South

  According to the information supplied by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 56 national lottery awards to Luton, South totalling £4,896,824.

  Twenty Eight Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Luton, South and between them they have received grants totalling £39,779.

  Under the Space for Sport and Arts scheme, Luton local education authority has been allocated up to £1.75 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community. Farley, Foxdell and St Matthew's junior schools in the hon. Member's constituency have been chosen to develop schemes under the SSA.

  English Heritage (EH) have awarded the following grants since 2 May 1997:
  Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme
  Luton (Plaiter's Lea and High Town): 1999–2000–£100,000 offered. 2000–01–£100,000 offered.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 5,000 people aged 75 or over living in the Luton, South constituency.
  412W
  East England Arts received £6,202,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £7,116,585 or by 14.74 per cent.

  Departmental Policies (Great Grimsby)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Great Grimsby constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156244]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrows Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60's and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a Task Force which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.
  413W
  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high-quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made it clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Great Grimsby.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.
  Great Grimsby

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 76 national lottery awards to Great Grimsby, totalling £2,640,333. This includes one grant from the Millennium Festival totalling £50,000.

  Five Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Great Grimsby and between them they have received grants totalling £36,114.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 6,100 people aged 75 or over living in the Great Grimsby constituency.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the area which may have an effect on the Great Grimsby constituency. These are:
  £18,746,000 for the Deep Millennium Project nearby.
  Yorkshire Arts received £9,288,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £10,315,832 or by 11 per cent.

  Foot and Mouth (Tourism)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with(a) the British Tourist Authority and (b) other tourist bodies regarding the impact of foot and mouth disease on the tourist trade. [157027]

  Janet Anderson
  Close contact is being maintained with the British Tourist Authority on the impact of foot and mouth disease on the tourism trade. In addition, we have been in frequent contact with tourism industry 414W
  representatives both at formal meetings and through visits around the country; for example, on 5 April 2001 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hosted a summit meeting of industry representatives to discuss foot and mouth.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact of foot and mouth disease on non-rural tourism in Britain. [157030]

  Janet Anderson
  We are making inquiries of a range of tourism-related bodies to determine the impact of foot and mouth disease on both rural and non-rural tourism businesses. This research is at an early stage but it would seem that while the responses are very variable, it is clear that many businesses have been affected.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions his Department has had with official veterinary agencies of foreign Governments on the giving of advice on travel to the United Kingdom. [157029]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department has not had discussions with any official veterinary agencies of foreign Governments.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, through its posts overseas, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have been in close contact with veterinary authorities, agriculture ministries and other parts of government worldwide to reassure them that, provided individuals observe the standard guidance on travel to the countryside, there is no reason why visitors should not travel to the UK.

  Lindisfarne Gospels
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport m hat discussions he has had with the British Museum about exhibiting the Lindisfarne Gospels in the north of England: and if he will seek the inclusion of Holy Island in any future programme to exhibit the Gospels outside London. [156969]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Lindisfarne Gospels are a national treasure. They are the property of the British Library under the British Library Act 1972. We appreciate the particular importance of the Gospels to the people of the North-East where they have been exhibited recently. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met a delegation, led by the Bishop of Durham. Following that meeting, my right hon. Friend has written to the Chairman of the British. Library inviting them to discuss with the delegation the feasibility of exhibiting the Gospels in the North-East on a mare regular basis. No doubt the question of an exhibition of the Gospels on Holy Island could form part of such a discussion.

  Music Librarians
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media And Sport what measures he is taking to encourage the recruitment and retention of music librarians by public libraries; and if he will make a statement. [157562]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My responsibility under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 is to ensure that library authorities in England meet their statutory duty to provide
  415W
  a "comprehensive and efficient" public library service. The day-to-day management of library services, however, is for library authorities, who must make their own decisions about the detailed nature of the library service they provide, based on local resources and priorities. This includes such matters as the numbers, grading and qualifications of staff, and where they are employed within the library service.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many local authorities employ full-time music librarians; and how many did so in 1996–97. [157563]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. The CIPFA Public Library Statistics, which are available in the Library of the House, provide information on the numbers of professional, other non-manual and manual posts in public libraries but do not identify the numbers of posts in the various libraries and departments of any library authority.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to amend the regulations governing the Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary television licence scheme to prevent residents losing their entitlement to the concession following changes introduced by then housing managers. [157854]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  A number of hon. Members have expressed concern about residents in sheltered accommodation losing their entitlement to the £5 Accommodation for Residential Care television licence fee concession, as the result of changes to the way their accommodation is provided or managed. The Government share these concerns. We propose to introduce measures to preserve the rights of beneficiaries a the concessionary scheme who remain in a sheltered housing complex or residential home provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation, when the social mix or the level of warden cover change. We are consulting with the BBC on the formulation of the necessary amendments to the regulations governing the concessionary scheme.

  UK Standards Authority for Sport
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the establishment of the UK Standards Authority for Sport; and what the membership is of the authority. [156487]

  Kate Hoey
  Over recent months I have been in discussion with sporting and medical experts over whether there is a need for a UK Standards Authority for Sport and Exercise Medicine which could ensure that adequate standards are in place to minimise the risk of injury or illness through sport.

  In order to consider current provision, and whether such an authority should be established, I have convened a working group who will meet over the next few months to explore the key issues involved. The working group will then make recommendations to me on whether there is a need for a UK Standards Authority for Sport and Exercise Medicine, and if so what its role and remit might be, and how it might be established.
  416W
  Under the chairmanship of Sir Oliver Popplewell, the group met for the first time on 27 March and have now begun a process of consultation with experts from a range of medical and sporting backgrounds.

  The other members of the working group are David Oxley, OBE, Chairman of the Central Council for Physical Recreation; Peter Hamlyn, consultant neurosurgeon; Professor Donald Macleod. Vice President of the Royal College of Surgeons; Dr. Stephanie Cook, MBE, modern pentathlon gold medal winner at Sydney 2000; Dr. Nick Webborn, Medical Adviser for the National Sport Medicine Institute; and Karen Hambly, Sports Medicine Co-ordinator for the UK Sports Institute.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  India
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the(a) medical supplies and (b) other help the UK sent to India following the recent earthquake there. [157411]

  Clare Short
  During my statement in the House on Monday 29 January I announced an overall allocation of up to £10 million to support the emergency relief effort in Gujarat without reducing spending in other parts of India. To date nearly £9 million of the total allocation has been spent.

  We provided immediate support to the Search and Rescue effort with a UK team of 69 personnel as well as supporting the Russian Ministry of Emergencies to deploy a team of 75 with an airmobile hospital. In addition we transported numerous relief items to the region (on behalf of agencies such as the Red Cross and Save the Children Fund) including medical supplies, tents and plastic sheeting. We have also channelled funds through a number of agencies for the provision of essential relief items such as tents, blankets, medical supplies, food, water and sanitation. We also established an Emergency Field Office in Gujarat to monitor DFID funded projects and ensure effective targeting of relief assistance.

TREASURY

  Homosexual Couples
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to treat inheritance tax for homosexual couples in the same way as for heterosexuals. [157486]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The inheritance tax rules make no special provision for couples, whatever their sexual orientation. Spouse relief is available for transfers between partners in a marriage; we have no plans to alter the scope of this relief.

  Office of Government Commerce
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets have been set for the OGCbuying.solutions trading fund for 2001–02.[158058]
  417W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am pleased to announce that the new Office of Government Commerce trading fund, OGCbuying.solutions, came into being on 3 April 2001. The new trading fund is based on The Buying Agency, but includes certain managed services provided in the past by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. I announced the creation of OGCbuying.solutions in a written answer on 19 December 2000,Official Report, column 162W.

  have set the following challenging targets for the trading fund for 2001–02.
  OGCbuying.solutions: Targets for 2001–02

  1. By comparison over a representative basket of goods and services bought regularly by central Government, the Agency will demonstrate that it offers on average a 5 per cent. price advantage, on a like for like basis, to users of its contracts.

  2. The Agency will put in place tools to measure and an action plan to improve the match between its range of contracts and the needs of central civil Government.

  3. The Agency will increase the proportion of its business done with central civil Government by 10 per cent. by 31 March.

  4. The Agency will ensure 90 per cent. of the goods and services offered through its catalogues are available for electronic ordering by customers. Furthermore the Agency will put in place an incentivisation scheme aimed at increasing dramatically the take-up of e-commerce by its customers.

  5. The Agency will achieve levels of customer satisfaction above 90 per cent. as measured by regular customer feedback.

  6. The Agency will generate 8 per cent. Return On Capital Employed (ROCE).

  7. To explore options for collaborative PPP arrangements to implement an e-commerce system to enhance the service to customers.

  A copy of the new framework document for GCbuying.solutions has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy of their business plan for 2001 can be found on their website: http://ogcbuyingsolutions.gov.uk.

  Valuation Office Agency
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets for the Valuation Office Agency will be set for the year 2001–02. [158060]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have set the following key targets for the Valuation Office Agency.Operational
  To clear by 31 March 2002 90 per cent. of 1995 list rating appeals and 45 per cent. of the 2000 rating appeals outstanding on 30 September 2000.
  To clear by 31 March 2002 council tax appeals equal to the number received in the 12 months to 31 December 2001 up to a maximum of 42,000 in England and 3,700 in Wales.
  To generate income of at least £13.5 million from "land services".
  To clear by 31 March 2002 no fewer than the number of cases received from Inland Revenue in the 12 months to 31 December 2001 up to a maximum of 49,000 within the agreed performance timetable set out in the Agency's Forward Plan.
  Customer service and quality
  To achieve specified standards for valuation accuracy and timeliness in 90 per cent. of cases.
  To secure Charter Mark awards for 50 per cent. of our Groups by 31 March 2002.
  418W
  Finance and efficiency
  To recover full resource costs, including a return on capital of 6 per cent., from fees and charges.
  To achieve an increase in the VOA's efficiency index to 1.175 (1998–99 = 1.00).

  Further details are contained in the Valuation Office's Forward Plan, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House on publication.

  UK Debt Management Office
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the UK Debt Management Office's targets and business plan for 2001–02. [158059]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The DMO's targets for 2001–02 are as set out. The range of targets has been extended somewhat since 2000–01 to reflect the development of the DMO's responsibilities. The DMO is today also publishing its Business Plan for 2001–02. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.Targets for the Debt Management Office 2001–02
  To ensure full compliance with the Government's remit for the DMO as set out in he Debt and Reserves Management Report 2001–02, within the tolerances and subject to the review triggers notified separately to the Office and consistent with the objectives of monetary policy.
  To ensure that the maximum time taken to issue the results of gilt auctions does not exceed 40 minutes, that for structured Treasury Bill tenders does not exceed 30 minutes, and that for ad hoc Treasury Bill or other tenders does not exceed 15 minutes, while achieving complete accuracy.
  To achieve complete accuracy, within agreed accounting tolerances, in the recording and reporting or transactions through the Department Management Account (DMA). and in delivering money (and reconciling payments) to the National Loans Fund (NLF).
  To acknowledge all letters and e-mail inquiries from the public within five working days and for at least 95 per cent. to be sent a substantive reply within two weeks.
  To achieve less than eight breaches of the operational market notices (excluding any breaches that the Treasury accept were beyond control of the Office).
  To ensure that the qualifications that the National Audit Office (NAO) have made in respect of the accounts of the Gilt-edged Official Operations Account are satisfactorily addressed in the running and presentation of the DMA; and that the 1999–2001 DMA accounts are presented to the NAO by the statutory deadline.
  To ensure that the statutory constraint on DMO market borrowing (not to exceed its deposits with the NLF and Bank of England) is always met.
  To ensure that, where there is a late change in the forecast, any necessary use of end-of-day borrowing or lending facilities is notified by the due time.
  To ensure that instructions to counterparties, agents and external systems are complete, accurate and timely, and that monitoring of the progress of transactions through to settlement is effective, so that DMO achieves at least 99 per cent. (by value) successful settlement of agreed trades on the due date.
  To achieve 100 per cent. accuracy in material published on the DMO website (in so far as the material is under the control of the DMO and not third parties).

  Tax Credits (Fraud)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been(a) subjected to a financial penalty and (b) prosecuted because of a fraudulent claim for the Working Families Tax Credit. [157081]
  419W
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions for fraud it claiming Working Families Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit have taken place; and how many are pending. [157137]

  Dawn Primarolo
  To date, there have been 16 prosecutions in respect of Working Families Tax Credit, two of which have been concluded through the courts. Approximately 300 financial penalties have been levied.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Johnny Adair
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the result war of his inquiry into an attempt to poison Mr. Johnny Adair in Maghaberry Prison; and what actions have been taken as a result. [156154]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following receipt of information from the Forensic Science Agency on 6 March 2001 that the sample of Mr. Adair's protein supplement powder, sent away for analysis, was contaminated. Mr. Adair and the RUC were notified immediately. Due to the potentially serious nature of the incident the RUC was then requested to carry out an investigation, which is still on-going.

  It would be inappropriate to comment on the circumstances surrounding the incident at this stage.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  General Mediterranean Holdings Ltd.
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide details of the(a) grants and (b) export credits awarded to.(i)General Mediterranean Holdings Ltd. and (ii) its associate companies. [156884]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: ECGD has no record of any dealings with this company or any other of its listed subsidiaries.

  Selective Assistance (Blyth Valley)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what selective assistance grants he has provided to Blyth Valley since May 1997. [157294]

  Mr. Caborn
  The two main forms of selective assistance available to business in Blyth Valley are Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) and the new Enterprise Grant (EG) launched in January 2000. Details of take up in Blyth Valley are given in the tables.

  Applications

  Grant (£)

  Capital expenditure (£)

  Jobs

  1997–98

  RSA

  6

  2,220,000

  12,012,300

  678

  1998–99

  RSA

  14

  2,739,000

  16,042,700

  387

  1999–2000

  RSA

  11

  1,960,000

  16,452,000

  374

  2000–01

  RSA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  EG

  3

  41,150

  275,400

  19

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made towards publishing a code of practice for supermarket chains to regulate their dealings with suppliers in the farming sector. [157578]

  Dr. Howells
  The Office of Fair Trading is currently consulting with supermarkets and the representatives of suppliers and farmers on a draft Code of Practice. The Director General will advise my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the terms of the Code of Practice on the completion of this consultation.

  Departmental Policies (Manchester, Gorton)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Manchester, Gorton constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 20 November 2000. [154495]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, answered my right hon. Friend's similar question on 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 70W, explaining that the DTI does not maintain such statistical information.

  My right hon. Friend may wish to be aware that in the north-west region the DTI's policies have contributed to growth in employment by 107,000 and a fall in unemployment by 63,000; reductions in youth unemployment by 75 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 54 per cent. since 2 May 1997.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations(a) he has made to Healthcall Ltd. and (b) he has received from other organisations, concerning the fee paid to consultants by Healthcall Ltd. for the medical assessment of ex-miners. [157581]

  Mr. Hain
  Following discussions with the solicitors representing the miners, and in light of the need to attract more Respiratory Specialists to undertake medical assessments, the Department asked the Medical Reference Panel (MRP), the panel of respiratory specialists that advises the Department and claimants' solicitors on the Coal Health Compensation Scheme, to advise on appropriate rates for the work done. They proposed a rate based on the British Medical Association (BMA) scales. Healthcall has revised its rates accordingly. The rate for centre—based assessments has been increased significantly.

  Rates for domiciliary visits and deceased assessments were already in line with the proposed new rates and have not changed. The revised rate, which has been agreed by the MRP, will be effective from 1 April, and will be reviewed in three months' time. Healthcall is also investigating how doctors can be used more flexibly to get greater volumes of MAPs completed.
  421W
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the waiting list is for ex-miners awaiting first appointments for their assessment for compensation in each assessment centre in Wales; and what was the corresponding figure on 30 October 2000. [155641]

  Test centre

  28 February 2001

  Newport

  Cardiff

  Swansea

  Mountain Ash

  Wrexham

  Ammanford1

  Claimants mailed

  5,425

  316

  4,698

  5,127

  570

  —

  Claimants to be mailed

  35

  33

  223

  633

  11

  121

  Total appointments made

  4,776

  221

  4,138

  4,645

  463

  —

  No reply to Healthcall appointment letter

  273

  22

  251

  280

  9

  —

  Claimants awaiting appointment/to be tested2

  684

  128

  783

  1,115

  118

  121

  1Ammanford did not open until 1 March 2001.

  2Claimants awaiting appointments = (claimants mailed - total appointments made) + claimants to be mailed.

  Note:

  New claims are currently still being received at over 1,000 per week. For week commencing 5 March 2001, 1,600 new claims were received.

  Figures on the numbers of claimants waiting to be mailed are calculated only at the end of each month in a continuously updated format and not stored. Therefore the number of claimants waiting to be mailed on 30 October

  Test centre

  30 October 2000

  Newport

  Cardiff

  Swansea

  Mountain Ash

  Wrexham

  Claimants mailed

  5,399

  305

  4,508

  4,806

  479

  Claimants to be mailed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total appointments made

  4,724

  214

  3,872

  4,083

  348

  No reply to Healthcall appointment letter

  255

  28

  370

  521

  121

  Claimants awaiting appointment/to be tested1

  675

  91

  636

  723

  131

  1Claimants awaiting appointments = claimants mailed - total appointments made.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the performance of the contractor managing British Coal's employment records in relation to mineworkers' compensation claims. [156224]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department continually monitors the performance of Hays Information Management, the company contracted to provide copies of miners' employment records.

  Getting copies of employment records has proved difficult because British Coal records are stored on very antiquated microfiche and in paper systems. The volumes of records returned have been less than planned and the Department therefore embarked on two major projects to scan the earnings records from microfiche into a database and to scan the whole of the employment records pack.

  Unfortunately, there have been problems with scanning but these have now been addressed and the volume of records scanned is rising. Hays will provide an increased level of photocopied records until scanned records hit their required targets.

  Post Office Counters (Tribunals)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment tribunals involving Post Office Counters are awaiting hearing; how many employment tribunal cases are unresolved in the Manchester area; and what steps he is taking to resolve these cases. [157004]
  422W
  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: The number of claimants awaiting their first assessment appointment to be made on 28 February 2001 was as follows:

  2000 is not available. Of those claimants that had been mailed by 30 October 2000, the following numbers were awaiting their first assessment appointment to be made:

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: I understand that there are currently 18 employment tribunal cases involving Post Office Counters Ltd. that are awaiting hearing. These concern either Post Office Counters Ltd.'s directly employed staff or subpostmasters and other agents. Post Office Counters Ltd.'s legal agents in Manchester are currently dealing with six cases in the North West. A further employment tribunal case in the Manchester area has gone to appeal. Legal decisions on how the law applies in particular circumstances are for the tribunals and courts.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the legal costs were for 2000 to Post Office Counters in representation at employment tribunals. [157005]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: Details of the legal costs of Post Office Counters Ltd. are commercially confidential, under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Public Information.

  Fish Genetics
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the research programmes into fish genetics that his Department has been involved with in the last 10 years. [157274]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Department is supporting the FISHSENSE project in the LINK Cell Engineering programme. The aim of this project is to develop a bioassay for environmental toxicity testing using cell lines from the bluegill sunfish which have been successfully
  423W
  transfected with the luciferase gene from the firefly. These transfected cells are used to assay for the presence of various toxicants by measuring the light produced by the luminescent luciferase protein.

  In addition, I understand that the Research Councils, supported by this Department, have been and are funding a number of relevant projects.

  Britain-Israel Trade Missions
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Britain/Israel trade missions have taken place in each of the last six years. [R][156893]

  Mr. Caborn
  The table summarises the supported trade missions from the UK to Israel that have taken place in each of the last six years.

  Year

  Number of missions

  1995

  6

  1996

  8

  1997

  8

  1998

  8

  1999

  11

  2000

  7

  Note:

  There have also been other trade missions that were not supported by my Department.

  Advantage West Midlands
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding for April 2001 to March 2002 is unallocated by Advantage West Midlands; and if he will make a statement on the single regeneration budget. [157115]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is as follows:Funding during the 2001–02 financial year

  Advantage West Midlands' total programme budget for the 2001–02 financial year is £148,135,000 gross. In addition, in its Corporate Plan it has identified £10,823,000 committed expenditure from the last financial year which will be transferred into the 2001–02 financial year. The Corporate Plan identifies £143,665,000 expenditure already committed and sets out the Agency's plans for using the uncommitted funding in support of the Regional Strategy.
  Single Regeneration Budget

  In the Spending Review 2000, RDAs were given considerable additional funding and flexibilities to deliver their regional strategies, whose primary purpose is to enhance the region's competitiveness through sustainable economic development, regeneration and business growth. A key flexibility is the introduction of a single budget from April 2002, which will subsume all current RDA funding streams. There will not, therefore, be a national SRB bidding round for new schemes in 2001–02.

  Those RDAs with sufficient resources, after commitments from earlier SRB rounds are taken into account, have been invited to put forward proposals for using funds from their SRB expenditure line in their Corporate Plans for 2001–02. Each RDA will be able to decide on its own approach, which will contribute to the development of the RDAs' regional Strategies.
  424W
  RDAs will be expected to meet their commitments to schemes from SRB Rounds 1–6 from their single budget.

  Motor Vehicle Repairs
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations govern the use of non-original equipment parts in motor vehicle body repairs. [157124]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. However some other vehicle parts, such as tyres, brake linings and lamps have to meet minimum European safety standards. These standards are applied equally to both original equipment parts and non-original equipment parts.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if the Commissioners will suspend rent payments on those farms which they own on which cases of foot and mouth disease have been confirmed. [157147]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners fully recognise the seriousness of the foot and mouth crisis, not least in Cumbria where they have a number of confirmed cases and much of their land is subject to exclusion orders.

  Any request to help in case of hardship will be considered on its merits. Tenants who have had cases of foot and mouth confirmed among their livestock, as well as those who are subject to consequential losses, will be given sympathetic consideration in accordance with the Church Commissioners' long standing policy.

SCOTLAND

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations she has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the impact of a single European currency on the Scottish economy. [145642]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend on a wide range of issues. The determining factor underpinning any Government decision to join the single currency is whether the economic case is clear and unambiguous. The Government have said that they will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  Drug Deaths
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action her Department is taking in relation to the increase in the number of drug deaths in Scotland. [145643]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government work in partnership with the Scottish Executive to combat the menace of drugs in Scotland.
  425W
  Reduction of drug-related deaths is a key objective of the Scottish Executive's drug strategy "Tackling Drugs in Scotland: Action in Partnership" which was published in March 1999.

  Winter Deaths
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the(a) number of and (b) trends in excess winter deaths in Scotland since May 1997. [145663]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The collection of statistics on excess winter deaths in Scotland is a devolved matter.

  Fuel poverty contributes to the number of excess winter deaths among pensioners. The UK Government and the Scottish Executive have been working together to tackle fuel poverty and the Government and the devolved Administrations recently published a UK Fuel Poverty Strategy. The Government have taken direct action to help older households with their fuel bills by increasing the Winter Fuel Allowance to £200. The Allowance is paid to over 700,000 eligible households in Scotland. We have also taken other action, such as reducing the level of VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent.

  Govan Shipyard
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the employment impact of recent orders won by Govan shipyard. [145941]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Subject to agreement on satisfactory terms and conditions, the Ministry of Defence intends to place orders for two Alternative Landing Ships Logistics with BAE Systems at Govan. I understand that the yard has also secured other commercial and defence contracts. These orders further help the position of the yard until potential work on the First of Class for the Type 45 Destroyers materialises. Management and unions at the yard recognise the need to secure further short-term work.

  Special Advisers
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many special advisers have been employed by the Scotland Office in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, and (d) 2000–01; and what the total costs were. [150060]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: In the Scottish Office in 1997–98 there were two special advisers and during 1998–99 there were three special advisers in post at any given time. The costs for each year were: 1997–98 £166,933; 1998–99 £295,676.

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. In 1999–2000 and 2000–01, there were three special advisers in post at any one time, one of whom was unpaid. The costs for 1999–2000 were £76,367 and the costs in 2000–01 (to end of March) are £92,379.

  GM Trials
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what safety tests genetically modified 426W
  crops being grown on UK farm scale trials have been subjected to in order to establish their safety for (a) human consumption and (b) use as animal fodder; if he will provide details of these tests, including studies of toxicity; and if she will make a statement; [156770]

  (2) what monitoring of herbicide use is included in the on-going genetically modified farm scale trials; if such monitoring includes studies of (a) run off, (b) leaching, (c) groundwater, (d) the effect on the marine environment and (e) the impact on weeds and wild plants adjacent to the trial crop; and if she will make a statement. [156767]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In Scotland, these matters are devolved.

CABlNET OFFICE

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on funding being made available to support young people as part of the anti-drugs strategy. [157947]

  Marjorie Mowhum
  In addition to the £220 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, new funding of £5 million will also be made available to expand and develop the "Positive Futures" initiative. "Positive Futures" is a partnership between the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit, the Youth Justice Board and Sport England designed to divert youngsters away from drug misuse and crime through the provision of sporting and educational programmes.

  Duchy of Lancaster
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the assets of the Duchy of Lancaster in the county of Yorkshire and the income they generated in each of the last three years. [157703]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Duchy of Lancaster's Yorkshire Survey consists of 7,012 hectares including 4,221 hectares of Goathland Moor. The Duchy owns Tickhill, Pontefract and Pickering Castles, the last two of which are under the guardianship of Wakefield district council, and English Heritage respectively. Under its Urban Survey the Duchy owns property in Harrogate, Knaresborough, York and Doncaster. These include shop and business properties and 103 hectares of open space known as Harrogate Stray. Knaresborough Castle is leased to Harrogate borough council.

  Gross income generated in the last three years was:

  £

  Year to March 1998

  1,057,000

  Year to March 1999

  1,192,000

  Year to March 2000

  1.318,000

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Nursery Places (Wansbeck)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many free nursery places have been created for three and four-year-olds in Wansbeck since 1997. [153144]

  Ms Hodge
  As figures are not held for each individual constituency, the information provided relates to Northumberland local education authority area.

  Since September 1998, all four-year-olds in Northumberland have been able to access a free, part-time, early education place. By March 2004, we expect all three-year-olds in Northumberland will have this entitlement.

  The following table shows how many free early education places have been made available for three and four-year-olds since 1997 in Northumberland.

  Year

  Number of places available

  Percentage of children

  1997–98

  5,,902

  83

  1998–99

  5,833

  83

  1999–2000

  5,000

  81

  2000–01

  5,713

  83

  In 2001–02 Northumberland will receive additional funding of £702,108 to provide place: for 591 three-year-olds. This is in addition to the places that the authority will make available through their own resources (including Standard Spending Assessment).

  The figures include those funded through the nursery education grant and the LEAs own resources (including
  Standard Spending Assessment).The drop in the number
  of places since 1997–98 is due to demographic changes in the number of three and four-year-olds.

  In addition to early education places, since April 1999, 1,072 new child care places have been created in the Northumberland area.

  Child Care Places (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many child care places there were in Shrewsbury and Atcham on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the latest available dates for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [154647]

  Ms Hodge
  Details of the number of child care places are not available by constituency. Between May 1997 and March 1999, the National Childcare Strategy created 7,855 child care places in the West Midlands. Since April 1999 local Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships have provided details of the new child care places that have opened by constituency. Between April 1999 and December 2000 Shropshire Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership have reported the creation of 142 new child care places in the Shrewsbury and Atcham area.
  428W
  Since 1997, 1,639 new early education places have been created for three and four-year-olds in the Shropshire area1.
  1Shropshire split into two authorities from April 1998. The figure for early education places for three and four-year-olds relates to the combined Shropshire authority area that existed in April 1997.

  Child Care Places (Leeds, Central)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total number of(a) new early education places for three year olds and (b) new child care places created in the Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency since May 1997. [156747]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: As figures for early years education places are not held by individual constituencies, the information provided relates to Leeds local education authority.

  The overall proportion of three-year olds in the Leeds area able to access a free, part time, early education place was 66 per cent. in May 1997. All three-year olds in Leeds will be able to access a free early education place from this month. 1,621 additional early education places were created for three-year olds in Leeds local education authority between May 1997 and March 2001.

  Child care figures by constituency are only available from April 1999. 208 new child care places have been created in Leeds, Central since April 1999. Between May 1997 and March 1999 the National Childcare Strategy created 7,759 child care places in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  LEA Funding
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on local education authority funding for 2001–02. [156859]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The overall increase in Education Standard Spending (ESS) in 2001–02 is over billion. In addition to the increase in ESS, the Government are also increasing Standards Fund grant by over £400 million; and following the recent budget announcement schools will also benefit from an increase of £350 million in direct grants. Taken together all these increases represent an 8 per cent. cash increase in revenue support for authorities and their schools next year, a real terms increase of £200 per pupil.

  The schools' capital allocation for 2001–02 is £2.2 billion: this is part of an allocation of £8.5 billion over the three years covered by the Year 2000 Spending Review.

  Since 1997, funding has increased by £540 per pupil in real terms. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £80 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. The total increase following the Year 2000 Spending Review will be around £750 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  While we have been increasing resources to education authorities, we have been reviewing the formula for allocating funds to local authorities. We are currently working on a reformed system, with the aim of moving towards it in 2002–03.

  Early Years Education (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total number of(a) new early years education places for three year olds and (b) new child care places created in Amber Valley since May 1997. [157119]

  Ms Hodge
  Between spring 1998 and spring 2001 3,435 additional, free, early years places have been created for three-year-olds in the Derbyshire local education authority area1. These places were funded either through Nursery Education Grant funding or from the Authority's own resources.

  Between May 1997 and March 1999, the National Childcare Strategy created 5,901 child care places in the East Midlands. Since April 1999 local Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships have provided information by constituency of all new child care places except for child minder places. Between April 1999 and December 2000 Derbyshire Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership have reported the creation of 548 new child care places in Amber Valley. During that same period 261 new child minder places were created across the Derbyshire local education authority area.
  1As a result of boundary changes and the creation of a new unitary authority in Derby City, meaningful figures are only available from January 1998 onwards.

  Classroom of the Future Roadshows
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what dates, and at what locations, his Department has held Classroom of the Future roadshows in the last year; what criteria are used for determining locations; and what roadshows are planned for the next two months. [157378]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 6 April] 14 Classroom of the Future roadshows were held in total in the last year, eight for teachers and head teachers and six for school governors. The roadshows for teachers and heads were held on the following dates and locations:

  Date (2000)

  Location

  7 March

  Heathrow, London

  9 March

  Leeds

  13 March

  Newcastle

  15 March

  Axbridge

  6 March

  Manchester

  22 March

  Dudley, Birmingham

  23 March

  Leicester

  3 April

  Central London

  For school governors they were held on the following dates and locations:

  Date

  Location

  30 October 2000

  Chelmsford

  8 November 2000

  Chiswick, London

  29 January 2001

  Manchester

  1 February 2001

  Bristol

  12 February 2001

  Solihull, Birmingham

  14 February 2001

  Darlington

  The locations for the roadshows were chosen to allow a good spread across the country to enable as many schools,
  430W
  teachers and governors to participate as possible.No further roadshows are planned for the next two months. We will continue to seek opportunities to raise the profile of ICT in education and to share good practice, and may decide to run a further series of similar events in the coming year.

  General Teaching Council
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of his nominees to the General Teaching Council have declared political activity for(a) the Labour party, (b) the Conservative party,
  (c) the Liberal Democrats and (d) other parties. [157509]

  Jacqui Smith
  Of the Secretary of State's 13 appointees to the General Teaching Council only one declared political activity and in this instance it was for the Labour party.

  Teaching Awards Ceremony
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what preparation has been made for the 2001 teaching awards ceremony; and what venue has been chosen. [157510]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Teaching Awards 2001 are run by an independent charity, The Teaching Awards Trust, in partnership with BT and other private sponsors. I understand that me national ceremony is due to take place on 28 October after a series of good practice workshops on 27 October. The Teaching Awards Trust has not yet secured a venue for this event, although it is likely to be in central London.

  Nurseries (Funding)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the eligibility for additional funding of nurseries and playgroups designed to enable them to extend their hours and service: 4, announced by the Prime Minister on 26 March. [157712]

  Ms Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister specifically announced that an extra £15 million over three years is being made available for maintained nursery schools to extend the services they offer to include out of hours child care facilities, services for a wider age range of children, and family services. This will help around 45,000 children and their families.

  My right hon. Friend also announced that £4 million over 12 months will be made available to provide support for playgroups and other early years or child care providers in England intending to expand their services from the traditional two and a half hours early education and/or care session to provide a longer day care facility. This will help around 15,000 children and their families by creating more child care places and providing greater choice, flexibility and quality child care facilities.

  Through the Neighbourhood Nursery initiative, Early Excellence Centre, Sure Start and other programmes we will create, and encourage others to create, by 2004, up to 100,000 new full-time integrated nursery education and child care places. These initiatives are available to a range of providers, including nurseries and playgroups.
  431W
  By March 2004 we plan to have spent over £1 billion on child care initiatives, as well as helping lower income working parents to pay for child care through the Working Families Tax Credit, and these resources will contribute to the extension of services for children, including nurseries and playgroups extending their hours.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  JPs (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many justices of the peace there are in Chorley, broken down by party political affiliation. [157715]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are currently 71 magistrates assigned to the Chorley Bench. Of these, 25 give their political views as being Conservative; 18 Labour, and five Liberal Democrat. A further 22 magistrates indicate that they are uncommitted.

HEALTH

  Gelatine
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sorts of gelatine are used in the manufacture of hard and soft capsules for drugs used in Britain. [143100]

  Yvette Cooper
  The measures are laid down in the Note for Guidance on minimising the risk of transmitting animal spongiform encephalopathy a gents via medicinal products. This guideline has been a force of law by virtue of a Commission Directive 1999/82 and has been incorporated into the United Kingdom domestic law. This guidance note focuses on the cumulative contribution of three factors to the safety of gelatine: the origin of the animals, type of tissue and manufacturing process. It is also recommended that appropriate quality system, such as ISO 9000 certification and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point, should be put in place for monitoring of the production process and batch delineation. Procedures should also be in place to ensure tractability and to audit suppliers of starting materials.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that gelatine used in soft and hard drug capsules is not contaminated with BSE prions; [143098]

  (2) what recent tests his Department has (a) carried out and (b) commissioned to ensure that gelatine used in drug capsules does not contain the prion for BSE. [143099]

  Yvette Cooper
  Gelatine used for formulating medicines can be sourced from porcine and bovine hides (skin) and bovine bones. Acid process is applied to bovine bones, hides and porcine skins. An alkaline process is used to produce soft gelatine.

  There are no tests designed specifically to detect BSE agent in gelatine.

  Departmental Policies (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Slough constituency, the effects on Slough of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [146928]

  Ms Stuart
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Berkshire health authority and Slough social services.

  The increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Berkshire health authority are set out in the table:

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  144.9

  million (real terms)

  95.6

  Percentage (cash)

  41.65

  Percentage (real terms)

  25.51

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Berkshire health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.2 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £144,000, £279,000, £418,000 and £283,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively.

  Berkshire health authority has also received £1.4 million for investment in cancer equipment that has already been delivered and is now in use; £5.3 million, £0.4 million and £0.3 million to reduce waiting lists and times in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £1.6 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £2.5 million and £1.6 million to deal with winter pressures in 1998–99 and 2000–01 respectively; £254,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01; £340,000 invested in dentistry in 2000–01

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £74.0 million major hospital development that is being developed at Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Slough local authority came into existence on 1 April 1998. Its personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 is £22.383 million.

  In addition to its SSA, Slough has received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.
  433W

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  758

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  577

  493

  654

  Prevention grant2

  —

  46

  70

  654

  Carers grant3

  —

  45

  123

  173

  Children's grant3

  —

  250

  389

  946

  MH Core grant

  116

  199

  230

  4261

  Training Support Grant

  60

  137

  147

  4173

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, including statistical information, the effect on the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [149120]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01", is available in the Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Morecambe Bay health authority and Lancashire social services authority.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Morecambe Bay health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (Cash)

  58.5

  £ million (Real terms)

  35.2

  Percentage (Cash)

  34.0

  Percentage (Real terms)

  18.7

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Morecambe Bay health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £550,000 for accident and emergency modernisation at Morecambe Bay Hospitals National Health Service Trust; £27,000, £117,000. £197,000 and £130,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £2.1 million recurrently in 1999–2000 and £1.7 million recurrently to reduce waiting times and lists; £18,000 in 1997–98; £2.5 million in 1998–99; £232,000 in 1999–2000 and £296,000 in 2000–01 non recurrently to reduce waiting times and lists; £820.000 to
  434W
  expand critical care services in 2000–01; £1.1 million in 1997–98, £1.3 million in 1998–99 and £0.8 million in 2000–01 to deal with winter pressures; £492,000 in 2000–01, and a further £392,000 in 2001–02, for developing intermediate care services; £126,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01. For 2001–02, the authority plans to spend £1.9 million more on heart disease services, including drugs, from the real terms funding increase shown; add £129,000 invested in dentistry in 1998 in Morecambe.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from £33.2 million investment at Morecambe Bay Hospitals and Bay Community NHS Trusts.

  Lancashire local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02, compared with 1996–97, is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  187.309

  —

  —

  2001–02

  186.291

  -11.9

  -0.5

  Note:

  The SSA has decreased because of boundary changes resulting from local government re-organisation.

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Lancashire local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  8,064

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  5,5552

  4,700

  6,412

  Prevention grant2

  —

  436

  650

  6,412

  Carers grant3

  —

  435

  1,050

  1,452

  Children's grant3

  —

  1,366

  2,167

  5,433

  Mental Health Core grant

  1,045

  1,763

  2,085

  2,600

  Training Support Grant

  644

  654

  616

  4399

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Bolton, West)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bolton, West constituency, the effects on Bolton, West of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997.[150607]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Department of lit alth—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01", is available in the Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.
  435W
  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Wigan and Bolton health authority and Wigan and Bolton social services authorities.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Wigan and Bolton health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (Cash)

  122.7

  million (Real terms)

  80.3

  Percentage (Cash)

  40.9

  Percentage (Real terms)

  24.8

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only

  Wigan and Bolton health authority has also received additional funding for certain polices. This includes: £3.1 million for accident and emergency modernisation between 1997–98 and 2000–01: £456,000, £210,000, £347,000 and £239,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £3.7 million recurrently in 1999–2000 and £3.4 million recurrently in 2000–01 to reduce wailing times and lists; £4.5 million in 1998–99, £165,000 in 1999–2000 and £333,000 in 2000–01 non recurrenty to reduce waiting times and lists; £0.9 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £1.2 million in 1997–98, £2.4 million in 1998–99, and £0.8 million in 2000–01 to deal with winter pressures; £2.1 million in 2000–01 and £0.1 million in 2001–02 for developing intermediate care services; £183,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01. For 2001–02, the health authority plans to spend £1.3 million more on heart disease services, including drugs, from the real terms funding increase highlighted.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from redevelopment of the Roya1 Albert Edward Infirmary in Wigan at a cost of £24 million.

  Bolton local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  37.958

  —

  —

  2001–02

  50.460

  17.7

  32.9

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Bolton local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table:

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  2,043

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,464

  1,241

  1,674

  Prevention grant2

  —

  109

  163

  1,674

  Carers grant3

  —

  108

  269

  373

  Children's grant3

  —

  397

  625

  1,536

  Mental Health Core grant

  280

  472

  562

  4816

  Training Support Grant

  279

  301

  381

  4372

  436W

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Bristol, East)
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bristol, East constituency, the effects on Bristol of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150554]

  Ms Stuart
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Avon health authority and City of Bristol social services.

  The increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Avon health authority are set out in the table:

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  184.5

  £ million (real terms)

  118

  Percentage (cash)

  38.57

  Percentage (real terms)

  22.78

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Avon health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £2.521 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £158,000, £368,000, £535,000 and £366,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £4.677 million and £8.035 million to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £3.191 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £4.677 million to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01, of this £2.043 million went to social services; £2.847 million and £722,000 for developing intermediate care services in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £350,000 and £1.9 million for heart disease services 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; and £70,000 invested in dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from an award of £68 million for Avon and Western Wiltshire Mental Health NHS Trust's scheme to replace dilapidated and outdated facilities in unsuitable locations in order to deliver responsive mental health services to the local communities. Work to develop this scheme is due to start in 2001.
  437W
  My hon. Friend's constituents will also benefit from UBHT scheme of £104 million which will enable them to reconfigure acute and critical care facilities on the main site, together with a diagnostic and treatment centre and development of intermediate care centres in Keynsham Hospital and at the Bristol General.

  Bristol local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment (SSA) for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  59.599

  —

  —

  2001–02

  76.203

  13.2

  27.9

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Bristol local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  2,837

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  2,103

  1,801

  2,423

  Prevention grant2

  —

  165

  248

  2,423

  Carers grant2

  —

  164

  423

  584

  Children's grant3

  —

  714

  1,134

  2,778

  Mental Health Core grant

  412

  695

  802

  4121

  Training Support Grant

  373

  427

  518

  4501

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, including statistical information, the effect on the Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150719]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by North West Lancashire Health Authority and Blackpool social services authority.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for North West Lancashire Health Authority are shown in the table.
  438W

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  100.8

  £ million (real terms)

  64.3

  Percentage (cash)

  38.7

  Percentage (real terms

  22.9

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  North West Lancashire health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £450,000 for accident and emergency modernisation at Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust; £25,000, £147,000. £296,000 and £199,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–00 and 2000–01 respectively; £27000, £3.8 million, £160,000 and £345,000 in 1997– 98, 1998–99, 1999–00 and 2000–01 respectively to reduce waiting times and lists; £1.8 million to expand critical tare services in 2000–01; £0.6 million in 1997–98; £1.9 million in 1998–99 and £0.7 million in 2000–01 to deal with winter pressures; £1.3 million in 2000–01 and £4.4 million in 2001–02 for developing intermediate care services; and £178,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01. For 2001–02, the authority plans to spend £1.9 million more on heart disease services, including drugs, from the real terms funding increase highlighted.

  In 1997–98, dental practices in the Blackpool, North and Fleetwood areas received more than £160,000 through the Investing in Dentistry initiative. In 2001, Blackpool town centre will receive funding for a personal dental services pilot aimed at improving access across the town.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £30 million Phase V development at Blackpool Victoria Hospital.

  Blackpool local authority came into existence on 1 pril 1998. Its personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 is £31.646 million.

  In addition to its SSA, Blackpool has received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1,422

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  944

  793

  1,071

  Prevention grant2

  —

  72

  106

  1,071

  Carers' grant3

  —

  72

  175

  240

  Children's grant3

  —

  237

  379

  979

  Mental Health Core grant

  173

  293

  350

  4444

  Training Support Grant

  86

  197

  270

  4311

  1The special transitional giant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Stroud)
  Dr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as
  439W
  directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Stroud constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152402]

  Ms Stuart
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–2001" is available in the Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies are not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Gloucestershire health authority and Gloucestershire social services.

  The increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Gloucestershire health authority are set out in the table:

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  93

  £ million (real terms)

  55.3

  Percentage (cash)

  33.29

  Percentage (real terms)

  18.10

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Gloucestershire health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.479 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £123,000, £210,000, £308,000 and £205,000 for improving cancer services (breast colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £2.632 million to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01; £1.314 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £1.508 million to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01, of this £536,000 went to Gloucestershire social services; £1.551 million and £389,000 for developing intermediate care services in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £172,000 and £1.034 million for heart disease services in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; and £95,000 invested in dentistry in 2000–01.

  Gloucestershire local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment (SSA) for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  Year

  million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  61.579

  —

  —

  2001–02

  81.227

  16.8

  31.9

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Gloucester local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.
  440W

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  2,402

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  2,465

  2,097

  2,914

  Prevention grant2

  —

  197

  294

  2,914

  Carers grant2

  —

  199

  467

  654

  Children's grant3

  —

  524

  821

  2,044

  Mental Health Core Grant

  457

  771

  890

  41,168

  Training Support Grant

  310

  405

  337

  4338

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Warrington, North constituency, the effects on Warrington, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152317]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by North Cheshire health authority and Halton and Warrington social services authorities.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for North Cheshire health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  57.6

  £ million (real terms)

  34.7

  Percentage (cash)

  34.20

  Percentage (real terms)

  18.91

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  North Cheshire health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £864,000 for accident and emergency modernisation between 1997–98 and 2000–01; £31,000, £125,000, £192,000 and £129,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £2.1 million in 1999–2000 recurrently and £1.7 million recurrently in 2000–01 to reduce waiting times and lists; £75,000 in 1997–98, £2.5 million in 1998–99, £90,000 in 1999–2000 and £226,000 in 2000–01 non recurrently to reduce waiting times and lists; £1.5 million to expand

  441W
  critical care services in 2000–01; £1.2 million in 1997–98, £1.2 million in 1998–99, and £1.1 million in 2000–01 to deal with winter pressures; £0.6 million in 2000–01 and 2001–02 for developing intermediate care services; £122,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01. For 2001–02, the authority plans to spend £0.6 million more on heart disease services, including drugs, from the real terms funding increase given; and £110,000 has been invested in dentistry between 1997–98 and 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new purchase of the Daresbury Wing (a private hospital facility on the Warrington Hospital) by the National Health Service in 1999–2000 which cost £1.8 million. A further £1.2 million has been provided by the North West Regional Office of the Department of Health to equip the facility so that it can carry out orthopaedic surgery for the residents of Warrington and the surrounding areas.Warrington local authority came into existence on 1 April 1998. Its personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 is £28.699 million.

  In addition to its SSA, Warrington has received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1,179

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  847

  726

  984

  Prevention grant2

  —

  65

  98

  984

  Carers grant3

  —

  65

  157

  218

  Children's grant3

  —

  195

  306

  766

  Mental Health Core grant

  157

  265

  312

  4373

  Training Support Grant

  106

  175

  198

  4225

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99.

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation.

  Departmental Policies (Newbury)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Newbury constituency, the effects on Newbury and west Berkshire of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154573]

  Ms Stuart
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies are not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  The hon. Member's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Berkshire health authority and West Berkshire social services.

  The increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Berkshire health authority are set out in the table.
  442W

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  144.9

  £ million (real terms)

  95.6

  Percentage (cash)

  41.65

  Percentage (real terms)

  25.51

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Berkshire health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.2 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £144,000, £279,000, £418,000 and £283,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1999–00 and 2000–01 respectively.

  Berkshire health authority has also received £1.4 million for investment in cancer equipment that has already been delivered and is now in use; £5.3 million, £0.4 million and £0.3 million to reduce waiting lists and times in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £1.6 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £2.5 million and £1.6 million to deal with winter pressures in 1998–99 and 2000–01 respectively; £254,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01; £340,000 invested in dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will benefit from the new £74.0 million major hospital development that is being developed at Royal Berkshire and Battle NHS Trust.

  West Berkshire local authority came into existence on 1 April 1998. Its personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 is £16.331 million.

  In addition to it SSA, West Berkshire has received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  669

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  491

  416

  581

  Prevention grant2

  —

  42

  62

  581

  Carers grant3

  —

  42

  97

  137

  Children's grant3

  —

  112

  187

  412

  Mental Health Core grant

  106

  179

  820

  4236

  Training Support Grant

  57

  121

  123

  4153

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Truro and St. Austell)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Truro and St. Austell constituency, the effects on Truro and St. Austell of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154529]
  443W
  Ms Stuart
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health-Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport

  impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  The hon. Member's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority and Cornwall social services.

  The increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2000–01 for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority are set out in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  94

  £ million (real terms)

  58.3

  Percentage (cash)

  36.25

  Percentage (real terms)

  20.72

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital community health sell ices, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Cornwall health authority has received funding for certain policies. This includes: £99,000, £193,000, £266,000 and £192,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £2.499 million and £4.198 million to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £1.407 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £580,000 to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01, of this £125,000 went to social services; £1.488 million and £377,000 for developing intermediate care services in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £785,000 and £1.002 million for hart disease services 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; and £80,000 invested in dentistry in 2000–01.

  Pecentage increase

  Year

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  60.814

  —

  —

  2001–02

  83.924

  22.2

  38.0

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Cornwall local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  3,598

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  2,537

  2,184

  3,086

  Prevention grant2

  —

  198

  298

  3,086

  Carers grant3

  —

  204

  476

  669

  Children's grant3

  —

  488

  764

  41,917

  Mental Health Core grant

  454

  766

  885

  41,191

  Training Support Grant

  266

  229

  297

  4315

  444W

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Lancaster and Wyre)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, the effect on Lancaster and Wyre of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154682]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 March 2001]: Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Morecambe Bay health authority and Lancashire social services authority.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for North West Lancashire health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (Cash)

  58.5

  £ million (Real terms)

  35.2

  Percentage (Cash)

  34.0

  Percentage (Real terms)

  18.7

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Morecambe Bay health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £550,000 for accident and emergency modernisation at Morecambe Bay Hospitals National Health Service Trust; £27,000, £117,000, £197,000 and £130,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £2.1 million recurrently in 1999–2000 and £1.7 million recurrently in 2000–01 to reduce waiting lists and times; £18,000 in 1997–98, £2.5 million in 1998–99, £232,000 in 1999–2000 and £296,000 in 2000–01—non recurrently to reduce waiting times and lists; £820,000 to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £1.1 million in 1997–98, £1.3 million in 1998–99 and £0.8 million in 2000–01 to deal with winter pressures; £492,000 in 2000–01 and £392,000 in 2001–02, for developing intermediate care services; £126,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01; for 2001–02, the authority plans to spend £1.9 million more on heart disease services, including drugs, from the real terms funding increase shown; and £12,000 invested in dentistry in 1998 in Lancaster.
  445W
  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from £33.2 million investment at Morecambe Bay Hospitals and Bay Community NHS Trusts.

  Lancashire local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  187.309

  —

  —

  2001–02

  186.291

  -11.9

  -0.5

  Note:

  The SSA has decreased because of boundary changes resulting from local government re-organisation.

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Lancashire local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  8,064

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  5,552

  4,700

  6,412

  Prevention grant2

  —

  436

  650

  6,412

  Carers grant3

  —

  435

  1,050

  1,452

  Children's grant

  —

  1,366

  2,167

  5,433

  MH Core grant

  1,045

  1,763

  2,085

  2,600

  Training Support Grant

  644

  654

  616

  4399

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Chichester)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Chichester constituency, the effects on Chichester of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155288]

  Ms Stuart
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  The constituency falls within the geographical area covered by West Sussex health authority and West Sussex social services.

  The increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for West Sussex health authority are set out in the table:

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  146.0

  £ million (real terms)

  92.9

  Percentage (cash)

  38.35

  Percentage (real terms)

  22.59

  446W
  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  West Sussex health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £2.2 million for accident and emergency in 2000–01; £144,000, £308,000, £438,000 and £293,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; West Sussex health authority has also received £296,000 for investment in cancer equipment that has already been delivered and is now in use. £5.8 million, £0.4 million and £0.3 million to reduce waiting lists and times in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £1.8 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £2.9 million and £1.2 million to deal with winter pressures in 1998–99 and 2000–01 respectively; £1.8 million for heart disease services in 2000–01; £255,600 invested in dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, constituents will benefit from the new £24.0 million major scheme for the reprovision of services relating to Grayling well Hospital.

  West Sussex local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table:

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  94,602

  —

  —

  2001–02

  118.454

  10.9

  25.2

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, West Sussex local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  5,151

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership Grant2

  —

  3,575

  3,071

  4,484

  Prevention Grant2

  —

  314

  474

  4,484

  Carers Grant3

  —

  317

  725

  1,033

  Children's Grant3

  —

  676

  1,062

  2,682

  MH Core Grant

  767

  1,197

  1,381

  41,784

  Training Support Grant

  396

  542

  677

  4607

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (North Devon)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the North Devon constituency, the effects on North Devon of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155898]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report 'Department of Health—Government
  447W
  Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  The hon. Member's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by North and East Devon health authority and Devon Social Services.

  The increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2000–01 for North and East Devon health authority are set out in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  84.7

  £ million (real terms)

  50.6

  Percentage (cash)

  33.60

  Percentage (real terms)

  18.37

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health set vices, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  North and East Devon health authority has received funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.352 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £157,000, £211,000, £273,000 and £186,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £3.186 million and £3.994 million to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £1.333 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £804,000 to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01, £368,000 of this went to Devon Social Services; £1.422 million and £359,000 for developing intermediate care services in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £470,000 and £954,000 for heart disease services 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; and £50,000 invested in dentistry in 2001–01.

  Devon local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment (SSA) for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  138.497

  —

  —

  2001–02

  110.339

  -29.4

  -20.3

  Note:

  The SSA has decreased because of boundary changes resulting from local government re-organisation

  In addition to the SSAs referred to Devon local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  4,890

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership Grant2

  —

  3,407

  2,917

  4,140

  Prevention Grant3

  —

  280

  420

  4,140

  Carers Grant3

  —

  289

  662

  923

  Children's Grant3

  —

  624

  986

  2,471

  Mental Health Core Grant

  667

  1,1446

  1,207

  41,408

  Training Support Grant

  381

  450

  484

  4473

  448W

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (North Cornwall)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the North Cornwall constituency, the effects on North Cornwall of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156123]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  The hon. Member's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority and Cornwall Social Services authority.

  The increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Cornwall health authority is set out in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  94.0

  £ million (real terms)

  58.3

  Percentage (cash)

  36.25

  Percentage (real terms)

  20.72

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Cornwall health authority has received funding for certain policies. This includes: £99,000, £193,000, £266,000 and £192,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £2.499 million and £4.198 million to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £1.407 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £580,000 to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01, of this £125,000 went to social services; £1.488 million and £377,000 for developing intermediate care services in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £785,000 and £1.002 million for heart disease services 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; and £80,000 invested in dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, the hon. Member's constituents will benefit from a new major capital investment of £101 million major hospital development due to start in 2002 at Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Cornwall local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment (SSA) for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.
  449W

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  60.814

  —

  —

  2001–02

  83.924

  22.2

  38.0

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Cornwall local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  3,598

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  2,537

  2,184

  3,086

  Prevention grant2

  —

  198

  298

  3,086

  Carers grant3

  —

  204

  476

  669

  Children's grant3

  —

  488

  764

  1.917

  Mental Health Core grant

  454

  766

  885

  41.191

  Training Support Grant

  266

  229

  229

  4315

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99.

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant.

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000.

  4Indicative allocation.

  Independent Advocacy Services
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Independent Advocacy Services will be(a) commissioned, (b) funded and (c) provided. [155953]

  Ms Stuart
  Subject to legislation in the Health and Social Care Bill, Independent Advocacy Services will be commissioned to assist patients who are making complaints about National Health Service organisations. Patients will be able to access the service directly or may be referred to it by Patient Advocacy Liaison Service or NHS Direct.

  The Bill requires that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consult the Patients' Council and other relevant bodies on the best approach for a locality before commissioning and funding a service.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to review the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) Regulations 1996; and if he will list the countries from which over-30-month beef may be imported. [156484]

  Ms Stuart
  The Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No 2) Regulations 1996 set out the generally applicable ban on the sale for human consumption of beef from cattle aged over thirty months at slaughter (OTM rule).

  As far as United Kingdom slaughterings are concerned,
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that, as recommended in its review of BSE controls, it intends to review in August 2001 the effectiveness of the tightened animal feed controls introduced in August 1996 and the evidence of BSE incidence five years after that time. Depending on the outcome of that review, it is anticipated that it may be possible in early 2002 for the FSA to advise the date of birth of cattle that need not enter the OTM scheme and which could be sold for human consumption. This date of birth could not be earlier than August 1996 when the enhanced feed ban was
  450W
  implemented. Such a change could not be introduced unilaterally but would require the agreement of the European Commission and other member states.

  Beef from cattle aged OTM at slaughter may be imported from any country but it may only be sold for human consumption if it comes from animals that were born, reared and slaughtered in Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Mauritius, Namibia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Poland, South Africa. Swaziland, Uruguay. United States of America and Zimbabwe. These are countries that historically supplied the UK and in which there was no history of BSE. The review of BSE controls recognised the need to keep up to date the list of countries that are considered to be BSE free and I am advised by the FSA that it is being reviewed in the light of recent European Union assessments of geographical risk.

  Copies of the FSA's review of BSE controls are available in the Library.

  Urologist Consultants
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many urologist consultants are projected to be in post in 2005. [157086]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures from the specialty workforce advisory group show that the number of consultants in the urology specialty in England and Wales is set to increase from 442 in 1999 to 570 in 2005, an increase of nearly a third.

  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant urologist posts there were in the NHS in(a) 1990, (b) 1995 and (c) 2000; and how many of those posts were vacant. [157109]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of consultant urologists in each year mentioned is set out in the table.

  Hospital medical urology consultants

  At 30 September

  Number

  1990

  220

  1995

  310

  2000

  380

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Figures exclude locums

  3. These are headcount figures

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  We are unable to provide vacancy information for consultant urologists. Vacancy information for the surgical group, which includes urology, is set out in the table.

  Department of Health vacancies survey: Number of consultant vacancies in the surgical group three month vacancy figures1

  England

  Year

  Vacancies

  1999

  60

  2000

  62

  1Posts that had been vacant for three months or more at 31 March each year.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are whole-time equivalents rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2. Vacancy information has been collected only since 1999.

  Source:

  Department of Health vacancies survey

  EU Tobacco Directive
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to apply for a derogation until 2007 for the EU Directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products. [156798]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 4, April 2001]: The Directive on manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, once adopted, will permit member states to delay applying new tar, cat bon monoxide and nicotine limits to cigarettes intended for export outside the European Community until January 2007. We will consult in due course on the details of transposing the Directive into United Kingdom law, including the length of the transitional period for third country exports. Ministers will take a final decision in the light of that consultation.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is the intention of the Government to publish its preferred position on derogation of the implementation of the EU Directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products prior to consultations on the transposition of the directive into UK law. [156799]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: We will consult on the policy options for transposing this Directive into United Kingdom law in due course, including the length of any derogations. Ministers will then take final decisions in the light of that consultation.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the national minimum standards for care homes for adults; and if he will make a statement. [157280]

  Mr. Hutton
  We hope to be able to publish the consultation document on the care homes regulations and the national minimum standards for care homes for younger adults and adult placements in the next few weeks.

  Child Sex Abuse
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2001,Official Report, column 423W, how many local authorities have access within their local areas to specialist services for children who sexually abuse other children. [157363]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 it is the duty of every local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. Children who sexually abuse other children are likely to have considerable, often complex, needs.

  Consequently, children who sexually abuse other children may receive a whole range of services from several different agencies including social services, Youth Offending Teams, health authorities and voluntary organisations.

  Consultancy Payments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total gross running costs were to his 452W
  Department of fees and disbursements paid to consultants
  (a) in the period February 1996 to January 1997 and (b) in the financial year 1996–97.[157614]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department's expenditure on external management consultants in the financial year 1996–97 was £15.789 million.

  The Department does not hold the 1996 data in a form that would allow us to calculate the consultancy spend over the specific period February 1996 to January 1997.

  Newcastle City Health Trust
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what deficit he expects in respect of(a) elderly and (b) rehabilitation services of the former Newcastle City Health Trust; if (i) bridging and (ii) brokerage finance has been agreed; and if the successor trusts will receive similar support. [157100]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Newcastle City Health National Health Service Trust is forecasting a revenue breakeven position for 2000–01. Information on the financial position of individual service components of the trust is not held centrally.

  The trust received £1 million assistance in respect of the Newcastle strategic review (NSR) bridging arrangements, which was partially funded from national special assistance funding. This funding is non-repayable. In addition, the trust received £1.8 million cash in March 2001, which will become repayable in April 2001 from successor organisations as part of the management of year end balances in the local health economy. Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority is to receive £2.5 million national special assistance in 2001–02.

  Bed Closures (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when, and by whom, it was decided to close beds at Hunters Moor Hospital, Newcastle; on what grounds the decision was taken; and when those beds will be reopened. [157102]

  Mr. Hutton
  Northgate and Prudhoe National Health Service Trust agreed in October 2000 to upgrade the facilities for patients as soon as possible after they began to manage the rehabilitation services provided at Hunters Moor Hospital, as requested by both Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority and Newcastle community health council. Work to upgrade facilities began in December and five beds were closed at that time. Three beds reopened as work progressed and as of 4 April all beds were open.

  Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Trust
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who has been appointed Chair and non-executive directors of the Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Neuro-rehabilitation Trust. [157101]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed Ms Sue Whittaker to chair the new Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Mental Health National Health Service Trust until 30 November
  453W
  2004. An announcement on the appointment of four of the non-executive directors of the new trust will be made very shortly.

  Newcastle (Strategic Review)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when decisions were taken to(a) establish the Newcastle Acute Services Review, (b) replace the present Northern Centre for Cancer Treatment, Newcastle and (c) replace the present Hunters Moor Hospital, Newcastle; when the outline business cases were submitted for (b) and (c); and when he will invite bids for the work. [157015]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Newcastle strategic review (NSR), as a strategy, was approved by Ministers in December 1993. The first support to its capital investment implications commenced in 1995, with the start of an allocation of £8.4 million of "fast track" capital to commence movement of acute services off the Newcastle General Hospital site. Confirmation of the support to larger scale capital investment was provided by the approval of the second wave strategic outline case (SOC) in April 1998, revisions to which were approved in September 1999.

  The 1993 NSR strategy document did not include provision for the relocation of the northern centre for cancer treatment (NCCT) from the Newcastle General Hospital site. It became subsequently apparent as acute services were relocated off the Newcastle General Hospital site that the NCCT would become increasingly isolated from access to surgery, medicine, anaesthetics, critical care and other clinical services. Consequently, the subsequent SOC (approved in April 1998) included the reprovision of the NCCT on the Freeman Hospital site.

  Public consultation was undertaken during Summer 2000 on the reconfiguration of neuro-disability services for the northern part of the region. In September 2000 Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority supported the option to reprovide the services including those currently provided at Hunters Moor Hospital with new facilities on the Walkergate Hospital site.

  The business cases for the main elements of the NSR (which includes reprovision of the NCCT) were received on 14 February 2001. The date for when bids for the work will be sought is dependent on the completion of the refinement of the outline business cases, which is now being undertaken by the trust and health authority.

  Although a business case for the development at Walkergate is in preparation, a definitive version has not yet been submitted to the regional office of the National Health Service Executive for approval. Consequently it is not yet possible to say when bids for this scheme will be invited.

  NHS Vacancies
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS vacancies there were for(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) midwives, (d) health visitors, (e) professions allied to medicine and (f) management and administration staff for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; how many posts in each category have been vacant for longer than three months; and if he will make a statement. [157323]
  454W
  Mr. Denham
  The Department has collected data on the number of posts that have been vacant for three months or more as at 31 March in 1999 and 2000. The information is in the table.

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey Three month vacancy figures1 in England as at 31 March for each year

  1999

  2000

  Consultants

  530

  760

  Qualified nurses

  7,150

  9,870

  Of which

  Midwives

  370

  490

  Health visitors

  95

  191

  Professions allied to medicine2

  860

  1,510

  Administration and estates3

  640

  1,740

  1Posts that had been vacant for three months or more at 31 March each year.

  2Professions allied to medicine staff include the following occupation groups: Chiropody, dietetics, occupational therapy. orthoptics/optics, physiotherapy, diagnostic radiography, therapeutic radiology, art/music/drama therapy.

  3Management and administration staff are part of administration and estates staff group, and cannot be separately identified.

  Note:

  Figures are whole time equivalents rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey

  Locum Doctors
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was to the NHS of employing locum doctors in(a) general practice and (b) hospital medicine in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [157324]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected or held centrally.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in recorded cases of epilepsy between 1 November 1999 and 28 February 2001. [157555]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. The table shows the number of admissions by month to National Health Service hospitals in England for epilepsy in 1999–2000. Data for 2000––01 are not yet available. The figures do not reflect the numbers of individuals involved, neither do they include cases of epilepsy that do not result in admission to hospital.

  Admissions to NHS hospitals in England where the main diagnosis was epilepsy, 1999–2000

  Year/month

  Admissions

  1999

  April

  3,030

  May

  3,163

  June

  3,110

  July

  3,071

  August

  3,282

  September

  3,234

  October

  3,104

  November

  3,020

  December

  2,783

  455W

  Admissions to NHS hospitals in England where the main diagnosis was epilepsy, 1999–2000

  Year/month

  Admissions

  2000

  January

  2,929

  February

  2,873

  2,847

  Notes:

  1. The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital

  2. Figures have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 12 January, 8 February, 8 March and 4 April relating to a constituent, Mrs. Ruth Cooper of Hoddesdon. [157458]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply to the hon. Member's letters was sent 19 February 2001.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Private Security Industry Bill
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whit proposals he has for licensing wheel-dampers. [156030]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Private Security Industry Bill, which was introduced in the Houselast month, sets out proposals to regulate private wheel-clampers. Under the Bill anyone engaged in wheel-clamping by way of business or employment or for monetary gain will need to obtain a licence from the regulatory authority which is also being set up under the legislation.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the Private Security Industry Bill. [156054]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have received representations from a number of organisations and individuals including:companies and individuals working in the private security industry;
  local authorities and their associations;
  Members of Parliament;
  Members of the House of Lords;
  representative bodies in the leisure industry;
  the police;
  trade and professional associations;
  trade unions; and
  members of the public.

  The representations related to a number of provisions of the Bill, including the regulation of in-house manned guards and other sectors of the industry, wheel-clamping and the licensing of security companies.

  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for regulation of club and pub doormen. [156038]
  456W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Private Security Industry Bill provides for the establishment of a Security Industry Authority which will have responsibility for licensing individuals employed in designated sectors of the security industry, including door supervisors.

  The Authority will be responsible for establishing a licensing regime for all door supervisors. This will involve setting national criteria, in consultation with the police, industry and local authorities, which will be used in deciding whether to grant a licence. Initially the criteria will involve a criminal record check, but it is envisaged that over time additional criteria relating to training and similar issues will be imposed. This aim is to ensure that only fit and proper people receive licences to operate as door supervisors. Those who do not meet the published criteria will be refused licences.

  Clubbers (Safe Havens)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage safe havens for clubbers. [156031]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Following the sad deaths of three young men in Norwich, we welcome and support the local initiative to provide a refuge for vulnerable young people who are affected by alcohol on busy clubbing nights; we will see what wider lessons can be learned from it.

  Hilda Murrell
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2001,Official Report, column 386W, on Hilda Murrell, if he will make a statement on the staged examinations of samples being carried out by the Forensic Science Service. [156032]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  West Mercia constabulary and the Forensic Science Service are working together on a structured approach to the examination of all potential DNA-bearing material relating to this case. This has involved setting up a staged process applying the DNA techniques in a priority order so as to conserve as far as possible samples for future analysis if the current tests are unsuccessful. The examinations have been carefully prioritised and are being undertaken in a sequential manner using the latest DNA techniques such as Second Generation Multiplex Plus and the more sophisticated Low Copy Number.

  As I indicated in my answer of 9 March 2001, Official Report, column 386W, so far the test results have provided no positive results. The samples currently under examination are being processed as a Major Crime Service priority using the Low Copy Number method. The results of these tests are expected in the week beginning 23 April.

  Disorderly Licensed Premises
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the police regarding powers to close disorderly licensed premises. [156033]
  457W
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with licensees and pub managers about police powers to close disorderly licensed premises. [156034]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have discussed on a number of recent occasions with both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the licensed trade the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill.

  Drugs (Tower Hamlets)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Department has supported in Tower Hamlets to combat the drugs problem. [156035]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have supported the work of the Drugs Action Team with:some £36,000 last year and this, for support and co-ordination;
  some £64,000 for this year as the Home Office contribution to supporting services for young people under Drugs Action Team planning requirements;
  £180,000 over the next three years for a community development project on the Ocean Estate;
  over £76,000 last year and likely the same this for arrest referral schemes;
  some £580,000 this year for treatment provision, to which the Home Office has made significant contribution.

  In addition, there will be a Tower Hamlets allocation—yet to be decided—from the £220 million announced for action against local drugs markets.

  Business Watch Schemes
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice and assistance his Department offers to business watch schemes; and if he will make a statement. [156036]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We do not provide any direct formal or financial assistance to business watch schemes, and there are no central records available as to the number of such schemes. We do, of course, welcome any such initiatives to combat crime. Among the projects to assist business to reduce crime is Business Crime Check which seeks to create, maintain and promote a database of information relevant to those who wish to reduce crime against business.

  The Home Department is also intending to launch later this month a Business and Retail Crime Toolkit. This is one of 22 Toolkits that are designed to help provide local crime and disorder partnerships, and the wider community, with information about different crimes and ways to help tackle them. As well as outlining the main crimes affecting business this will include a guide to best practice in combating such crimes. It will also include information on how to go about setting up a project to tackle a problem as well accessing possible sources of funding.

  Severe Personality Disorders
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress made in agreeing protocols between health authorities and police on information exchange regarding individuals with severe personality disorders. [156037]
  458W
  Mr. Boateng
  It is vital for the effective protection of the public that there should be effective arrangements for information-sharing, between all the agencies involved, about anyone who may pose a serious risk to others because of a personality disorder or other mental disorder. In some parts of England and Wales health authorities do take part in the work of Multi-Agency Risk Panels and Public Protection Panels. In others, concerns about breaking professional codes of practice relating to patient confidentiality have prevented them from doing so. In the White Paper "Reforming the Mental Health Act", published on 20 December last year, we made it clear that new mental health legislation will create a statutory duty covering the disclosure of information between agencies in these circumstances.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the maintenance of law and order. [156039]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Human Rights Act will help the maintenance of law and order by the development of a culture of rights and responsibilities across the United Kingdom.

  Robberies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce the number of robberies committed in England and Wales. [156040]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are determined to reduce the number of robberies. That is why we have given the five metropolitan forces an additional £20 million specifically to assist their efforts in tackling robbery, and have set them the challenging target of a 14 per cent. reduction of robbery in our principal cities by March 2005. The additional funds have enabled those forces to introduce a number of new initiatives and to reinforce good practice.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has also launched a separate initiative with the police and the mobile phone industry to crack down on robbery of mobile phones. We have also published a Robbery Toolkit which is available to all forces and those involved in crime reduction and community safety and will help them to work as effectively as possible in tackling robbery.

  Drugs Education Programmes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make extra funds available to police forces to advise on drugs education programmes. [156042]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Drugs education in schools is a matter for the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The police can, and do, support schools, but this must come from existing and planned provision.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of applications for political asylum in the last 12 months. [156043]
  459W
  Mrs. Roche
  There were 75,720 asylum applications made from March 2000 to February 2001.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers who were refused asylum were deported in 2000. [156046]

  Mrs. Roche
  8,980 failed asylum seekers were removed or left voluntarily in 2000.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the criteria for assessing asylum applications. [156051]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department receives a number of representations on a wide range of asylum issues, including the application of the 1951 Convention criteria for determining asylum claims.

  Each application for asylum is considered on its individual merits to determine whether the applicant can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in a particular country for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the numbers of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom whose addresses are not known by his Department. [156052]

  Mrs. Roche
  The precise number of asylum applicants whose address is not known could only be determined by examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost. However, in most cases a contact address is likely to have been given.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on choice of area for the placement of asylum seekers on the basis of local economic conditions. [156053]

  Mrs. Roche
  Areas that are to be used as clusters are researched centrally by the National Asylum Support Service and there is a full consultation process to enable local authorities, usually through the Regional Consortia, to have input into the decision making process. Each area is considered on its own particular merits and factors such as economic conditions are taken into account. It is not the intention to exacerbate local economic difficulties but to achieve a fair and equitable dispersal.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers there are in the United Kingdom who have not yet had their application accepted. [156041]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of outstanding asylum applications awaiting an initial decision at the end of February 2001 was 49,690.

  Crime Reduction
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy to reduce crime. [156044]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are committed to reducing crime, tackling its causes, ensuring proper punishment of those who break the law and providing the 460W
  resources necessary to tackle crime. As a result, the British Crime Survey showed that crime fell by 10 per cent. between 1997 and 1999. In addition, the number of police officers rose by 444 in the six months to September 2000.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of crime in England and Wales. [156047]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The British Crime Survey (BCS), published on 17 October, shows an overall fall of 10 per cent. in crimes measured by the BCS between 1997 and 1999. The most recently published recorded crime statistics show that in the 12 months to September 2000 there was a fall in recorded crime of 0.2 per cent. In the same period, domestic burglary fell by 10 per cent. and vehicle crime by 7 per cent.

  Surrey Police Force
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the funding of Surrey police force. [156048]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the police funding settlement for 2001–02 Surrey Police Authority will receive £111 million in central Government supported funding. It will also continue to benefit from the Crime Fighting Fund and Rural Policing Fund. Surrey will receive £2.3 million from the Crime Fighting Fund and £11,048 from the Rural Policing Fund. £220,000 has also been allocated to Surrey under the Targeted Policing Initiative.

  The budget set by Surrey Police Authority for 2001–02 is £122.4 million, an increase of 2.1 per cent. (+£2.5 million) over the previous year.

  In addition, commencing 1 April the Home Office has agreed to fund 75 per cent. of the cost of the new allowance of £2,000 per annum to be paid to officers serving in the Surrey Police who were appointed on or after 1 September 1994 and who are not in receipt of housing allowance.

  Police Recruitment and Retention
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to improve recruitment and retention of police officers. [156049]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have established the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) to enable forces to recruit 9,000 officers over and above the number they had previously planned in the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03. Forces report that about 2,800 CFF officers were recruited in 2000–01.

  We have launched the first national police recruitment advertising campaign. There had been over 129,000 responses to the campaign by 25 March 2000 and over 27,000 expressions of interest had been passed to forces.

  We are reviewing entry requirements for the Police Service to ensure consistency across forces and a good supply of quality candidates.
  461W
  In order to improve retention of police officers, we have been considering how we might be able to encourage more officers who have completed 30 years' service but not reached compulsory retirement age, to remain, where they have key skills and experience. Measures to address sickness rates and medical retirement are set out in my answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 18 December 2000, Official Report, column 59W.

  Measures to improve both retention and recruitment are:
  £3,327 per annum increase in London Allowance for officers in the Metropolitan and the City of London police who joined on or after 1 September 1994 and receive no housing allowance;
  provision (at a cost of £2.45 million next year) of free rail travel within a 70 mile radius of London for Metropolitan police officers;
  allowances for officers serving in the south-east, as set out in my answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 12 March 2001, Official Report, column 485W;
  the Government's Starter Homes Initiative under which £250 million will be made available over the next three years. Bids covering a number of police force areas have proceeded to Stage 2 of the bidding round.

  Violence against Women
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to combat violence against women. [156050]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are determined to reduce all crimes of violence including violence against women. We set out our strategy for doing so in "fighting violent crime together: an action plan" which was published in January.

  In support of the action plan, we announced on
  23 March an extra £3.7 million to fund a further
  24 projects addressing violence against women. This funding is on top of the £7 million announced last summer which provides funding for 34 projects as part of our Crime Reduction Programme. These projects are helping to identify what works best in tackling violence against women, including domestic violence.

  In addition to the increased funding, our programme against domestic violence includes, within the last year, guidance to agencies dealing with domestic violence, along with specific guidance to health service professionals; a Home Office circular to the police to build on the progress made in addressing domestic violence and reducing repeat victimisation; inclusion of this issue within police Best Value performance indicators; £120 million additional capital funding for a new Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund for specified vulnerable groups, which includes the survivors of domestic violence; and increased funding for Victim Support.

  We are also working with the Association of Chief Police Officers on a circular to the police on the effective use of provisions in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 with particular regard to domestic violence and violence against women; we are evaluating probation service domestic violence perpetrator programmes; developing a domestic violence toolkit as part of the
  462W
  programme of toolkits on the crime reduction website; and we shall be including a special module on domestic violence as part of the British Crime Survey 2001.

  Prison Education Service
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the prison education service. [156056]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on 14 February 2001,Official Report, column 172W.

  Local Elections
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the pilot schemes on alternative voting arrangements for the local elections. [156057]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None at present. After only one round of pilots we believe that there is insufficient evidence on which to base an extension of any piloted arrangements. Notices of the local elections for 3 May have now been issued but we look forward to further pilot schemes taking place in the future.

  Closed Circuit Television (Nottingham)
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the benefits of CCTV in the suppression of crime in Nottingham. [156058]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Crime Concern have recently published a City-wide strategy for Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) for the Nottingham Community Safety and Youth Justice Partnership. This report is being used to assess the effectiveness of current CCTV systems installed in Nottingham and to decide future deployment.

  More generally, police operational experience and general research studies show that CCTV has considerable crime reduction and detection potential, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy.

  Schemes funded under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative will be evaluated to build up the knowledge bast of what works best in what context. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships will also be evaluating schemes locally.

  Police Suspensions
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) duration and (b) scale of police officers' suspensions, and the costs of suspensions and subsequent out-of-court settlements made in compensation. [1560591

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

  Alcohol Misuse (Young People)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the misuse of alcohol by young people. [156045]
  463W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are taking decisive action to minimise the impact of alcohol on young people's lives. In the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, we have sought to introduce provisions placing a positive duty on licensees not to sell alcohol to minors and by placing test purchasing of alcohol on a statutory footing for the first time.

  MOT Certificates
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the penalties for failing to obtain a valid MoT certificate. [156055]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The maximum penalty for the offence of driving a motor vehicle without a valid Ministry of Transport (MoT) certificate under section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is a fine of up to £2,500 in the case of a vehicle adapted to cary more than eight passengers and £1,000 for any other motor vehicle. The maximum penalty for the related, but more serious offence, of forgery of an MoT certificate, under section 173 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, is two years imprisonment. We are conducting a review of Road Traffic Penalties and have now received responses to our consultation paper published last December. In relation to the fraud offence the consultation paper proposes that the existing anomaly whereby imprisonment is not available where the offence is tried in the magistrates court is removed so that a sentence of imprisonment of up to six months is available for summary disposal of these cases. We made no express proposals in respect of the driving

  Police force net expenditure (England) and percentage change in cash and real terms, 1990–91 to 2000–01

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Percentage change

  Percentage change

  Percentage change

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  Avon and Somerset

  107,282

  10.9

  2.9

  116,004

  8.1

  1.9

  127,928

  10.3

  6.8

  Bedfordshire

  36,053

  11.2

  3.1

  40,027

  11.0

  4.6

  45.036

  12.5

  9.0

  Cambridgeshire

  43,173

  11.2

  3.1

  48,001

  11.2

  4.8

  51,126

  6.5

  3.1

  Cheshire

  63,620

  7.6

  (0.2)

  68,496

  7.7

  1.4

  74,058

  8.1

  4.7

  City of London

  38,288

  7.5

  (0.3)

  41,919

  9.5

  3.1

  45,151

  7.7

  4.3

  Cleveland

  52,889

  11.3

  3.2

  58,690

  11.0

  4.5

  62,269

  6.1

  2.7

  Cumbria

  41,312

  13.4

  5.2

  46,548

  12.7

  6.2

  50,736

  9.0

  5.6

  Derbyshire

  62,086

  4.2

  (3.3)

  66,686

  7.4

  1.2

  76,554

  14.8

  11.2

  Devon and Cornwall

  107,378

  13.0

  4.8

  119,619

  11.4

  5.0

  129,634

  8.4

  4.9

  Dorset

  50,150

  15.0

  6.7

  54,239

  8.2

  1.9

  57,639

  6.3

  2.9

  Durham

  45,673

  10.2

  2.2

  49,517

  8.4

  2.1

  53,853

  8.8

  5.3

  Essex

  106,902

  15.7

  7.3

  119,118

  11.4

  5.0

  129,559

  8.8

  5.3

  Gloucestershire

  41,526

  13.3

  5.1

  46,370

  11.7

  5.2

  49,361

  6.5

  3.1

  Greater Manchester

  236,520

  9.6

  1.6

  256,562

  8.5

  17.2

  281,761

  9.8

  6.4

  Hampshire

  114,172

  12.5

  4.4

  127,841

  12.0

  5.5

  142,133

  11.2

  7.7

  Hertfordshire

  59,681

  13.7

  5.4

  63,633

  6.6

  0.5

  70,029

  10.1

  6.6

  Humberside

  71,151

  10.6

  2.6

  78,591

  10.5

  4.1

  86,795

  10.4

  6.9

  Kent

  107,675

  10.2

  2.2

  128,118

  19.0

  12.1

  136,307

  6.4

  3.0

  Lancashire

  114,195

  13.7

  5.5

  127,076

  11.3

  4.8

  132,092

  3.9

  0.7

  Leicestershire

  63,597

  9.9

  2.0

  70,562

  11.0

  4.5

  75,262

  6.7

  3.3

  Lincolnshire

  43,025

  13.4

  5.2

  48,704

  13.2

  6.6

  53,039

  8.9

  5.5

  Merseyside

  165,167

  10.1

  2.1

  182,680

  10.6

  4.2

  193,410

  5.9

  2.5

  Metropolitan police

  1,273,265

  18.2

  9.6

  1,420,575

  11.6

  5.1

  1,513,654

  6.6

  3.2

  Norfolk

  49,106

  13.4

  5.2

  56,134

  14.3

  7.7

  60,658

  8.1

  4.6

  Northamptonshire

  41,997

  10.6

  2.5

  47,081

  12.1

  5.6

  52,575

  11.7

  8.1

  Northumbria

  124,873

  11.1

  3.0

  139,999

  12.1

  5.6

  145,882

  4.2

  0.9

  North Yorkshire

  48.995

  10.5

  2.5

  53.161

  8.5

  2.2

  60,123

  13.1

  9.5

  Nottinghamshire

  79,305

  14.1

  5.9

  85,209

  7.4

  1.2

  92,856

  9.0

  5.5

  South Yorkshire

  101,200

  12.0

  3.9

  108,676

  7.4

  1.2

  122,395

  12.6

  9.1

  Staffordshire

  76,903

  14.8

  6.5

  84,322

  9.6

  3.3

  90,497

  7.3

  3.9

  Suffolk

  44,755

  12.1

  4.0

  49,246

  10.0

  3.7

  52,052

  5.7

  2.4

  464W
  without a valid MoT certificate offence but the review continues and we will consider any representations received.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the nature of the partial declassification of the Schengen documentation. [156974]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The rules on the classification of Council documents, including Schengen documents, are set out in Council Decision 2000/527/EC of 14 August 2000. The vast majority of Schengen documents are categorised as "limite" and are not therefore classified within the meaning of the Decision. The Council considers it necessary to classify certain documents containing sensitive operational information. However, even classified documents are subject to the provisions of Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents. Any request for access to a classified document is considered on its merits. A decision to refuse access to classified documents is ultimately subject to review by the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

  Police
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each police force area in England, what was the force's budget in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms for each year since 1990. [156173]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is set out in the table.
  465W

  Police force net expenditure (England) and percentage change in cash and real terms, 1990–91 to 2000–01

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Percentage change

  Percentage change

  Percentage change

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  Surrey

  59,126

  11.2

  3.1

  64,426

  9.0

  2.7

  71,426

  10.9

  7.4

  Sussex

  94,916

  10.5

  2.5

  108,489

  14.3

  7.7

  117,529

  8.3

  4.9

  Thames Valley

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  156,072

  n/a

  n/a

  165,443

  6.0

  2.7

  Warwickshire

  37,963

  18.5

  9.9

  41,479

  9.3

  2.9

  44,128

  6.4

  3.0

  West Midlands

  231,478

  10.7

  2.7

  254,477

  9.9

  3.6

  188,798

  13.5

  9.9

  West Yorkshire

  190,733

  13.0

  4.8

  206,169

  8.1

  1.8

  215,727

  4.6

  1.3

  Wiltshire

  41,547

  15.3

  7.0

  46,907

  12.9

  6.4

  51,912

  10.7

  7.2

  Total (England)

  4,308,157

  9.2

  1.3

  4,931,259

  14.5

  7.8

  5,323,895

  8.0

  4.6

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Percentage change

  Percentage change

  Percentage change

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  Avon and Somerset

  134,323

  5.0

  2.3

  141,105

  5.0

  3.6

  141,091

  0.0

  -2.8

  Bedfordshire

  48,666

  8.1

  5.3

  51,514

  5.9

  4.4

  54,533

  5.9

  2.9

  Cambridgeshire

  56,879

  11.3

  8.4

  58,553

  2.9

  1.5

  60,917

  4.0

  1.1

  Cheshire

  79,971

  8.0

  5.2

  82,804

  3.5

  2.1

  86,786

  4.8

  1.9

  City of London

  50.920

  12.8

  9.9

  52,185

  2.5

  1.1

  55,851

  7.0

  4.0

  Cleveland

  66,289

  6.5

  3.7

  69,007

  4.1

  2.7

  67,861

  -1.7

  -4.4

  Cumbria

  51,699

  1.9

  -0.7

  53.981

  4.4

  3.0

  53,196

  -1.5

  -4.2

  Derbyshire

  78,964

  3.1

  0.5

  84,362

  6.8

  5.4

  86,012

  2.0

  -0.9

  Devon and Cornwall

  137,578

  6.1

  3.4

  140,830

  2.4

  0.9

  144,513

  2.6

  -0.3

  Dorset

  59,345

  3.0

  0.3

  66,285

  11.7

  10.1

  63,040

  -4.9

  -7.6

  Durham

  57,825

  7.4

  4.6

  59,237

  2.4

  1.0

  62,432

  5.4

  2.4

  Essex

  136,952

  5.7

  3.0

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Gloucestershire

  51,298

  3.9

  1.2

  55,006

  7.2

  5.7

  53,815

  -2.2

  -4.9

  Greater Manchester

  302,885

  7.5

  4.7

  319,467

  5.5

  4.0

  329,893

  3.3

  0.4

  Hampshire

  146,008

  2.7

  0.1

  155,257

  6.3

  4.9

  163,085

  5.0

  2.1

  Hertfordshire

  74,029

  5.7

  3.0

  84,435

  14.1

  12.5

  87,825

  4.0

  1.1

  Humberside

  90,194

  3.9

  1.2

  92,365

  2.4

  1.0

  96,418

  4.4

  1.5

  Kent

  142,749

  4.7

  2.0

  153,757

  7.7

  6.2

  155,223

  1.0

  -1.9

  Lancashire

  142,518

  7.9

  5.1

  144,420

  1.3

  10.1

  151,646

  5.0

  2.1

  Leicestershire

  78,201

  3.9

  1.2

  81,166

  3.8

  2.4

  86,855

  7.0

  4.0

  Lincolnshire

  55,645

  4.9

  2.2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  58,974

  n/a

  n/a

  Merseyside

  207,217

  7.1

  4.4

  215,139

  3.8

  2.4

  219,547

  2.0

  -0.8

  Metropolitan police

  1,545,265

  2.1

  -0.6

  1,581,975

  2.4

  1.0

  1,635,386

  3.4

  0.5

  Norfolk

  63,907

  5.4

  2.6

  68,392

  7.0

  5.5

  70,233

  2.7

  -0.2

  Northamptonshire

  55,136

  4.9

  2.2

  59,983

  8.8

  7.3

  56,742

  -5.4

  -8.0

  Northumbria

  158,758

  8.8

  6.0

  174,700

  10.0

  8.5

  177,760

  1.8

  -1.1

  North Yorkshire

  62,805

  4.5

  1.8

  63,166

  0.6

  -0.8

  62,846

  -0.5

  -3.3

  Nottinghamshire

  98,224

  5.8

  3.0

  105,645

  7.6

  6.1

  106,334

  0.7

  -2.2

  South Yorkshire

  128,102

  4.7

  2.0

  136,352

  6.4

  5.0

  143,113

  5.0

  2.0

  Staffordshire

  96,404

  6.5

  3.8

  99,778

  3.5

  2.1

  98,286

  -1.5

  -4.2

  Suffolk

  55,237

  6.1

  3.4

  56,751

  2.7

  1.3

  55,724

  -1.8

  -4.6

  Surrey

  75,322

  5.5

  2.7

  84,371

  12.0

  10.5

  83,000

  -1.6

  -4.4

  Sussex

  122,444

  4.2

  1.5

  130,124

  6.3

  4.8

  137,785

  5.9

  2.9

  Thames Valley

  178,169

  7.7

  4.9

  190,492

  6.9

  5.4

  193,124

  1.4

  -1.5

  Warwickshire

  47,139

  6.8

  4.1

  49,517

  5.0

  3.6

  47,553

  -4.0

  -6.7

  West Mercia

  91,372

  8.1

  5.3

  98,032

  7.3

  5.8

  95,815

  -2.3

  -5.0

  West Midlands

  296,973

  2.8

  0.2

  311,337

  4.8

  3.4

  329,194

  5.7

  2.8

  West Yorkshire

  224,987

  4.3

  1.6

  234,588

  4.3

  2.8

  237,084

  1.1

  -1.8

  Wiltshire

  54,272

  4.5

  1.8

  59,182

  9.0

  7.5

  54,456

  -8.0

  -10.6

  Total (England)

  5,604,671

  5.3

  2.6

  5,867,013

  4.7

  3.2

  6,008,912

  2.4

  -0.4

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Percentage change

  Percentage change

  Percentage change

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  Avon and Somerset

  152,087

  7.8

  4.4

  152,673

  0.4

  -2.4

  162,726

  6.6

  3.6

  Bedfordshire

  56,627

  3.8

  0.6

  58,570

  3.4

  0.6

  61,778

  5.5

  2.5

  Cambridgeshire

  65,024

  6.7

  3.4

  68,681

  5.6

  2.7

  73,432

  6.9

  3.9

  Cheshire

  94,177

  8.5

  5.1

  104,005

  10.4

  7.4

  107,093

  3.0

  0.1

  City of London

  57,317

  2.6

  -0.6

  57,893

  1.0

  -1.8

  60,350

  4.2

  1.4

  466W 467W

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Percentage change

  Percentage change

  Percentage change

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  Cleveland

  73,108

  7.7

  4.4

  75,426

  3.2

  0.3

  81,295

  7.8

  4.8

  Cumbria

  56,856

  6.9

  3.5

  61,709

  8.5

  5.5

  62,532

  1.3

  -1.5

  Derbyshire

  90,420

  5.1

  1.8

  95,641

  5.8

  2.9

  100,064

  4.6

  1.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  150,392

  4.1

  0.8

  155,435

  3.4

  0.5

  166,330

  7.0

  4.0

  Dorset

  67,831

  7.6

  4.2

  69,727

  2.8

  0.0

  73,117

  4.9

  2.0

  Durham

  68,035

  9.0

  5.6

  75,166

  10.5

  7.4

  74,673

  -0.7

  -3.4

  Essex

  151,412

  n/a

  n/a

  157,487

  4.0

  1.1

  156,822

  -0.4

  -3.2

  Gloucestershire

  58,420

  8.6

  5.2

  58,633

  0.4

  -2.4

  62,862

  7.2

  4.2

  Greater Manchester

  341,170

  3.4

  0.2

  353,319

  3.6

  0.7

  354,171

  0.2

  -2.5

  Hampshire

  172,845

  6.0

  2.7

  180,791

  4.6

  1.7

  186,661

  3.2

  0.4

  Hertfordshire

  88,863

  1.2

  -2.0

  93,011

  4.7

  1.8

  95,068

  2.2

  -0.6

  Humberside

  99,719

  3.4

  0.2

  106,220

  6.5

  3.6

  112,571

  6.0

  3.0

  Kent

  161,625

  4.1

  0.9

  174,211

  7.8

  4.8

  175,577

  0.8

  -2.0

  Lancashire

  161,865

  6.7

  3.4

  169,275

  4.6

  1.7

  177,310

  4.7

  1.8

  Leicestershire

  92,853

  6.9

  3.6

  98,789

  6.4

  3.5

  102,790

  4.1

  1.2

  Lincolnshire

  61,508

  4.3

  1.0

  66,184

  7.6

  4.6

  66,664

  0.7

  -2.1

  Merseyside

  221,172

  0.7

  -2.4

  224,327

  1.4

  -1.4

  240,267

  7.1

  4.1

  Metropolitan police

  1,683,181

  2.9

  -0.3

  1,676,617

  -0.4

  -3.1

  1,716,425

  2.4

  -0.5

  Norfolk

  75,547

  7.6

  4.2

  80,222

  6.2

  3.3

  80,543

  0.4

  -2.4

  Northamptonshire

  59,252

  4.4

  1.2

  64,605

  9.0

  6.0

  67,057

  3.8

  0.9

  Northumbria

  186,410

  4.9

  1.6

  195,092

  4.7

  1.8

  205,270

  5.2

  2.3

  North Yorkshire

  67,042

  6.7

  3.4

  71,840

  7.2

  4.2

  75,344

  4.9

  2.0

  Nottinghamshire

  113,591

  6.8

  3.5

  120,556

  6.1

  3.2

  127,018

  5.4

  2.4

  South Yorkshire

  150,949

  5.5

  2.2

  166,027

  10.0

  7.0

  167,159

  0.7

  -2.1

  Staffordshire

  107,832

  9.7

  6.3

  110,264

  2.3

  -0.6

  116,231

  5.4

  2.5

  Suffolk

  60,963

  9.4

  6.0

  63,676

  4.5

  1.6

  66,096

  3.8

  0.9

  Surrey

  85,345

  2.8

  -0.4

  90,976

  6.6

  3.7

  91,425

  0.5

  -2.3

  Sussex

  150,626

  9.3

  5.9

  157,631

  4.7

  1.8

  161,847

  2.7

  -0.2

  Thames Valley

  201,397

  4.3

  1.0

  210,333

  4.4

  1.6

  209,675

  -0.3

  -3.1

  Warwickshire

  47,686

  0.3

  -2.8

  51,003

  7.0

  4.0

  52,015

  2.0

  -0.8

  West Mercia

  102,078

  6.5

  3.2

  107,788

  5.6

  2.7

  113,755

  5.5

  2.6

  West Midlands

  337,992

  2.7

  -0.5

  360,129

  6.5

  3.6

  368,608

  2.4

  -0.5

  West Yorkshire

  265,233

  11.9

  8.4

  281,745

  6.2

  3.3

  277,994

  -1.3

  -4.1

  Wiltshire

  59,993

  0.2

  6.7

  58,535

  -2.4

  -5.1

  68,811

  17.6

  14.3

  Total (England)

  6,298,443

  4.8

  1.6

  6,524,212

  3.6

  0.7

  6,719,426

  3.0

  0.1

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Percentage change

  Percentage change

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  Avon and Somerset

  174,336

  7.1

  4.7

  181,210

  3.9

  2.2

  Bedfordshire

  63,611

  3.0

  0.6

  66,426

  4.4

  2.6

  Cambridgeshire

  75,052

  2.2

  -0.1

  79,244

  5.6

  3.8

  Cheshire

  113,280

  5.8

  3.3

  114,576

  1.1

  -0.6

  City of London

  57,852

  -4.1

  -6.3

  58,947

  1.9

  0.1

  Cleveland

  85,256

  4.9

  2.5

  85,600

  0.4

  -1.3

  Cumbria

  64,786

  3.6

  1.2

  67,400

  4.0

  2.2

  Derbyshire

  105,590

  5.5

  3.1

  110,819

  5.0

  3.1

  Devon and Cornwall

  175,055

  5.2

  2.8

  182,873

  4.5

  2.7

  Dorset

  76,957

  5.3

  2.8

  80,996

  5.2

  3.4

  Durham

  79,662

  6.7

  4.2

  85,775

  7.7

  5.8

  Essex

  167,969

  7.1

  4.6

  184,485

  9.8

  7.9

  Gloucestershire

  65,755

  4.6

  2.2

  68,695

  4.5

  2.7

  Greater Manchester

  374,804

  5.8

  3.4

  400,004

  6.7

  4.9

  Hampshire

  197,483

  5.8

  3.4

  202,527

  2.6

  0.8

  Hertfordshire

  104,448

  9.9

  7.3

  120,945

  15.8

  13.8

  Humberside

  113,944

  1.2

  -1.1

  119,900

  5.2

  3.4

  Kent

  186,261

  6.1

  3.6

  193,127

  3.7

  1.9

  Lancashire

  182,004

  2.6

  0.3

  190,181

  4.5

  2.7

  Leicestershire

  107,262

  4.4

  1.9

  110,150

  2.7

  0.9

  Lincolnshire

  69,378

  4.1

  1.7

  72,725

  4.8

  3.0

  Merseyside

  248,414

  3.4

  1.0

  257,114

  3.5

  1.7

  Metropolitan police

  1,838,888

  7.1

  4.7

  1,837,571

  -0.1

  -1.8

  Norfolk

  87,182

  8.2

  5.7

  91,514

  5.0

  3.2

  Northamptonshire

  69,148

  3.1

  0.7

  73,076

  5.7

  3.9

  Northumbria

  212,704

  3.6

  1.2

  218,387

  2.7

  0.9

  North Yorkshire

  78,178

  3.8

  1.4

  83,750

  7.1

  5.3

  468W 469W

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Percentage change

  Percentage change

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  £000

  cash terms

  real terms

  Nottinghamshire

  129,465

  1.9

  -0.4

  134,302

  3.7

  2.0

  South Yorkshire

  176,007

  5.3

  2.9

  181,054

  2.9

  1.1

  Staffordshire

  127,000

  9.3

  6.7

  126,964

  0.0

  -1.7

  Suffolk

  70,506

  6.7

  4.2

  74,061

  5.0

  3.2

  Surrey

  100,094

  9.5

  7.0

  120,130

  20.0

  18.0

  Sussex

  165,564

  2.3

  -0.1

  172,513

  4.2

  2.4

  Thames Valley

  227,020

  8.3

  5.8

  236,952

  4.4

  2.6

  Warwickshire

  55,164

  6.1

  3.6

  59,011

  7.0

  5.1

  West Mercia

  111,446

  -2.0

  -4.3

  125,700

  12.8

  10.9

  West Midlands

  381,484

  3.5

  1.1

  395,102

  3.6

  1.8

  West Yorkshire

  286,088

  2.9

  0.5

  304,125

  6.3

  4.5

  Wiltshire

  69,823

  1.5

  -0.9

  71,981

  3.1

  1.3

  Total (England)

  7,074,920

  5.3

  2.9

  7,339,912

  3.7

  2.0

  Notes:

  1994–95 figures for Lincolnshire and Essex and 1995–96 figures for Essex were not available. The compilers adjusted the grand total for comparison.

  From 1996–97, expenditure was recorded net of police loan charges grant on pre-April 1990 debt charges.

  Loan charge grant for 1993–94 to 1995–96 has been deducted from forces' expenditure for comparative purposes.

  Deductions for loan charge grants have been made at the grand total level only for 1990–91 to 1992–93 (ca. £30 million per annum).

  Percentage changes have been calculated in real terms at 1999–2000 prices using GDP deflators (March 2001).

  Source:

  CIPFA Police Statistics: Actuals except for 2000–01 (estimates),

  Damilola Taylor
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of compensation to the parents of Damilola Taylor; and if he will review the guidance relating to levels of compensation. [157440]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, the determination of individual applications is entirely a matter for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the complementary Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel. Ministers do not comment on, or intervene in, decisions in individual cases.

  Under the terms of the Scheme, each qualifying relative of a murder victim receives a fixed fatal award (at level 10 of the tariff, or at level 13 if there is only one eligible claimant). Reasonable funeral expenses are also met, and additional (and sometimes very substantial) compensation is paid where there is financial dependency on the victim, or to replace the services of a murdered parent.

  Contrary to the impression conveyed by some recent press coverage of this tragic case, the fixed fatal award does not put a 'value' on the life of a victim. No sum of money could reasonably do that. The fatal award is in the nature of a gesture of condolence on behalf of society. And the award is in fact more generous than the amount payable under the fatal accidents legislation.

  We have just completed a thorough review of the Scheme based on the findings from a public consultation exercise that was launched in 1999. On 1 April 2001, having secured the necessary parliamentary approval in March, we brought in a wide-ranging package of improvements, worth £20 million in a full year, to what is already probably by far the most generous scheme in the world.
  470W
  Responses to the consultation exercise were evenly split on whether there should be any increase to the fixed fatal award. On balance, we decided not to recommend changes to the tariff level at which the fatal award is fixed, although the actual amount payable went up by 10 per cent. from 1 April as a result of a general up-rating of most of the tariff bands.

  Wrongful Convictions
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are awaiting a decision by the(a) Criminal Cases Review Commission and (b) Appeal Court in respect of wrongful conviction. [157444]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that at the end of February 2001, the latest date for which figures are available, 1,100 cases were awaiting a decision by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

  Forced Marriages
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken as a result of the recent report on forced marriages. [157548]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  'A Choice by Right', the report of the working group on forced marriage, was published in June last year. It made a number of recommendations for tackling the problem of forced marriage.

  Since then we have made progress on a number of fronts. Together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office we have developed and published a Joint Action Plan to address the overseas dimension of forced marriage. This includes gaining a better understanding of the problem, forging links with agencies overseas and looking at our own procedures for handling these cases.
  471W
  We are working with colleagues from other Government Departments and non-governmental organisations to develop a package of care for the victims of forced marriage—to give them a real choice and enable them to take appropriate action to address, or escape, the problem.

  The work is being overseen by the Inter-departmental Group on Violence against Won en and Domestic Violence. The All-party Parliamentary Group on Domestic Violence have also agreed to take this issue within its remit. Many of the protocols and procedures aimed at tackling domestic violence are also appropriate for dealing with forced marriage.

  I hope to be able to make a fuller announcement this month.

  Freemasons (Police Service)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to make a decision on the compulsory registration of freemasonry in the police service. [157152]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a decision as soon as possible following his consideration of the outcome of consultation with the police service about ways of achieving an acceptable rate of registration.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of(a) the number of requests for checks, (b) the income from fees and (c) the expenditure associated with running the Criminal Records Bureau in the first two years of operation; and if he will make a statement. [157172]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: The Criminal Records Bureau will begin to issue Standard and Enhanced Disclosures later in the current financial year. It is anticipated that demand will be at a low level initially, and will build up. Basic disclosures will not begin to be issued before the 2002–03 financial year. Cost and business projections have been based on the following levels of demand during this and the next financial year:

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Enhanced disclosures

  1,216,751

  3,182,690

  Standard disclosures

  109,526

  296,590

  Basic disclosures

  0

  2,786,350

  Estimated total revenues, and the estimated total cost of operating the Bureau, during the same two years are as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Estimated total revenues

  12,655,727

  63,430,902

  Estimated total cost

  48,277,786

  80,425,047

  On the best information available, we anticipate that, despite the low level of income initially, progressively higher income will enable recovery of the full cost of establishing and operating this new service to be achieved within a period of five years.

  Lords-Lieutenant
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deputy lords-lieutenant are members of political parties, broken down by party. [157716]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We do not hold this information. The deputy lieutenants of a county or area are appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant. Appointments are not based on political affiliation, but on place of residence and service to the community.

  Former New Towns (Police Stations)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance is provided for former new towns with a requirement for new police stations. [157702]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Police resources are allocated between all 43 forces in England and Wales according to a formula that allocates central Government supported funding to provide a standard level of service. The formula is weighted according to population, so that forces with larger populations receive more money. The socio-demographic nature of the population is also taken into account. Decisions relating to the location of police stations are operational matters for the chief constable of the force concerned.

  Lay Magistrates
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of lay magistrates in reducing average time delays for dealing with persistent young offenders. [157565]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We welcome the valuable contribution that lay magistrates are making to reducing the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. The overall average has been cut from 142 days in 1996 to 89 days by January this year; and cases sentenced in the magistrates courts averaged 82 days. This represents significant progress thanks to the commitment, hard work and co-operation of all the agencies involved in youth justice.

  Police Recruits
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new police recruits there were in(a) the Thames Valley Police Force, (b) the Hertfordshire Constabulary, (c) the Essex Police Force, (d) the Kent County Constabulary, (e) the Surrey Police Force, (f) the Hampshire Constabulary, (g) the Sussex Police Force and (h) England and Wales in the period (i) 1 May 1994 to 30 April 1995, (ii) 1 May 1995 to 30 April 1996, (iii) 1 May 1996 to 30 April 1997, (iv) 1 May 1997 to 30 April 1998, (v) 1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999, (vi) 1 May 1999 to 30 April 2000 and (vii) since 1 May 2000. [151120]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Recruitment figures for constable recruits are available from January 1994 to January 2001, and are given in the table.
  473W

  Essex

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  Kent

  Surrey

  Sussex

  Thames Valley

  England and Wales

  January 1994 to March 19951

  115

  129

  91

  110

  98

  116

  161

  6,386

  April 1995 to March 1996

  106

  263

  83

  152

  47

  326

  31

  5,963

  April 1996 to March 1997

  194

  357

  133

  291

  60

  167

  201

  6,429

  April 1997 to March 1997

  119

  201

  71

  119

  116

  135

  273

  6,437

  April 1998 to March 1999

  95

  117

  73

  120

  138

  99

  152

  5,292

  April 1999 to March 2000

  91

  148

  154

  173

  183

  98

  190

  4,476

  April 2000 to January 2001

  194

  191

  104

  258

  216

  165

  208

  6,528

  1Before April 1995 information was collated on a calendar year basis. The data cover the transitional 15 month period.

  2The figures are as now provided in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin on Police Service Strength. Numbers are mainly new recruits, hut also include those who have previously been police constables in non-Home Office forces and any who may have previously left and subsequently rejoined the service.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new funding will be made available to tackle drug-related crime. [153893]

  Mr. Straw
  In addition to the £220 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, new funding of £50 million will also be made available over the two years, 2002–03 to 2003–04, to accelerate the programme to extend drug testing within the criminal justice system. The initial pilot phase of the programme is due to start in the spring.

  Evidence of the effectiveness of these pilots will inform final decisions on where best to spend this new funding within the criminal justice system.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent by his Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152647]

  Ms Quin
  The amount spent by my Department on logos or associated branding since 1 May 1997 is £25,773. Information relating to agencies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Animal Disease (Planning)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements his Department makes for conducting emergency planning exercises in relation to the possible outbreak of infectious diseases among animals; if such exercises(a) involve liaising with the (i) police and (ii) the armed forces; and are conducted periodically; by what grade of civil servant such exercises are authorised and supervised; if the type of the diseases concerned is specified to the suppliers in the case of materials to be used in connection with a real outbreak; if he will list the emergency planning exercises that have been conducted in the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [155927]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: MAFF regularly holds emergency exercises which may involve liaison with the police, but not the armed forces. Such exercises are generally authorised and supervised by the Divisional Veterinary Manager or regionally, by a Veterinary Head of Service.
  474W
  Animal Health Offices are required regularly to update their local contingency plans. This includes contacting potential suppliers of materials and services to be used in the event of an outbreak. The reason for any such inquiry should be explained fully. Detailed information on emergency exercises held over the last two years is not held centrally and can be collected only at disproportionate cost. However, between 1994 and 1999, MAFF carried out 84 separate exercises aimed at planning to control notifiable animal diseases.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when, and in what locations,(a) the epidemic strain of foot and mouth virus associated with the current outbreak and (b) its close relatives have been recorded in previous outbreaks. [155837]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: The pandemic serotype O virus (now named the pan-Asian strain) was first isolated in northern India in 1990. Since then it has been found in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Iran, Iraq. Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and the Arabian peninsula, Nepal Bhutan, the People's Republic of China, Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Laos, Korea, Japan and South Africa.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to the current foot and mouth epidemic, to what level of discrimination the specific epidemic strain of the Pan-Asia O virus has been identified; and what the strain classification is. [155850]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: Analysis carried out by the Foot and Mouth Reference Laboratory in Pirbright has identified the strain responsible for the current outbreak as FMD virus serotype O. It was identified as the Pan-Asian using nucleotide sequence data obtained for the complete VPI gene. The same strain has been responsible for the outbreaks in different parts of Great Britain, and for those in the Netherlands and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what average time it takes to answer callers to the foot and mouth helplines; and how many callers(a) were disconnected and (b) hung up before their call was answered. [156214]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: During the period 22 February 2001 to 29 March 2001, 60,979 telephone calls to the foot and mouth disease helpline were answered successfully. The average call answer time was 35 seconds.
  475W
  During the period 22 February 2001 to 25 March 2001, 2,140 calls were disconnected before entering the queue while 9,051 calls were abandoned while held in the queue.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vets from each EU member state he has employed since the start of the outbreak of foot and mouth. [156536]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: This Department is receiving assistance from EU veterinarians, who receive travel and subsistence expenses from this Department but are employed by their respective Governments. We are also liaising with other member states and it is likely that veterinarians from these countries will soon join in the eradication of FMD. The following EU member states have already supplied vets.

  Member states

  Number

  ROI

  9

  Germany

  2

  Denmark

  3

  Holland

  2

  Finland

  3

  France

  6

  In addition this Department is in the process of appointing Temporary Veterinary Inspectors (TVIs) from the following EU member states:

  Temporary Veterinary Inspectors

  Number

  Holland

  3

  France

  1

  Greece

  1

  Portugal

  1

  Denmark

  1

  Austria

  1

  Italy

  2

  ROI

  3

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support he will provide to farmers to manage lambing on split sites. [157393]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: Farmers should, first of all, do everything possible to look after their sheep where they are. We have produced advice to help with the welfare issue. If this is not possible, the sheep may be moved under the available welfare movement schemes. Finally, when all other options have been explored, there is the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to speed up the process of slaughtering livestock under the animal welfare scheme for farmers in Lancashire. [157163]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: The scheme has been slow to start due to the need to secure landfill disposal, as all bar one rendering plant is needed for what must be our top priority, the compulsory cull to control disease. We have arranged extra on-farm slaughters for acute welfare cases and will continue to do so, but cases must be prioritised. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing everything we can to speed the movement of livestock to slaughter through this scheme, under which we have now slaughtered over 19,500 animals.
  476W
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from which organisations he has(a) sought and (b) received advice about animal welfare in respect of the options available to the Government for containing the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [157224]

  Mr. Morley
  All the major welfare organisations, including the Farm Animal Welfare Council, have offered us advice on welfare aspects of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. I have also held a meeting, at my request, with representatives of the RSPCA, Compassion in World Farming and the Humane Slaughter Association.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make arrangements for local veterinary inspectors' expenses arising from the welfare movement and welfare disposal schemes to be paid direct by his Department. [156921]

  Mr. Morley
  The expenses of LVIs undertaking inspections under the livestock welfare (disposal) scheme are met by the Department. The welfare movement schemes are supported by declarations given by the applicant's private veterinary surgeon.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the consequential losses made by businesses in Gloucestershire due to(a) foot and mouth disease and (b) the cancelling of the Cheltenham Festival; and if he will make a statement. [154310]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]: The taskforce chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is considering the economic impact of foot and mouth disease generally, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is collecting information from all parts of the country. We are aware that the cancellation of the Cheltenham Festival and other sporting events is having very serious consequences for many businesses. The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 20 March are designed to alleviate these effects.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he made to the letter from Mr. Lawrence of Ciel Logistics in May 2000 concerning the health risks associated with consignments of bush meat arriving at Heathrow from Africa. [155560]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: None; the letter was passed to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for reply. I replied on 28 March to a letter sent to me on 11 March 2001 by Mr. Lawrence.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what discussions he has had with Commissioner Byrne and Commissioner Fischler on animal health, in particular the risk from imports from countries with infected animals; [156278]

  (2) when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York on 27 March relating to discussions with European Commissioners about animal health (ref: 156278). [157365]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 2 April 2001 and 6 April 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Minister has spoken and written to both Commissioners Byrne and Fischler. In addition, the European Commission's Standing Veterinary

  477W
  Committee meets regularly to discuss all animal health matters, including the risk of importing disease from infected animals.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Policies (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [157134]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of: eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10; promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and, combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than data at a local authority level, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Amber Valley since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children nationally out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Amber Valley 11,193 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over-50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Amber Valley the number has reduced from 1,900 to 1,600. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally; in Amber Valley the number has increased from 900 to 1,000.
  478W
  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 18,600 older people in Amber Valley have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter (2000–01).

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 17,100 pensioners in Amber Valley will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic state pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over-75s of whom we estimate there are about 7,600 in Amber Valley. 2,500 pensioner families in Amber Valley are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Departmental Policies (Eccles)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, including statistical 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. [157289]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of: eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10; promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those it greatest need; and combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000), sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than data at a local authority level, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Eccles since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children nationally out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related be refits, the minimum wage and tax changes.
  479W
  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Eccles 11,761 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Eccles the number has reduced from 2,200 to 1,300. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Eccles from 2,400 to 2,100.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. A round 18,400 older people in Eccles have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter (2000–01).

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 17.500 pensioners in Eccles will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic state pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 7,500 in Eccles. 3,900 pensioner families in Eccles are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings have been made from the council tax benefit restriction scheme in each year of its operation. [155590]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to my written answer on 23 November 2000,Official Report, column 320W.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of residents in(a) band F, (b) band G and (c) band H are restricted to Council Tax Benefit at band E in (i) England, (ii) London and (iii) inner London. [155591]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information is in the table. Percentages are not provided as there are no data available to determine them. Data are not available for Inner London.
  480W

  Council Tax Benefit cases restricted to band E by band in England and London—May 1999

  England

  Greater London

  Total of bands F, G and H

  18,000

  7,000

  Band

  F

  13,000

  5,000

  G

  4,000

  2,000

  H

  1—

  1—

  1Data nil or negligible

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households, which may be a family, a single person or a couple.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 1999.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the(a) total annual cost and (b) average annual cost borne by restricted households claiming Council Tax Benefit was in (i) England, (ii) London and (iii) inner London for (1) all bands, (2) band F, (3) band G and (4) band H. [155589]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Total annual cost for Council Tax—May 1999

  £

  Band

  England

  London

  F

  528,000

  358,000

  G

  287,000

  74,000

  H

  36,000

  1—

  Total

  851,000

  432,000

  Average annual cost borne by household by Council Tax band—May 1999

  £

  Band

  England

  London

  F

  153.20

  157.70

  G

  315.00

  218.10

  H

  294.70

  1—

  Average

  190.00

  165.50

  1Insufficient data for statistically reliable estimates.

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households, which may be a family, a single person or a couple.

  2. Total costs are rounded to the nearest thousand pounds. Average costs are rounded to the nearest ten pence.

  3. The data exclude any cases where there is Transitional Protection in place, i.e. the Council Tax and Council Tax Benefit is not restricted to band E. Data are not available for Inner London.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System. Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 1999.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Council Tax Benefit claims are restricted to band E in(a) England, (h) London and (c) Inner London broken down by (i) all property types, (ii) owner occupied properties, (iii) privately rented properties, (iv) properties rented from registered social landlords and (v) properties rented from local authorities. [155592]
  481W
  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  Council Tax Benefit recipients subject to council tax band restrictions split by tenure type—May 1999

  England

  London

  All Properties

  18,000

  7,000

  Owner-occupied properties

  8,000

  2,000

  Privately rented properties

  8,000

  3,000

  Registered Social Landlords/Housing Association properties

  1,000

  1,000

  Local authority properties

  1,000

  1,000

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households, which may be a family, a single person or a couple

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand

  3. Data are not available for Inner London

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 1999

  Departmental Expenditure (Scotland)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what has been the annual expenditure on office equipment for his Department in Scotland in the(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 financial years; and what the planned expenditure for 2001–02 is; [155090]

  (2) what has been the annual expenditure on (a) fixtures and fittings and (b) general office expenses for his Department in Scotland for the (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–20(X) and (iii) 2000–01 financial years; and what the planned expenditure for 2001–02 is. [155092]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The information on expenditure by the Department on office equipment, fixtures and fittings and general office expenses in Scotland is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual expenditure of his Department in Scotland on(a) buildings and (b) insurance of buildings and staff in the (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 financial years and what the planned expenditure for 2001–02 is. [155091]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The information is in the table. It covers only those activities of the Department located in Scotland. Many services provided by the Department to residents in Scotland are located elsewhere.

  Expenditure by the Department on buildings in Scotland

  £

  Facilities price1

  Utilities2

  Rates

  Total

  1998–99

  23,039,436

  1,638,672

  4,173,952

  28,852,060

  1999–2000

  22,380,266

  1,070,952

  4,279,356

  27,730,574

  2000–01

  23,182,510

  1,523.097

  4,714,471

  29,420,078

  2001–023

  23,946,790

  1,527,494

  4,635,386

  30,109,670

  1The Facilities Price is a single unitary charge, that varies for each building, and which is payable to Trillium, the PRIME contractor for the provision of serviced office accommodation. Services included in the Facilities Price are:

  Building Management and Maintenance (inc. Customer Service Centre)

  Equipment Maintenance

  482W

  Energy and Utilities Management

  External and Internal Cleaning

  Landscape Maintenance

  Security (inc. facilities and equipment)

  Catering (inc. facilities and equipment)

  Porterage

  Waste Management

  2Utilities include Standing charges for Gas, Electricity and Fossil Fuels. Actual charges for water and sewerage.

  3Forecast

  Regarding insurance for buildings and staff I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member on 21 March 2001, Official Report, column 265W.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual expenditure on vehicles for his Department in Scotland in the(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 financial years; and what the planned expenditure for 2001–02 is. [155089]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The information is not available in the format requested.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual expenditure on training and development for his Department in Scotland for the(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 financial years; and what the planned expenditure for 2001–02 is. [155088]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The annual expenditure on training and development for the Department in Scotland for 1999–2000 was £6,719,482; for 2000–01 was £5,676,701; planned expenditure for 2001–02 will be known mid-April 2001. This expenditure supports the Department's work not only in Scotland but also elsewhere in the UK. Similarly, training undertaken elsewhere in the UK benefits the Department's work in Scotland.

  Benefits Statistics
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been paid in(a) state retirement benefits to pensioners and (b) in Child Benefit to parents residing in each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom in each of the past five years. [157395]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: Information on annual benefit spending by parliamentary constituency is not available. For 1999–2000 and 2000–01, information is available from a point-in-time scan of administrative data which show numbers of recipients and average amounts of Retirement Pension received by constituency. Similarly, information on numbers of first and subsequent children in each constituency is available for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 from a point-in-time scan. This information has been placed in the Library.

  As the information is for a certain point-in-time in each year, any calculation based on the numbers and average amounts would not correspond to the actual annual expenditure in the t constituency. Nor would a total so derived match the total spending on the benefits shown in the accounts.

  Foot and Mouth (Benefits)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many additional benefit claims are expected as a result of the effects of foot and mouth disease,
  483W
  broken down into (a) Jobseeker's Allowance, (b) Housing Benefit, (c) Council Tax Benefit and (d) other benefits; and what extra support is being offered to the Benefits Agency and local authorities to ensure that these claims are processed quickly. [157078]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the number of claims to benefit that will result from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

  Details of the robust measures being taken to ensure that claims to benefit from people affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease are dealt with quickly and sensitively were set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) on 30 March 2001, Official Report, column 794W.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he ha made of the effect of the repeal of Regulation 100 under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 20110 on the ability of local authorities to seek recovery if overpayment of Housing Benefit. [156339]

  Angela Eagle
  Regulation 100 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations was revoked to simplify the procedure for local authorities to recover Housing Benefit overpayments. The regulation duplicated the primary power set out in section 75(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and had caused some administrative confusion.

  The revocation did not alter the powers of local authorities to seek recovery of a Housing Benefit overpayment once it had been decided that the overpayment was recoverable.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the procedure is for appealing against the decision of a rent officer regarding the amount of Housing Benefit to be paid to an individual. [156340]

  Angela Eagle
  Rent Officers do not decide the amount of Housing Benefit payable to a person. The amount of Housing Benefit to be paid is determined by the relevant local authority after they have considered the claim under the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations. If a person disagrees with their award they may appeal against this decision.

  Where the Housing Benefit award against which an appeal is made is based on the level of rent set by a Rent Officer, or if the local authority believes the Rent Officer's decision may be erroneous, the local authority has the power to arrange for the Rent Service to revisit the decision. This action is carried out by a Rent Officer other than the one who made the original decision, and normally one from a different rent registration area.

  Single Room Rent
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2001,Official Report, column 370W on single room rent, what representations he has received concerning the impact of the single room rent in Brighton and Hove; what assessment he has undertaken of the likely impact of the proposed new young person's rent regulations in Brighton
  484W
  and Hove; and what consideration was given in drafting the proposed new young person's rent regulations to the submission sent to him by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavillion on behalf of various agencies in Brighton and Hove. [156647]

  Angela Eagle
  I am aware of my hon. Friend's representations on behalf of Brighton and Hove to the effect that the current rules were too restrictive and that they should be eased. We gave full consideration to these representations as we did to others. The new rules from July this year are therefore designed to reflect better what the market generally has to offer on a national basis. Moreover, local authorities will have the discretion to provide additional support in individual cases under the new arrangements for Discretionary Housing Payments, which will also apply from July. We are considering how best to monitor their operation.

  Our objectives for the single room rent are to ensure that young people have access to accommodation so that they can concentrate on finding work, balanced against our aim of making sure that the benefit system does not provide out of work young adults with better housing than their working peers could afford. We made these objectives clear, including the option of broadening the definition of the single room rent, in our Housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all" on which we consulted widely.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2001,Official Report, column 370W, how many organisations commented in response to the proposals in the Government's Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all", on the single room rent; how many of these responses (a) supported abolition, (b) favoured abolition in preference to a broadening of the definition, (c) supported broadening the definition and (d) supported no change to the current definition; and if he will place these responses in the Library. [156714]

  Angela Eagle
  Two hundred and five respondents commented on the proposals to broaden the single room rent (SRR) set out in the Housing Green Paper. Information on the views of the respondents is not available in the format requested. However, a detailed analysis of all responses to the Housing Green Paper proposals was carried out by independent consultants. This analysis is available on the Internet at www.housing.detr.gov.uk/information/consult/responses/analysis/index.htm and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the late payment of back-dated winter fuel allowance. [156342]

  Mr. Rooker
  There have been a number of representations from hon. Members and the public. Statistics on these representations are not available.

  Our intention has always been to make payments for past winters as soon as practically possible. The first payments were issued in the week commencing 19 June last year, just two months after the claims process was up and running.
  485W
  Claims for past winters are not subject to any time limits. As it is up to the individual to choose whether and when to claim, we are still receiving and processing new claims.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of the advertising campaign to inform men aged 60–64 of their eligibility for backdated Winter Fuel Payments. [157051]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. The total cost of the overall communication campaign for Winter Fuel Payments which ran from April 2000 was £1.1 million. The campaign, which featured national and regional press advertising, information leaflets and posters in outlets such as post offices, supermarkets and libraries, included messages for those seeking retrospective Winter Fuel Payments alongside information for people who get their payments automatically and for those who have to claim.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to continue with the advertising campaign informing men aged 60–64 of their eligibility for backdated Winter Fuel Payments. [157052]

  Mr. Rooker
  The communications strategy for delivery of Winter Fuel Payments for 2001 is currently being developed.

  Home Visits (Benefit Claims)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he collects on the number of home visits made by local authority employees in connection with social security claims. [156532]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit statistical returns collected by the Department include information about the number of home visits successfully made by local authority benefit fraud officers.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners he expects to be eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee following the introduction of the new capital limits; and what plans he has to contact them. [156978]

  Mr. Rooker
  In March, some 102,000 pensioners were written to with information on the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) and invited to make a claim. These consisted of pensioners who were part of the original take-up campaign but were not entitled due to excess income or capital and those pensioners who had been excluded from the original mailings because they held capital over £8,000. Some 140,000 pensioners will newly benefit as a result of this month's increase to the MIG rates and capital limits.

  Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he expects to pay to organisations who have provided information under the terms of the Social Security Fraud Bill in the first year after the Bill is enacted. [157083]
  486W
  Mr. Rooker
  The costs to the Department of using the powers to obtain information are detailed in paragraphs 20 to 23 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Fraud Bill. The exact amount paid to the information providers will depend upon detailed negotiations after the Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many telephone calls have been made to the National Benefit Fraud Hotline in each month since May 1997. [157075]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Number of calls received by the National Benefit Fraud Hotline [NBFH]

  Month

  Number

  June 1997

  16,272

  July 1997

  18,808

  August 1997

  14,755

  September 1997

  16,236

  October 1997

  13,202

  November 1997

  11,770

  December 1997

  10,829

  January 1998

  17,206

  February 1998

  15,780

  March 1998

  15,345

  April 1998

  19,007

  May 1998

  13,149

  June 1998

  13,692

  July 1998

  15,512

  August 1998

  11,104

  September 1998

  13,694

  October 1998

  12,805

  November 1998

  14,285

  December 1998

  12,160

  January 1999

  13,925

  February 1999

  13,798

  March 1999

  16,901

  April 1999

  11,996

  May 1999

  11,303

  June 1999

  13,415

  July 1999

  10,491

  August 1999

  10,336

  September 1999

  12,971

  October 1999

  9,291

  November 1999

  14,683

  December 1999

  10,906

  January 2000

  14,272

  February 2000

  19,285

  March 2000

  23,118

  April 2000

  12,815

  May 2000

  21,674

  June 2000

  18,212

  July 2000

  17,440

  August 2000

  20,289

  September 2000

  15,851

  October 2000

  13,980

  November 2000

  15,243

  December 2000

  9,073

  January 2001

  17,340

  February 2001

  18,191

  March 2001

  28,093

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many benefit claimants have been subjected to sanctions under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 for failing to comply with community service orders. [157082]
  487W
  Angela Eagle
  None. These measures will be commenced on 15 October 200 Initially they will be piloted in four areas from that date.

  Pensions Advertising Campaign
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2001 to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait),Official Report, column 481W, on the pensions advertising campaign, what subjects apart from pension education were included in the brief given to the agency responsible for the current advertising campaign. [157084]

  Mr. Rooker
  The pensions education marketing brief covered all aspects of the future pens ion policy.

  Personal Pension
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new personal pension schemes were first made available; and how many personal pension products ceased to be open to new members for each year between 1988 and 2000. [157072]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Number of personal pension schemes newly registered in each year between 1988 and 2000

  year

  Number of schemes newly registered

  Number of frozen or closed schemes

  1988

  197

  n/a

  1989

  47

  n/a

  1990

  30

  n/a

  1991

  37

  n/a

  1992

  16

  n/a

  1993

  6

  n/a

  1994

  2

  n/a

  1995

  9

  n/a

  1996

  18

  n/a

  1997

  16

  33

  1998

  22

  1

  1999

  14

  4

  2000

  13

  0

  Total

  427

  38

  Notes:

  1. The information in the table is on schemes that are required to pay the Pension Schemes Registry levy.

  2. Information on frozen and closed schemes was only required to be reported from 1997. "Frozen schemes" are schemes which admit no new members and do not permit existing members to make new contributions. "Closed schemes" are schemes that admit no new members but allow existing members to continue to contribute.

  3. In addition there are 83 schemes that are no longer required to pay the Registry levy. These include schemes that have merged or wound up.

  Source:

  Pension Schemes Registry.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the Government's estimate is of the fines likely to be imposed on employers who fail to offer access to a stakeholder pension; and what leeway will be offered to employers in the first year of the scheme. [157071]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) will have the power to impose fines, under the Pensions Act 1995, on an organisation for failure to provide employer access to a stakeholder 488W
  pension. The level of any fine will depend upon the circumstances surrounding a breach, including how the employer has responded on being contacted about the breach.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis he calculated the figures for the costs of his Department's advertising campaigns in(a) his answer of 7 March 2001, Official Report, column 233W, (b) his answer of 19 March 2001, Official Report, column 75W and (c) the most recent departmental annual report. [157106]

  Mr. Rooker
  The figures given in my answer on 19 March 2001,Official Report, column 75W, were for all estimated advertising related expenditure for current campaigns. These cover advertising and other marketing activity eg. leaflets, research, direct mail, etc.

  Figures given in my answer on 7 March 2001, Official Report, column 233W, were estimated for spend solely on advertising to be consistent with figures given for previous years as requested in the question.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents, under the New Deal for Lone Parents, have(a) been issued with an initial invitation letter (b) requested information on the scheme, (c) booked initial interviews with personal advisers, (d) attended initial interviews, (e) agreed to participate in the programme, (f) been referred to Employment Service programmes or other training, (g) obtained jobs following participation and (h) increased hours of work following participation. [157076]

  Angela Eagle
  We are giving lone parents more choices and more help than ever before to move off welfare and into work.

  The latest information available about the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) is in the table.

  Prototype phases 1 and 21

  National programme2

  Initial invitation letters issued

  50,612

  761,290

  Lone parents requesting information

  —3

  —3

  Initial interviews booked

  30,826

  4254,853

  Initial interviews attended

  23,300

  212,490

  Number agreeing to participate

  20,191

  188,500

  Number entering education/training

  2,944

  20,450

  Jobs obtained (Number of these obtained by

  6,271

  77,140

  part-time workers increasing their hours)

  (842)

  (2,470)

  1July 1997 to October 1998

  2October 1998 to January 2001

  3As lone parents may request further information about NDLP in a number of different ways it would be impossible to quantify this figure.

  4The number of initial interviews booked is taken from internal management information and so has not been validated in the same way as other figures for the National Programme

  Benefits Agency (Performance Targets)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what performance targets he has set the Benefits Agency for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [158057]

  Mr. Darling
  The Benefits Agency in 2001–02 is continuing to improve performance on the ground while gearing up for the introduction of "Jobcentre Plus" and "The Pension Service".

  Further information, including performance targets is set out in the Benefits Agency's Business Plan for
  490W
  2001–02, which has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  High Sheriffs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Council how many high sheriffs appointed since 1990 were members of political parties, broken down by party. [157717]

  Mrs. Beckett
  This information is not collected. Sheriffs are, however, asked to refrain from party political activity during their year of office.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Tributes to the Late Lord Shepherd
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the House will by now be aware of the sad news of the death last Thursday of one of our dearest and most familiar colleagues, Lord Shepherd. Malcolm Shepherd was an immensely respected and authoritative Member of this House whose political career reached an apex in his service as Leader of the House between 1974 and 1976. Those of your Lordships who, like me, have joined the House since that time will know that he continued to be a very shrewd contributor to many debates, whose interventions often appealed to common sense and political judgment.
Malcolm's family background was deep rooted in politics. His father had been Government Chief Whip in this House in the 1940s. However, his own first career was not in politics but in business, in which he was extremely successful, including being the deputy chairman of the Sterling Group of Companies and the chairman of the National Bus Company. When he succeeded to his father's peerage in 1954, the House and the Labour Party were quick to see the contribution he could make. By 1960 he was the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip and when the Labour Party won the election of 1964, he followed his father as Government Chief Whip. Later, he was Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in that role he took a passionate interest in the affairs of Gibraltar, being instrumental in the introduction of a new constitution there in 1969.
For many years, Malcolm was an assiduous member of a number of the committees of this House. He served on the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and Sub-Committees A and B of the European Communities Committee. As chairman of Sub-Committee B on Energy and Transport from 1987 to 1990, Lord Shepherd put his knowledge of both business and government to good use in the service of the House. He was also one of the early members of your Lordships' Committee on Delegated Powers, as it was then called, and in that capacity in 1993 he was instrumental behind the scenes in co-ordinating support for an amendment to the Railways Bill to defend the hybrid instrument procedure of this House, an amendment which I remember had the then government under some pressure for quite some time. At that time, such committee activity on Bills was not widespread, but Lord Shepherd was always an independent character.
982
To me, his independent character and integrity shone through during the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999. From the beginning, Malcolm Shepherd was clear that he should not continue to sit as an hereditary Peer and he played a significant and graceful role during the many hours of debate on the Bill. He was a very dignified leader of the small band of Labour hereditary Peers at that time. I was very touched when I heard that he described the day that he was "reinstated" as a life Peer in his own right as the proudest of his life.
As Lord Shepherd of Spalding, he remained an active Member of the House and only a fortnight ago he was here to vote on the Hunting Bill. His death has come very suddenly and is a shock to us all. I think I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we shall miss the twinkle in his eye whenever he spoke to us individually and the sound of his chuckle, which echoed quite loudly sometimes around the House. We shall miss the way he sprinkled kindness and support so generously on so many of us. I know that your Lordships will wish to join me in sending our deepest sympathy to his sons.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I rise from the Opposition Benches to join the noble Baroness in her tribute. The whole House was visibly shocked last Thursday when the Leader of the House announced that Lord Shepherd had died and that tributes would be paid today. I think that it was the right decision to delay tributes until this afternoon. Thursday would have been too quick to do justice to Lord Shepherd.
It is one of the great traditions of this House that we reserve tributes for a limited number of selected Peers, but it is perhaps by appalling bad luck that we have had far too many over the course of the past few weeks. Lord Shepherd had a long and distinguished career in this House, after inheriting his title in 1954 at the age of 36. He was one of many Peers to remember active service in the Second World War—in North Africa, in Sicily and in Italy—and he managed an active business career as well as a political one. He was obviously an extremely competent businessman. He had an enviable career, including the chairmanship of the National Bus Company.
I particularly want to refer to his time here in this House and to his political career. He was on the Front Bench from 1959 to 1976. He went from being a junior Whip to Leader of the House, including Chief Whip from 1964 to 1967; and that, it will be remembered, was a difficult time for Labour in this House. Labour Peers truly were a tiny minority against the Conservative Party. He was Chief Whip during the time of the House of Lords Bill, as it then was, in 1968, and Leader of the House from 1974 to 1976 at the time of a Labour minority government.
Lord Shepherd was wily and cunning, but also wise. He was invariably helpful to me when I was Government Chief Whip and, later on in Opposition, as Leader. He was always keen to offer advice, particularly when asked, and never minded if that advice was not taken. Latterly, he kept his place below

983
the Gangway and from there he made skilful and penetrating interjections at Question Time as well as during wider debates.
Lord Shepherd was always respectful and widely respected. He was one of those among us who understood the House and its quirks. That experience and knowledge are now lost to all of us.
Finally, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House mentioned Lord Shepherd's work on committees. I should like to refer to only one. He was a founder member of what is now the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which has made such a difference to the way in which legislation is taken through this House. From this side of the Chamber, we shall miss him, as I am sure will all noble Lords. We, too, express our condolences to his sons.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am very glad to be able to associate these Benches with all that has been said about Lord Shepherd: shrewd, yes; respected, yes; authoritative, yes; and all carried off with a twinkling eye. I feel that we already miss him, although we have not yet lost his presence. Indeed, I believe that it will be a long time before that will happen.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House did not quite say that Lord Shepherd hailed from a Labour dynasty, but she drew attention to his very long association with the Labour Party and the distinguished contribution made by his father as one of the unsung heroes of the organisation upon which all parties rely. Reference was also made to his becoming the Government Chief Whip, but I think that I am right to say that he is the only Government Chief Whip of any party at any time who has then gone on to become the Leader of the House. As in many other ways, in that, too, Lord Shepherd was unique.
I first came to know Lord Shepherd when he was a busy, well informed and persuasive Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Later, when I became Secretary of State for Transport, he became an obvious appointment, because of his business background, as chairman of the National Bus Company. We look back now on a long and distinguished career. Indeed, he was one of the relatively few survivors of the 100 or so men and women from both Houses who went into the Labour government of 1964.
Lord Shepherd was a good servant of this House and a good servant of the country.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, we have heard from previous speakers what a good man Lord Shepherd was, and his distinguished career has already been outlined. In so far as this House was concerned, he climbed the ladder of all the key positions in this House until reaching the leadership. This left him with a greater knowledge of the workings of the House than most of us will ever acquire.
984
There is one episode in Lord Shepherd's semi-retirement about which I should like to speak. Fourteen years ago, I was appointed chairman of the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel, a hybrid measure with 1,457 petitions against it. Several very experienced Members of the House were appointed to the committee, but when I learned that Malcolm had agreed to serve, my heart rose. I fixed it so that he sat next to me and periodically, during the course of 35 sitting days held upstairs, compressed into two months, he would murmur, "Watch it, mate", when he perceived that I was heading into a situation which would result in some trouble. Thanks to him, I mostly managed to scramble clear.
We were under instructions to complete the job quickly and did so by sitting for far longer hours than the conventional 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The pace told on us all, but in the last week, Malcolm contracted pneumonia and was bundled off into hospital. On the very last day, there was to be a Division which all but one of us deplored. Defying doctors' orders, he came to the House and voted. We managed to return him promptly to hospital, fortunately unharmed.
Malcolm was an avuncular figure, the kind of uncle we should all like to have—wise, concerned, helpful and kindly. I learnt about him in the arduous conditions of that committee and I shall remember him with great affection and respect, as will so many noble Lords. Naturally, we extend our sympathy to his sons.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that I shall be allowed to say a few words because Malcolm was my Chief Whip when I was Leader of the House. I was an insecure figure; I belonged to an older generation. The then Prime Minister and later my great friend Harold Wilson told me that, "We cannot keep Eddie Shackleton waiting forever, can we?". That was not encouraging, but Malcolm supported me throughout. He was loyalty itself and he was a wonderful man.
When people ask whether Malcolm was new Labour or old Labour, I respond simply by saying that Malcolm was real Labour, true Labour. That was Malcolm, a true Labour man.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues on the Bishops' Benches, I welcome the opportunity to pay a warm tribute to the memory of Lord Shepherd. He gave long and distinguished service to this House, including service on its various committees, as we have been reminded today, as well as in the wider, public domain. His wisdom and integrity were hugely respected and, clearly, his presence will be greatly missed. Our prayers and condolences go to the members of his family.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, over a great many years, Lord Shepherd and I faced each other across our respective Dispatch Boxes and argued together. Some 25 years ago, this House was a very different place. The Chief Whip and the Leader of the House in a Labour government had a very difficult task; they were faced with a huge majority wholly opposed to almost everything that that government were doing. They

985
needed a Leader who had tact, skill and firmness of purpose to manage the business of the House in those days—and Lord Shepherd did so excellently. He had all those qualities and he managed the House with great success.
He was as respected and as popular on this side of the House as he was on the other. He was a courteous and modest man; he was fair and he was open. He became to me, as to many others, a firm and personal friend. I am saddened by his death.

Taiwan
2.51 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to improve relations with Taiwan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, although we do not recognise Taiwan, we are keen to develop a mutually beneficial unofficial relationship. This covers economic and trade relations, inward investment, education, science and technology and culture. Taiwan is a target market for Trade Partners UK, and last year our exports grew by 17 per cent to more than £1 billion. A strong programme of exchanges is supported by unofficial ministerial visits, mainly in trade related areas. We shall continue to strengthen our unofficial relationship.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I welcome confirmation that the Government see Taiwan as a valuable trading and cultural partner and that they wish to see more Taiwanese investment in this country. However, does my noble friend appreciate that the present stand-off between the United States and the People's Republic of China is creating enormous instability and nervousness in the region, particularly for Taiwan, which has more than 250 Chinese missiles pointing at its coast from the mainland?
Can my noble friend confirm that the Government see the modern Taiwan as a defender of human rights and democracy? Can she further confirm that the free will of 23 million Taiwanese will be taken into account in any deliberations about the future constitutional status of the country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the sensitivities that may be being experienced in the region as a result of the recent difficulties in relation to the US aeroplane. Although we recognise Taiwan's position, we also acknowledge the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China. It is
986
obviously of very great importance that people on both sides of the strait continue to look creatively for a solution to any difficulty they may be experiencing.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, can the Minister explain whether it is the Government's policy to support the American "twin track" approach; that is, on the one hand, to strengthen Taiwan's defences against violent assault and attack—which is, after all, the right of the Taiwanese people—and, on the other hand, to recognise the long-term validity of the One China policy and to contribute to links with China in the most positive way, despite the present stand-off which obviously threatens that approach?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that British policy in relation to Taiwan remains the same. As I said, we acknowledge the position in relation to China. We have demonstrated by the way in which we have reacted to Taiwan that we can have a very vigorous unofficial relationship founded on good trade relations, cultural links and other contacts. We shall certainly continue to pursue that relationship to the advantage, I hope, of both Taiwan and ourselves.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make it clear to the People's Republic of China that the One China policy, to which the international community contributes and subscribes, can only become a reality on the ground with the free will of the people of Taiwan, and that that is dependent on progress being made towards democratic and free institutions in Beijing itself? In view of that, will the Government offer a little more encouragement to Taiwan, given that the Taiwanese have recently, after 45 years, changed their government through the ballot box?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the unofficial relationship that we have with Taiwan has been, and is, a warm one. I am sure that that warmth will continue. We look to both sides to pursue a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question through negotiation. We attach great importance to the avoidance of conflict in the Taiwan Strait, which could be very destabilising for the whole region and beyond. We would view with extreme concern any recourse to military action. We shall continue to do all that we can to encourage both sides to arrive at a mutually consensual arrangement with which they are both satisfied.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, while I understand the obvious constraints on British policy towards Taiwan, would it not be a very helpful indication of our general sympathy and support if we were to back Taiwan's application to join the World Trade Organisation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are aware that the Taiwanese would like to pursue that

987
course. There does not appear to be any reason why Taiwan should not seek to join as a trading unit itself. It can do that separately and apart from being a part of China. That may be something that would be looked at favourably.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that patience and time are likely to offer the best resolution to this difficult historic problem? The democratisation of China and its opening up to the outside world are all very helpful in terms of making the One China policy a success, but does the Minister further agree that it is incumbent on both sides to avoid, as far as possible, creating more and more weapons of greater and greater sophistication, which can only add to the tension already present in the region?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. Her last comments are, of course, generally applicable. Internationally, we are all seeking a creative, forceful dialogue in an attempt to resolve those issues.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in view of the fact that Taiwan now has a mature parliamentary democracy, will Great Britain support an application by Taiwan to join the Inter- Parliamentary Union?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks in relation to that issue. I shall write to him if my understanding of the position has changed. What the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said is right: we need dialogue on these issues, and patience and time may be our best friends.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am grateful for the replies that the Minister has so far given. However, perhaps I may return to the original Question: can the Minister elaborate in a little more detail on the Government's plans to improve relations?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said, we have been taking every opportunity to improve trade relations. Taiwan was the UK's 30th largest export market world-wide last year, when our exports increased by 17 per cent to just over £1 billion. It is a target market for British trade internationally. Taiwan is now a major investor in the UK. Approximately 175 Taiwanese firms have a presence here, maintaining around 10,000 jobs. So far this year there have been two sponsored working level visits by Taiwanese specialists, focusing on transportation and information technology; and next month we will hold our annual trade policy consultation. We receive a large part of the student body from Taiwan. More than 12,000 Taiwanese are studying in the United Kingdom, which represents a quarter of the Taiwanese overseas students market. We are taking active steps to try to find mutual opportunities where we can work together effectively.

Holocaust Era Insurance Claims
3 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will conduct an inquiry into the resolution of Holocaust era insurance claims against United Kingdom companies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government wholeheartedly support the principle of restitution, as was demonstrated by the London conference on nazi gold in 1997 and the establishment of the Enemy Property Compensation Scheme. We applaud the establishment, in 1998, of an International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims. However, it remains for individual insurance companies to decide whether formally to join the commission and to decide the extent of their involvement in its work.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I thank him especially for his recognition of the work of the international commission on insurance claims, commonly known as ICHEIC, which is headed by Larry Eagleberger. Is my noble friend aware that there are only two major insurance companies in the world with holocaust era claims against them that have not joined the commission? One is Munich Re, in Germany, which had nazi connections; the other, sadly, is the Prudential in this country. As the chairman of the Prudential has seen fit to write to me saying that he supports ICHEIC in its goals, the inference to be drawn from the Prudential not joining is that it has something to hide or does not wish for the transparency that is required of those who become members. Sadly, this has led to a threat from the US of a boycott. Saluting as I do the work of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell on the Enemy Property Compensation Panel, which he chairs, and the honourable transparency to which that has led, surely it is wrong for the Prudential at this stage to prefer to keep apart from the equivalent joint process in the insurance world. Please will Her Majesty's Government have an appropriate word in the ear of those concerned?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree that any talk of a boycott of insurance companies would not be helpful. I repeat that a decision to join ICHEIC is for the insurance company itself to take. I understand, from a copy of a letter from the chairman of the Prudential to my noble friend Lord Janner, which he has been good enough to show me, that the Prudential believes that it co-operates fully with ICHEIC, both in dealing with claims that arrive from ICHEIC and in exchanging information with the commission. Although this is a decision for the Prudential, clearly the company will be influenced

989
by its need to ensure that it maintains good relations with insurance commissioners in the different states in the US.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps I may express my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Janner for his kind references to the Enemy Property Compensation Panel, as I do for his many other kindnesses to me. Will my noble friend confirm that the dispute in this case appears to relate to whether those who seek to rectify an injustice should do so unilaterally, or whether it is better to do so in conjunction with others who share the same purpose? Does my noble friend agree that, where possible, it is better to do so in conjunction with others—first, because it helps to ensure transparency and accountability and, secondly, because they do good twice who encourage others to emulate them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that co-operation in these matters and acting together are a good thing. The Prudential argues that it complies with all of the conditions of ICHEIC and that it co-operates with the commission in both directions. Whether to observe the formality of membership of ICHEIC must remain a matter for the Prudential.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that the question of whether to join ICHEIC is a decision for individual insurance companies. Would he care to comment on the behaviour of the Prudential and on whether it is compatible with the DTI document Business and Society: Developing Corporate Social Responsibility in the UK?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am being invited to go rather wide of the Question. Clearly, the DTI document referred to covers a much wider range of issues; we had better debate them on an occasion when those wider issues are before the House.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, is it not the case that the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, Dr Kim Howells, among his many other attributes, is the Minister for Corporate Social Responsibility? Will my noble friend the Minister go a little further than he has done and exercise the collective charm and influence of government on the decision—which, as he rightly says, is ultimately for the Prudential itself?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that I can rival Kim Howells' charm and decisiveness. I believe that the directors of the Prudential Assurance Company will read this exchange and will take note of the views expressed; and they will take note of the Government's endorsement of the existence and aims of the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, if the Prudential is co-operating fully and agrees with the
990
aims of ICHEIC, does it recognise the anger and irritation it is causing by not joining almost all other honourable companies in this process?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend almost invites me to put myself in the place of the Prudential Assurance Company, and I certainly cannot do that. I repeat: I believe that the company will pay attention to what has been said from all sides of the House.

Elderly Patients in Care Homes: NHS Treatment
3.6 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any evidence that some elderly patients in care homes are not getting free National Health Service treatment; and whether free National Health Service treatment for all remains government policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, GP services are free for registered patients in all settings, including residential and nursing homes. GPs sometimes contract with homes to provide additional services; for example, training for staff. That is different from individual direct patient services, for which GPs should not be charging their registered patients. We shall investigate any allegations of abuse within the system. In addition, the department has commissioned a survey to check whether appropriate medical services are being provided to care homes.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a report by the Association of Charity Officers recently revealed that thousands of old people in residential homes and nursing homes are being forced to pay for medical services which should be provided free by the National Health Service? I warmly welcome my noble friend's assurance that the department will investigate any evidence; but if the allegations are proven, will the Government act immediately? This is a total reversal of the principle of a free National Health Service. It is those who most need medical services who are affected. Will my noble friend ensure that there are proper administrative arrangements for old people in care homes to receive medical care?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I confirm again that, except for a very limited range of specific items, GPs may not charge NHS patients for medical services. That applies as much to individuals living in their own home as it does to individuals in care homes.
I am aware of the report that my noble friend has brought to the attention of the House. I have arranged for officials in the department to meet the authors of that report very shortly to discuss its implications.

991
I make it clear to the House that if general practitioners are in breach of their terms of service, we shall expect local health authorities to take action.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, bearing in mind the inadequate fees paid by social services departments and the increasing levels of regulation by the Government, is the Minister concerned at the large number of care homes that are having to close?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the position regarding care homes generally is that, although there have been a number of closures over the past few years, taking the country as a whole there are still a number of vacant places. As regards fees, we discuss these matters with the local authority associations. We have encouraged a much closer dialogue between local authorities and the owners of care homes. Notwithstanding those questions, the issue of whether GP services should be available to registered patients in care homes has to be answered in the affirmative.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister mentioned GP services, but is not one of the key questions also whether intermediate care is charged for in care homes, as well as in people's own homes? Can the noble Lord give the House a categorical assurance that no charges will be levied for intermediate care, whether in care homes or in people's own homes?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords; intermediate care is an NHS service.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, having been one myself, I well appreciate my noble friend's position as a departmental Minister. But is it not unjust, downright discriminatory and, thus, morally reprehensible that 15,000 severely disabled people in Leonard Cheshire homes are subjected to charging for essential services that would be free of charge if they were cared for elsewhere? Moreover, should not all of us in this House, not least those of us on these Benches, strongly insist that what is morally reprehensible ought not to be legally permissible?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I recognise my noble friend's longstanding interest and concern in these areas. However, we have decided to make care provided by registered nurses free in nursing homes. That will remove the greatest anomaly in the current system of care funding in relation to the distinction between care homes where NHS services are provided free and nursing homes where, up until now, nursing services have had to be paid for either by the local authority or by the resident concerned. Taking that with the additional investment in intermediate care is, I believe, the right way to spend the extra resources that have been made available.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell us when we are likely to see some real interim care to a much larger extent as regards the
992
framework for the elderly that was announced just a week or so ago? It has been made quite clear that the present crisis within the NHS is due to the fact that people cannot be moved from accident and emergency departments into other wards because of all the beds that are occupied by elderly people who are unable to get into care homes. Surely that problem would be solved by providing proper intermediate national health care. Instead of just producing a document, can the Minister tell us when we shall actually see some of these improvements happening?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the target that has been set is for 5,000 extra intermediate care and 1,700 supported intermediate care places to be available by 2004, which will benefit around 150,000 more older people each year. We are making progress towards that aim. One has to create the right infrastructure, but we have seen much enthusiasm and have received a great deal of support at local level for developing those plans.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when answering a supplementary question from one of his noble friends, the Minister mentioned nursing care. Is the noble Lord aware that there is a great deal of confusion in what I would describe as the care industry and the nursing home industry as regards exactly what the expression "nursing care" means? Can he tell the House whether the Government intend purely to pay for that care provided by registered state nurses or those under contract to the NHS—but none other—or whether there is some other way in which residents of these homes can receive the treatment that they require?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, residents of all homes, whether residential care homes or nursing homes, should be able to receive the care that they require. As far as concerns residential care homes, it is a responsibility of the NHS through GPs and community nursing services to provide such nursing care. As for nursing homes, much of that care is provided in the homes by registered nurses. The decision of the Government following the Royal Commission report is to ensure that the care provided by those registered nurses will be free.

Prostate Cancer
3.14 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the screening and treatment of prostate cancer.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are committed to introducing a screening programme if and when screening and treatment techniques are sufficiently well developed. We recently announced that, working with our partners, we shall be providing £6 million over the next five years to develop two centres of excellence for prostate cancer research, developing better screening and diagnostics for

993
prostate cancer. I can today announce that the department has agreed to fund a large-scale randomised control trial of treatment for localised prostate cancer at a total cost of about £13 million.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, bearing in mind that 10,000 men a year die from this condition in Britain, which represents one of the highest mortality rates in Europe, it is satisfactory to note that the Government are now—after some delay—taking stronger measures, including the introduction of greater funding, to deal with the matter. Can the noble Lord tell the House whether the NHS will have adequate services to deal with the increased PSA testing that is now likely to be carried out? Further, can he indicate what is the delay between diagnosis and treatment, and tell us what measures are being taken to reduce that delay?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are aware of delays in referral from GPs to consultants. That is why the two-week-wait target has been set. That target was set for breast cancer for the year 1999, while the target for all other cancers was the end of the year 2000. We shall monitor the results of that process to ensure that those waiting times in relation to prostate cancer are radically reduced. I agree with the implication behind the Question; namely, that in many places people have had to wait far too long.
As for the issue of PSA testing, we expect the health service to be able to respond to any additional demands that are made upon it in that respect. However, it is important for me to inform the House that we shall be launching what is called an "informed choice programme" to ensure that men who come forward and ask for a PSA test are absolutely clear of the consequences of such testing. Experience in the United States shows that whereas 80 per cent of people offered a PSA test without careful counselling elected to take the test, only 38 per cent opted to have such a test when they were given information on which to base their preferences. It is important that informed choice should be the basis upon which such decisions are made.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister have any Figure available to him that demonstrates the level of inaccuracy of PSA testing, and the number of false results?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as far as I am aware, false positives as a result of PSA testing are as high as 50 per cent. That is the reason why a great deal of caution has been exercised about the extent to which screening and PSA testing should take place in this country. If, as a result of having a PSA test and a biopsy, a patient is diagnosed as having cancer, it is worth pointing out that there is no telling what the outcome of that cancer will be because it is known that half of men over the age of 80 have prostate cancer but that only one in 25 will die of it. That is why it is so important that there should be informed choice for individual men who decide to go down the testing route.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for meeting me and my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester to discuss with Gordon Muir of the King's College and Lister Hospitals his findings in the Camberwell area; namely, that there is a significantly higher incidence of inoperable prostate cancer among men in the Afro-Caribbean community. As those findings have been borne out by United States statistics, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether that will be given due consideration in deciding the guidance and the priorities for screening?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to differences in the incidents of prostate cancer among different ethnic groups. That is certainly suggested by research in the United States. Along with my noble friend, I met Mr Muir who is a researcher in this area. We are extremely keen to pursue this important area of work. We have invited detailed proposals from researchers in both Bristol and London who are looking at the incidence and nature of prostate cancer in UK ethnic sub-groups. If we were able to fund such research, it would inform the development of policy in relation to screening, testing or treatment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister recently announced a set of pilots for pre-retirement health checks. Will the PSA test be included in the pilots and should not the informed choice programme be included in the tests?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am certainly happy to consider that. However, it is important that we make sure that the informed choice programme is fully rooted in the National Health Service and is seen to be working effectively. While we would consider sympathetically screening in itself, we must have evidence that it will be effective. It is important that the informed choice programme is a component of any such programme.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, what is the average wait or delay between seeing one's GP and seeing a consultant?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the average time between seeing a GP and a consultant is about 13 weeks.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, bearing in mind that there is an equality issue here in that unequal treatment for cancers as between men and women has been suggested, what plans do the Government have for greater information to be given to men through all the various media on symptoms and when one needs to self-refer, as such information was given years ago, and continues to be given, to women?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the whole purpose of the informed choice programme is to make

995
that kind of information available to men who approach their GP, ask about prostate cancer and ask for a PSA test. The more information we provide, the more likely an individual is to make an informed choice.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 pm my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on foot and mouth. It is likely that the Statement will be taken after the first group of amendments to the Elections Bill.

Elections Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Postponement of local government elections in England and Wales]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 3. at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (2A),"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 7. As we all know, the date of the county council elections has been—or will be, if the Bill is accepted—moved from 3rd May to 7th June. Why was 7th June accepted as an appropriate date? Presumably it was hoped that foot and mouth disease, which is the unhappy reason for the introduction of the Bill, would be under control by that stage. In the middle of last week some epidemiologists sent some optimistic messages with regard to how soon foot and mouth would be brought under control. However, it is fair to say that since the end of last week and over the weekend there have been other extremely serious outbreaks in areas far from previous outbreaks. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that this grievous disease is not under control and cannot be said to be SO.
As I understand it, the purpose of the postponement is to enable people in affected areas of the countryside to take part in the democratic process through postal voting; to enable them to be canvassed where possible and to enable those who hope to stand as candidates to do so, particularly farmer candidates whose farms have been affected by foot and mouth disease.
It becomes increasingly unlikely that the disease will be on the wane by 7th June. It therefore seems sensible—the amendments are designed to achieve this—to give the Government the opportunity to introduce an order to stagger the local elections if it is clear to any local authority that it is impossible for a fair and democratic process to take place in its locality. Amendment No. 7 gives details of how that process can be initiated and explains that such an order would be submitted to both Houses of Parliament for their approval. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: On Second Reading last week we on these Benches made clear our view of the seriousness of any postponement of the local elections. My noble friend Lord Greaves expressed our collective view well when he said that we gave two cheers rather than three to the Bill.
The arguments were finely balanced, but certainly did not persuade us that the postponement should be for a period as long as one year. I acknowledge that the unwritten intention of the amendment may be to call the Government's bluff with regard to the range of elections that may take place on 7th June. As we said last week, we do not expect the Government Benches to acknowledge that this is a fig leaf for not having the general election on 3rd May. Perhaps I can tease the Conservatives a little by suggesting that the amendment is a fig leaf for them wanting to keep their heads in the sand and not face a general election for as long as they possibly can.
Seriously, we need certainty in this situation. Last week we argued for fixed-term Parliaments on that basis. There was certainty for those elected to the counties in May 1997. On Thursday I and my noble friends described a number of the difficulties that would arise from an indefinite postponement, which I described as a dribbling away of democracy. Among those would be a series of resignations by individual councillors which might in some cases lead to changes of control almost by default and not by design of the electorate, which is where on the whole such decisions should emanate. We also mentioned the knock-on effects of postponing annual meetings which would arise if the amendment were accepted. We shall discuss that issue later. I refer to decisions on service delivery which are taken at the beginning of a new council.
I also believe that there are inherent difficulties in the detail of the amendments which I shall mention now as we are expected to deal with all stages of the Bill today. Amendment No. 7 refers to the disease being brought "under control". Do we have appropriate or sufficient tests to determine that? The amendment further states,
"restrictions have been lifted from most farms"
—does that mean 51 per cent of farms?—and refers to the trend being "downward" and the spread of the disease being "reversed". I am not sure that I understand the distinction between those two conditions. The amendment also refers to the time between reporting the disease and slaughter of the affected animals. That may be intended to

997
demonstrate control in dealing with the disease, but does it reflect the control of the disease itself as distinct from having better mechanisms to respond to it?
Finally, whose judgment would apply? The Secretary of State would have to be satisfied, but then the matter would come to both Houses of Parliament. Under the amendment, an application for judicial review would be fairly likely and the courts would have to determine whether the tests were met.
There is so much scope for uncertainty in the amendment that we cannot support it. We certainly could not support an indefinite postponement of the council elections.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I, too, oppose the amendments. If I needed anything to reaffirm my opposition to them, a headline in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph did so. It read, "'We need gas masks', say Americans". Such horror stories would continue ad infinitum if the amendment was carried, with disastrous effects on our tourism industry.
The Prime Minister had to make a judgment, balancing the maintenance of the greatest possible normality, particularly for the tourism industry, with the establishment of certainty for local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has referred to some of the reasons for that and I am sure that other noble Lords more equipped than I will discuss the problems and complexities that a long delay would create for local authorities.
Business and the City also need certainty to maintain stability and to plan ahead. The amendment would send a strong negative signal to business and the City.
There are other reasons for opposing the amendment. It cannot possibly be right or democratic for the executive to have the power to call local elections when it suits them politically. That would be one consequence of the amendments. Unlike parliamentary elections, the date for local elections has always been laid down. It has been amended once or twice, but it has always been laid down in statute. I believe that the same should apply to parliamentary elections. I was sorry that I was not able to be here for Second Reading, but I have read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who referred to the Labour Party's policy in 1992. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that I retired in 1993 and the policy then somehow got lost. I firmly believe in having fixed-term Parliaments, just as we have fixed dates for local elections.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the longer the delay, the more resignations and deaths there would be, which, without by-elections, could mean an undemocratic change of power by default. That would not be acceptable to whichever party lost out. That problem could be overcome only by holding by-elections in particular areas, which would not be acceptable.
998
That brings me to one issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, did not refer when she introduced the amendment. I assume that the reference in Amendment No. 7 to,
"a particular local authority area",
means that there could be elections in different areas at different times. That would be ludicrous. Arbitrary decisions would be made on which local authorities would hold elections. Who would take those decision? It would be up to the Home Secretary, on the advice of experts relating to small and specific areas of the country. That would be almost impossible to achieve.
I assume that the order would be binding on the local authorities concerned in respect of date and procedure. Would those local authorities be consulted? Would there be discussions between the experts and the local authorities about what should happen? In some cases currently, the experts are saying that certain areas or footpaths should be open, but the local authorities have arbitrarily decided not to open them, without giving any explanation of their reasons for ignoring the scientific advice. There is a lot of confusion about that.
It would also be confusing to tell a tourist from abroad that it was all right to go to Oxfordshire, but not to Bedfordshire, but maybe next month they could go to Dorset. That is nonsense.
Finally, the amendments take no account of the public mood. That mood is shown not just by the opinion polls, which are no more than guides, but by the voices of the people who are closely involved. Various statements have been made in the past few days. Ben Gill, President of the National Farmers Union, has said:
"Farmers will find 7th June more acceptable".
The Conservative leader of Hampshire County Council said that he was "rather glad" at the decision. The chief of tourism in the South West, Malcolm Bell, welcomed the postponement until June and said that,
"the open-ended postponement advocated by the Tories would be absolutely disastrous for the British Tourist Industry".
Carole Hutchings of South Devon Tourist Association, who is a farmer and an owner of a tourist attraction—the two cannot necessarily be separated—said that she was glad of the deferment, but did not want it to go beyond that date.
Even the Opposition are not as united on the issue as they seem. On Second Reading in the other place, Nicholas Winterton said that leaving the date open would be, "unconstitutional and most unsatisfactory", adding that,
"the House has a duty and a responsibility to specify another date when they are to he held".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/4/01; col. 417.]
No stronger case than that can be put.
Lord Renton: The noble Baroness has overlooked the difficulties that arise in the rural areas affected by foot and mouth. I fought and won 10 general elections in a large farming area, with 80 villages and hamlets and five towns. I considered it my duty to visit every one of those villages. Luckily, during those 34 years we

999
did not have a foot and mouth outbreak. The Government were right to decide that the local elections should not take place on 3rd May because of the inaccessibility and confusion caused in rural areas by foot and mouth.
Since the Government made that decision, foot and mouth has spread still further. There are now more than 1,000 farms in Great Britain affected by it. Nobody can say whether that number will increase further, but it looks as though it might. If it does—and even if it does not—the circumstances that caused the Government to decide to postpone the election from 3rd May will become increasingly important. As we approach 7th June, which is only two months away, the Government should consider the possibility of postponing the elections still further in the interests of democracy in rural areas. It would not be against the interests of democracy to do so. I therefore warmly support the amendment.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is a strong and skilled advocate, but he has dealt with only part of the issue. He has argued about the possibility of there being a case for a further postponement of elections. However, he has not mentioned that the amendment would give the Government the power to postpone elections by statutory instrument. That is a constitutional point of considerable importance.
I appreciate that Governments always like the power to use statutory instruments because, as they put it, they confer flexibility. However, it is usually for precisely that reason that opposition parties of any political colour tend to look askance at taking major powers of constitutional importance to be exercised by statutory instrument.
I am even more surprised to find a power of this kind being suggested not merely from the Opposition Benches but from the Opposition Benches in this House. I believe that it is a familiar point to all of us, and certainly to the Official Opposition, that the powers of this House to control statutory instruments—although now improved, thanks in part to the efforts of the Opposition and to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his Politeia lecture—are still very far from perfect.
In major constitutional matters—the postponement of any election must be regarded as a major constitutional matter—this House has always been regarded as having the powers of a long-stop. That is not likely to be set aside. Therefore, to take a power to postpone elections by a procedure which this House is by no means perfectly equipped to check seems to be a constitutional precedent of a type which governments might attempt but on which they would probably be checked in this House if they did so. For such a power to be attempted by an opposition is a paradox of positively Gilbertian proportion. It really does take me aback.
My point with regard to regulations concerns not only voting, to which I always return; it is also a matter of publicity. If one tries to explain regulations to
1000
members of the media, one sees the eyes glaze over before one has finished the first sentence. It is also a matter of parliamentary time. Time is an opposition weapon of by no means negligible significance. As soon as one gives to government a power to do things by regulation, one throws away the weapon of time.
This amendment clearly comes from an Opposition who, whatever they may say in public, have far more confidence in the constitutional propriety of this Government than I would have expected. I hope that Ministers will not take offence if I say that I do not share that confidence. I would not trust myself with this power; and, if I would not trust myself with it, I hope that I can be forgiven for not trusting Ministers with it either.
Precedents exist in relation to this matter, and some things, by convention, are never done by regulation: we do not make new criminal offences or impose new taxes by regulation. I suggest that altering the dates of elections by regulation should perhaps count as another. If anyone on the Opposition Benches or anywhere else in this House can think of a case where a power to postpone elections by regulation has been taken, I shall be very interested to hear it.
Lord Norton of Louth: I believe that it occurs under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
Earl Russell: Can the noble Lord give me any further context for that? The point is one of some interest.
Lord Norton of Louth: I believe that under the 1983 Act, the Home Secretary can lay an order to postpone the date if he does so before 1st February in the year preceding the poll.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may have the chance to reply to the noble Lord. All-party agreement is clearly assumed. However, if we look at occasions on which general or local elections have been postponed—the Parliament and Registration Act 1916, amended by the Parliament and Local Elections Act 1916, postponed local elections—the provision simply allowed a postponement for a fixed period of time. Primary legislation was required. The same was true of the 1940 Act which postponed the general election due in that year.
I have no opinion on what the situation will be in a month's time. However, whatever it may be, it is important that it is resolved by all-party agreement. I believe that that is best achieved by requiring primary legislation, but time will not permit that unless there is all-party agreement. Therefore, if I am called back from marking exam scripts and must sit through the night in order to see through primary legislation to meet an emergency which we cannot now foresee, I shall have only myself to blame; I shall not blame Ministers.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I can well understand my noble friend Lady Hanham feeling slightly hurt and

1001
surprised at the ingratitude shown by the Government in not rushing to accept her rather generous amendment. I attribute to my noble friend the most kindly feelings. She sees a Prime Minister in an embarrassing and difficult position. He has taken full charge of a totally unpredictable situation—that is, a very nasty disease, the course of which no one can foretell.
The Prime Minister and his Government took the serious step of postponing an election. At the time, one was conscious that they were treading most sensitive ground. Nevertheless, in the end they decided that, due to the plight of the countryside, it would be as well and fair to postpone the election. Such a decision was slightly embarrassing in the face of a good deal of stern opposition from supporters of their party who have very little knowledge and even less concern for what happens in the countryside.
My noble friend's amendment offers—I am sure that she will not be dogmatic about the date—a little flexibility. If the disease were to continue to spread, the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, would be in a position to say that they were grateful for the flexibility and would not proceed with the election on the date early in June now chosen.
What I am really asking the noble Lord on the Front Bench—it seems to be a question which is easier to ask than it is to answer—is: what will be the Government's position if the situation which caused them originally to make a serious decision does not go away but still endures? Will they then say that they were wrong to postpone the election and that they will not postpone it any longer? It seems rather foolish not to take advantage of the maybe mistaken generosity of my noble friend. As it is, surely the Government will find themselves in a most difficult position if this unpredictable disease is still flaying its horrible course through the countryside.
So far as I know, no one is in a position to forecast with any certainty the course that the disease will take; nor is anyone able to say that he has any certainty as to the correct measures that should now be taken. We are facing an unknown situation and personally I believe that it demands a measure of flexibility. However, if the Government reject out of hand the amendment which the Opposition rather generously offered, I believe that they will have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to retaining the chosen date of 7th June for the elections that have now been postponed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am very surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, suggest that it is an opposition's job to be generous to the government. An opposition's job is not to be generous to the government but to ensure that the legislation that a government introduce is proper, right and relevant to the circumstances that attain at a particular time.
Lord Renton: Would the noble Lord give way?
Lord Stodart of Swindon: I shall just finish my point. For an opposition to give a government the flexibility
1002
that the amendment contains would in my view undermine and make a misnomer of the word, "opposition".
Lord Renton: Surely the duty of an opposition is to put forward views—that is in the interests of democracy and of the people of this country. It is not our duty to consider what would be favourable or unfavourable to the government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is an opposition's duty to ensure that the government are not given powers that override the rights of the people. The rights of the people include being consulted in elections when they expected to be consulted, not when the government think that it is right to consult them.
I was sorry that the date of the local elections was moved to 7th June; I think that that was entirely unnecessary. The Government have decided, for their own reasons, to delay the elections and they have quite properly brought a Bill before the House. It is perfectly proper for the Opposition to try to amend it but the way in which they are trying to do so would, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, give undue power to the government of the day and set a precedent that may be followed in future.
I remember—it was, I believe, in 1985—when the House of Commons decided that it wanted to end the reign of the GLC a year before the proper time. This House said that that was not democratic and prevented it being done. The noble Earl was absolutely right to say that this House acts as a longstop.
I shall obviously not oppose the Bill but the power that the Opposition have proposed is not right. They are failing in their duty to challenge what the Government are doing. I hope that the House will oppose the proposal.
Viscount Goschen: I have great sympathy with those who see the role of your Lordships' House as a constitutional backstop that ensures that the Government are not given excessive powers. I listened extremely carefully to the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who suggested that the House should not write the Government a blank cheque.
Several issues need to be considered in this regard. First, we are effectively in uncharted territory in this context. We have had to take an extraordinary decision. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that we are discussing not the Prime Minister's decision but Parliament's decision about whether to make such a delay. Secondly—this point was forcefully put by my noble friend Lord Renton—we do not know what the circumstances will be with regard to the foot and mouth epidemic by June, July or any fixed date. We need to address a specific problem: what happens, as has already been said, if the disease has not been brought under control by 7th June? My noble friend on the Front Bench sought to address that problem and to assist this House and the Government with her proposal. I am sure that she would not say that the mechanism that she proposed for the House to

1003
discuss was perfect but it would at least take care of that eventuality. The Government have not yet dealt with that eventuality. They have said with great firmness that the local elections will be held on 7th June but they have not explained what their policy will be if the disease has not been brought under control by then.
The Government have clearly explained their reasons for suggesting that Parliament should delay the local elections; first, to ensure that everyone is represented properly; and, secondly, to ensure that the feelings of those most affected by the disease are fully taken into account. We do not know whether those criteria will no longer apply one month after the original date that was set for the elections. The Government have to explain to the House today how they propose to cater for the situation that I described. What will they do if the disease has not been brought under control by that time? In that event, they will have clearly demonstrated that delaying for one month was a gesture. They must explain what will happen if the disease is not firmly under control by then.
In the amendment the Opposition are attempting to write considerable safeguards into the Bill. By no means does it involve a blank cheque. We are discussing not the criteria for joining the euro zone but a much more tightly defined matter, which is much more suitable for objective examination. I welcome the efforts of my noble friend on the Front Bench. She attempted to deal with the eventuality that the disease has not been brought under control within a month.
Lord Rennard: I want to make a brief point about the amendment that has not yet been sufficiently addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, may care to discuss it in her winding up remarks. Would not the amendment prolong the elections rather than postpone them? Nominations for the elections have legally closed and almost all of the nominations that will be made for the elections, whenever they are held, have been made. Much of the printed material has been printed and much of it has been delivered. Canvassing has begun and canvassing will continue. The effect of an indefinite postponement of the elections in many areas simply means that the elections will continue for a far longer period than would otherwise have been the case. That would not be welcome in the affected areas.
Lord Monro of Langholm: I support the comments of those who have commended the amendment to the House, especially what was said by my noble friend Lord Renton. Like him, I have fought 10 or so elections. It is desperately important for candidates to meet the people. Years ago, one had perhaps 60 or 70 meetings in village halls over a period of three or four weeks but nowadays local government and parliamentary elections increasingly involve walkabouts. That means meeting the people in the streets and villages. However, that is exactly what we do not want to be happening if foot and mouth has not substantially diminished in a few weeks' time.
1004
The Government have argued, "We had a general election during the war". We did indeed have an election in July 1945, but at that time 10 years had elapsed since the previous general election and it was possible to move about the country freely. The only people at risk were many of us in the Far East or on the Continent. We had to vote by post. There was no reason to postpone having an election in July 1945, even if it produced an odd result.
The Minister must explain how the situation has changed. The Prime Minister recently said that the situation would be all right on 7th June. Presumably, information from the Chief Veterinary Officer indicated that the number of cases would have dropped dramatically or ceased. Every day, there are still 24 or 34 cases in the United Kingdom.
We should not be fooled by the thought that the Bill will affect only England. We know that the Bill is simply a cover-up and a reason for putting off the general election by a month. The general election will certainly affect Scotland. Foot and mouth cases are as virulent there as elsewhere and have been right from the start.
The onus is on the Government to produce an argument as to why we should not have the flexibility to postpone the election—not indefinitely, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell indicated—for a maximum of 11 months, or perhaps only for a few months. It may be that by October of November, everything will be cleared up, as I hope to goodness it will. I believe that we are taking a very positive step to help the Government and the country to be in a better position to deal with local and general elections instead of going ahead in early June when we have not the slightest idea what the situation will be on the farms at that time.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the Prime Minister announced that he intended to legislate in this way, to the majority of people it probably seemed on balance a sensible decision. But events have moved on. Indeed, they move on ahead of parliamentary debates. It is difficult to see now, for example, how what the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said about a local government election in June helping tourism could possibly be the case. Alas, it is increasingly clear that the situation is unlikely to be any better by the beginning of June. That is a growing fear among the increasing number of people close to this pestilence who are becoming overwhelmed and desperate. What is proposed will, I fear, turn out to be an empty gesture.
My belief—it is, I am sure, what most Members of the Commmittee in their hearts are thinking—is that whether or not this Bill goes through there is a growing opinion that the general election should be postponed until all this horror is over. There will be very strong opinion against a general election while it continues. That is what I mean by an empty gesture. I can understand why it was made but I believe that it will turn out not to be very helpful.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may respond by saying

1005
that the view I expressed is not my view. It is the view of the chief of tourism, for example, in the South West. Devon is extremely badly affected. He welcomed a postponement until June but viewed an open-ended postponement advocated by the Tories as absolutely disastrous for the British tourist industry. That comes from someone who is involved with the matter from day to day. His view is that it is not an empty gesture.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Tourists will not be thinking about whether they happen to be here when there is an election. They are thinking about what restrictions may be in place because of foot and mouth disease. The noble Baroness may not be in direct contact with the people most deeply affected by this legislation. However, if she reads the newspapers she will see that it will become increasingly difficult to sustain what we should all like to sustain; namely, that as much of the country as possible should be open to tourists. It is not easy. At the moment there are parts of the country—I live in one of them—where it is possible for tourists to go. But they cannot just go anywhere. It is becoming increasingly difficult. Quite honestly, I do not believe that that argument is going to hold up for very much longer. I hate to say it, but I believe that Members of the Committee opposite should realise that.
Lord Norton of Louth: I had not intended to speak on this set of amendments which is why I have been busy writing on the back of someone else's envelopes. However, there are one or two points that I should briefly like to make.
I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that this House has a role as a constitutional long-stop. I believe also that this House, as a House, has another very important role; namely, to force government to justify what they are doing. That is particularly important when there has been very little time for debate in the other place. It is therefore quite legitimate that amendments should be tabled to force the Government to come forward and justify the specific provisions of the Bill. We have had justifications for the Bill but there is a need for somewhat greater clarity.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the point about setting precedents, particularly if we provided the power to do something by order. As I mentioned, there is a power for that already in statute. I made that point not in order to justify the power but merely to establish that it existed. I have my own doubts about whether we should have in law that particular provision.
We are in uncharted territory as regards postponing elections for any specific period in peace time. Therefore, it requires very serious reflection and justification. We are perfectly entitled to probe the Government in this way with this type of amendment.
The amendment forces the Government to clarify precisely the justification for the measure. One argument—I believe a necessary argument—for postponing elections is the practical argument; that is, that it is difficult to hold elections when people are
1006
engaged in fighting the crisis of foot and mouth. It takes them away, and it makes campaigning somewhat difficult, as we have heard.
The problem is sticking with a precise date when we may still face a crisis. Therefore, we are left with the justification being solely one of symbolism. That is a somewhat dangerous basis on which to delay an election. I accept that we need a limit. I do not believe that it can be an open-ended commitment. The amendment before us is not open-ended. But we need to consider very carefully what to do if the crisis is still with us on 3rd May. What will have been the point of having the delay if the problems still exist?
I realise that the question is extraordinarily difficult. We are engaged in a balancing act. Getting the balance right may be difficult. That is all the more reason why we should subject this measure to very detailed scrutiny.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Perhaps I may declare an interest as an elected member of Suffolk County Council. It certainly seems to me that there is every difference in the world between the Prime Minister choosing not to exercise his right to call an election when he sees fit and the decision to cancel elections which have been fixed for four years.
It seems that we are in something of a bind. We all tend to agree with the proposition that the county elections should be postponed, but we agree for different reasons. That causes some difficulty in deciding how we should move forward from here. If the reason for postponing county elections were the practical difficulties of campaigning in rural areas—as a rural councillor I have some experience, although nothing like as long as other Members of the Committee who have spoken—then those practical difficulties have to be put into the context of the 24 million people who have the right to vote in those elections.
But the Government never said that they were making the decision for practical reasons. They have always said that it is due to that most ephemeral thing—public mood. We can all support that but it is very difficult to measure it and to think about it in anything other than a heartfelt way; and so we have this difficulty about where we go next and how we move on.
In those terms, a proposition that says that we can indefinitely postpone elections, or postpone them for a year, has huge practical implications. I shall not take up the time of the Committee because we rehearsed those very well last week on Second Reading. But as a county councillor and someone who has been leader of a county council, I am aware of the immense practical difficulties in trying to run a council on a month-by-month basis. Not least is the great difficulty in relation to the 25 per cent of councillors who do not intend to stand again in May. They will gradually either drift off and not turn up to meetings or, quite possibly, hand in their resignations and then there are no provisions for by-elections. That will leave areas unrepresented, councils changing hands, and so on.

1007
We must find a mechanism to weigh up the difficulties which will exist for some people in casting a vote in county elections and the difficulties which will be caused for county councils. Let us remember that this is about the provision of services such as firefighting, libraries, planning, housing, schools, and all those things which local authorities do. It is important that we find a way to balance the two issues. For that reason, we shall oppose the amendments.
Lord Boardman: The debate has centred on the consequences of postponement. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the amendment was favourable to the Opposition, and that it is unusual for the Opposition to table an amendment which is favourable to the Government. He left it somewhat undecided as to which side it would favour. I have no idea—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. It was not me who said that it was favourable to the Government, but his noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
Lord Boardman: I happily accept what the noble Lord says. My point is brief. I support the many arguments from this side of the House which have been far more ably put. I refer to the consequences on those mainly affected by foot and mouth disease; that is, the farming community and all whose future depends upon it.
I must declare an interest. I am a farmer who at present, thank God, is not affected by foot and mouth. The feeling in the farming community is one of fear and fright. There have been many losses. Sheep cannot be moved from one place to another. The farmers wish this situation to end. They do not mind which way this will go, whether it is one date or another. They say, "Let us see that this has ended, and do not let people traipse round electioneering and all the other things which go with that while we have this risk hanging over our heads".
Insofar as it is right to postpone the election because of damage to the farming community, it should be postponed to a time when such dangers do not exist. To predict that the farming community and all whose future depends on it will be more vulnerable in June than in May is speculation, but there are many who believe that. I believe that the date should be left open. If, indeed, the date in June, which is in the Bill, is found to be undesirable, with the same risks involved as were thought by the Government that there would be in May, it should be postponed. I should be very sorry on behalf of the farming community if we said, "No, come what may it will be that date and if it is much worse on 7th June than it was on 3rd May or it is today, that is just too bad for you". Our duty to the farming community is to give the opportunity for a postponement as proposed in the amendments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The debate on the first group of amendments has been wide-ranging. It comes
1008
to the core issue which separates the two main parties over the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, ably expressed the case from her perspective. She was joined by other noble Lords opposite in setting out a case as to why 7th June should not be set in stone as a date on which the local elections should be held and from which they should be deferred. I shall simply put the case for the Government and explain why we take a contrary view.
We believe that there are a number of reasons why it is not a good idea to leave the date uncertain. I referred to such reasons at Second Reading but I believe that it is worth rehearsing them again. Briefly, there are three reasons. Perhaps I may begin by reminding your Lordships that we consider that from a purely practical point of view there was no reason why the local elections could not go ahead on schedule. Roads are open, with only a tiny number of exceptions, as are schools, libraries and many other public buildings, certainly those in which elections take place. We do not believe that that position will change in the next couple of months.
Your Lordships may want to contemplate the interpretation which would be placed on the decision potentially to delay indefinitely the local elections by those who may be considering visiting the United Kingdom from abroad or, indeed, by our home-grown tourist industry. It is in the interests of every citizen, town and country dweller alike, not least those farmers who have a diversified base to their business, for confidence in tourism to be restored as quickly as possible. Like my noble friend Lady Gould, I feel that it is worth reminding ourselves of the words of Malcolm Bell of the south-west tourism authority, which were quoted at Second Reading. When the announcement was made of the deferral to 7th June, he stated:
"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".
How would he and his colleagues in the tourism industry feel if the amendments were passed? I believe that he would argue that the whole matter would again be thrown into doubt. The fact that the amendments would allow the local elections to take place on different dates in different counties is particularly unfortunate. Let us imagine the message that that would send out. As my noble friend Lady Gould said, there would be different messages in different places, such as, "You can go to Dorset but Wiltshire is still closed. Somerset might open next month". That sort of approach is really rather barmy.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I thank the Minister for giving way. I believe he stated just now something about Britain being back to normal on 7th June. Is he saying that come the appropriate date beforehand, the Government will behave as if Britain were back to

1009
normal by 7th June, and that they will completely disregard the circumstances? Unless he is saying that, what he says does not make any sense.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I quoted the words of Malcolm Bell from the south-west tourist authority. The message that he was trying to make clear was that Britain was back to normal as regards tourists coming here, and for the purposes of being a tourist in the UK. That was the point which he was trying to get across, and which we need to echo, not least for the benefit of our tourism industry. We need to stress that people can feel free to come to our country and visit the many attractions which are completely unaffected by the outbreak of foot and mouth. We need to do all we can to restore confidence.
We must also take into account the position of councillors who intend to stand down at the next election. That point was ably made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The other point which she made about the impact on individual local authorities, were there to be perpetual untimed delays is also important. It would be unreasonable to expect those who are prepared to accept a short delay to continue putting off indefinitely ceasing to be a councillor. The points about councillors resigning and county councils, in particular, becoming more uncertain about where the balance of control lies, are also important.
One point which perhaps has not been dwelt on but is nonetheless important is what would happen to the overall balance of control of, for instance, the Local Government Association were there to be an indefinite delay or, perhaps, a staggering of elections, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham suggested. A councillor may resign his office at any time, and the Government are grateful that most councillors will probably accept the position of a short extension—as envisaged in the Bill—to their term of office. But it would be unfair to expect them to carry on in an open-ended way with the perpetual deferral of local elections.
Whether by death or resignations, vacancies will occur. In certain cases the pattern of such vacancies could affect political control. It simply would not be right for the political make-up of councils to be at the vagaries of chance, with local people having no idea when they can restore the council which they had chosen or be given the opportunity to choose another type of political control for their local authorities.
All the points I have set out illustrate the importance of having certainty on the issue of when local elections should be held. I suggest that amendments which provide for the elections to be postponed until specific conditions in relation to controlling and eradicating foot and mouth disease are met on an area-by-area basis propose a recipe for chaos. That would be the case even if the criteria for determining when the disease is under control were truly objective, which I believe is seriously under doubt and question.
If these amendments were passed, Parliament on a regular basis would needlessly have to give further attention to when a local election could take place in a
1010
particular given and specific locality. I am loath to disturb the positive and generally constructive attitude that has prevailed during our deliberations on the Bill, and I am not seeking to make a partisan point, but I cannot help speculating what the reaction would have been if the tables had been turned. I am sure that if the Government had put forward a Bill which left the election date uncertain, we would have been accused of taking too great powers and that we would have attracted Opposition amendments to insert a fixed date.
I also suspect that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would have been right to press his constitutional argument because it is an important point. I suspect that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which in general has given the Bill in its current form a clean bill of health, might well have had something to say about a power to set election dates by order. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I believe that his interpretation of the legislation is right and that, in a sense, the party opposite is being consistent with its 1983 legislation. However, I worry about such order-making powers.
The Government believe that it is possible to hold elections now, but, on balance, decided to defer them for a short while. There is no good reason to leave it open to a new date. We believe that the elections should be held on 7th June. Therefore, I cannot invite the Committee to support the amendments and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will withdraw them.
Lord Norton of Louth: Before the noble Lord sits down, I heard what he said in response to the amendment. It was perfectly justified and he described where he saw the amendment as flawed. However, he did not develop the other side of his argument, which was to justify the existing provisions. He mentioned it briefly at the end in terms of balance, but I remain unclear where the priority lies as regards the principal case for 7th June.
The noble Lord made the case that it was practically possible to proceed with an election on election day, but the argument advanced by the Home Secretary in another place was the practical one as regards preventing people from devoting themselves to local elections because they are busy fighting the crisis of foot and mouth. If that situation pertains on 7th June, I am not clear what the justification is for sticking with that date.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The important point is that the legislation seeks to create certainty. As I have argued, it creates that certainty and people know where they are. We have a fixed date and we can have an election contest. The Government took the balanced view that 7th June was about right and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made the point during his contribution in another place that having been given additional time and leadership locally and nationally, we hope that by then progress will have been made to ensure that all the mechanisms are in place to defeat the disease.

1011
Those are the reasons and the arguments before us and the Government must reach a balanced view. That is so particularly given the serious nature of the decision to postpone the elections for a period. All those issues hold together.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may press the noble Lord on the point of 7th June. Is he saying that come what may an election will be held on 7th June or, alternatively, that the Government are satisfied that by 7th June all will be back to normal in the countryside? If they are, I believe that the Minister is obliged to produce some evidence.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall deal with the last point first. I did not say that everything in the countryside would be back to normal. I made the point, which I repeated, that it was argued by the tourist industry that it was important to establish an aura of normality so that people could have greater confidence in coming to this country from abroad. That is important for the confidence of the tourism industry.
We all hope that the foot and mouth disease will be well on the way to eradication by 7th June, but we cannot be absolutely certain of that. It would be foolish to speculate on that point. However, we are trying to put in place certainty as regards this set of local elections and we have established a date.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry to bother the Minister again, but he has not answered the first part of my question. Are the Government of a firm state of mind that come what may there will be an election on 7th June?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that I had made it clear that we expect the local elections to be on 7th June. That is an important point. We want to provide certainty so that the elections can take place. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made the point that the elections are taking place in the sense of campaigning activity on the ground. We want to be certain and have a crystal clear local election date so that the uncertainty about them and the fate of each county and each unitary authority can be properly determined.
Baroness Hanham: I am delighted that our amendment sparked such a comprehensive debate on the provisions of the Bill. I would have been even more delighted had Members of the Committee addressed themselves more precisely to the amendment which I moved.
It was most specific. It was to enable particular areas to have the local election date extended. If a certain situation pertained, those areas could in the event be the whole area covered by a county council election. My amendment opens up the possibility that for a number of reasons it may not be possible to hold elections in every area on 7th June.
1012
I understand that the decision to move the elections to 7th June was taken during a short space of time. It was also taken because of the public-mood music—and perfectly understandable that was. But it cannot have been taken just because of anxieties about the public mood; it must have been taken in the light of the practicalities of running an election—any election, local or general—while the country is under siege. It is under siege from the dire disease of foot and mouth and because some people in the countryside are lamentably affected by what is happening. The practicalities of running elections under such circumstances must surely have weighed with the Prime Minister between the time he had made his visit to the field and his announcement of their delay.
We are in a constitutional quagmire as regards the whole Bill and the situation which exists. I want to make it clear at the outset that no one on these Benches would have wanted the situation to happen. But as it has, and as we have had to move into a constitutional position that is almost unheard of, we must do so in a way that is sensible and sound and provides flexibility within the Government's proposals. We say that, despite what the Government and all of us hope, the situation on 7th June may be no better than it is on 3rd May. As I said in my opening remarks, that is increasingly appearing to be the case. Contrary to expectations, the disease is not diminishing or going away. Over the weekend new areas have opened up, totally unexpectedly, and the situation is moving towards that of last week.
We say to the Government—this is perhaps not a matter for the Opposition but we make this offer—that we do not want to have another debate like this to postpone for a little longer a local election in a specific area. The amendment gives the option of an extension to May of next year as the absolute limit of what would be allowed, but it also gives the Government the option to bring before this House a proposal that one county, if that is what is required, will be unable to hold the elections, for all the reasons with which we are familiar. I have little doubt that this House would view that with a great deal of sympathy.
It is for that reason that I table this amendment. We heard at Second Reading—there has been much coverage in the press—about the problems of tourism. We understand the economic spin-off into the tourist industry from foot and mouth disease. A great deal of anxiety is already being generated among those who intend to come to this country but are concerned about what they may find when they get here. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that some Americans wondered whether they should bring their gas masks. It will be very difficult now to dent that particular perception.
It is also quite difficult to say that every area of the country will be open; it is not at the moment, and from time to time areas will be closed as the disease spreads. It may be a little time before one is able to say that England and Wales are open to tourists.
I am concerned that in this Bill we are not talking about local elections but the general election. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, here we are

1013
demonstrating the fig leaf of county council elections but, while we do that, we must make whatever efforts we can to ensure that the clauses in the Bill are suitable.
However, having listened with care—I appreciate that the Government will not give way on this particular matter—it is important in terms of timescale that the Bill is ultimately passed. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Foot and Mouth Disease
4.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement on the foot and mouth outbreak.
"As I have done on seven previous occasions over the past weeks, I wish to update the House before the Easter Recess on the latest position on the disease, set out the measures that the Government are taking and give honourable and right honourable Members the opportunity to raise issues with me.
"As of 7 p.m. yesterday, Sunday 8th April, there had been 1,134 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease. As at 2 p.m. today I had been informed of a further 10 cases. The number of animals authorised for slaughter—as of 7 p.m. yesterday—was 1,366,000, of which 888,000 had been slaughtered and 478,000 awaited slaughter. Around 329,000 animals remained to be disposed of. This is out of a total UK cattle, sheep and pig population of over 55 million, and against a figure of some half a million animals which would go for slaughter in a normal trading week.
"It is still too early to predict the future course of the epidemic. The epidemiologists are constantly updating their data as the outbreak progresses but they still cannot say with any certainty how long it will continue. There are some encouraging signs, but this is an exceptionally serious outbreak with a long phase-out period and we cannot afford a moment's complacency.
"There is considerable agreement among the four groups modelling the epidemic. In particular, all have concluded that the two key interventions in tackling the disease are: first, and the highest priority, to cull all animals susceptible to the disease (principally cattle, sheep and pigs) on infected farm
1014
holdings within 24 hours; secondly, to cull susceptible animals in neighbouring farms which share a boundary—the so-called contiguous cull—within 48 hours.
"We appreciate that the latter is very difficult for farmers to accept but it is vital for the overall success of our disease control policy that all potentially infected animals are culled. I urge farmers, in the strongest terms, to co-operate with us in seeing this through. Expert advice is that these premises will have been exposed to infection and need to be dealt with quickly.
"I have written to all livestock farmers to make three key points. I have set out advice from the Chief Veterinary Officer about on-farm biosecurity. I have urged co-operation with the necessary culling of animals on neighbouring premises to infected holdings, and I have appealed to farmers not to jeopardise their own disease status, and that of other farmers, by moving animals around without a licence. Some of the isolated cases that have appeared in recent days and weeks appear to be directly attributed to farm-to-farm transmission from infected to clean areas. That point was made very forcefully to myself and the Prime Minister at our meeting with the NFU this morning and we share its concerns.
"Across the country the 24-hour report-to-slaughter target is being met in nearly 80 per cent of cases. Where cases are not completed within 24 hours, they are being dealt with shortly afterwards. The 48-hour target for contiguous premises is more difficult to meet because of sheer weight of numbers, but progress is encouraging, with some areas achieving around 70 per cent within deadline. It is particularly important that we hit this target in any new outbreaks away from the heavily infected areas to prevent further spread, and resources are being concentrated to that end.
"In support of this strategy, we have committed more and more resources to ensure that any possible blockages are removed. We have increased the number of vets on the ground very significantly to 1,522, with more being recruited. We are employing over 650 people as temporary animal health officers to supplement the 200 regular officers in the State Veterinary Service. We have appointed 11 directors of operations in the most affected areas. The Army is deployed in all the key areas, with 1,842 troops committed to this outbreak, and I am grateful for the excellent support provided by the Army and the MoD.
"We have taken a number of other practical steps to eliminate delay. We have introduced a generous standard tariff to speed up the valuation of the animals, while at the same time safeguarding farmers' rights. We have reduced the turn-round times for vets visiting farms wherever this is possible, for instance by altering the reporting procedure for new cases.
"We are very aware of the financial difficulties that many farmers face at this difficult time and have addressed this in four ways. First,

1015
compensation for slaughtered animals is currently estimated to reach over £247 million and is still rising. Secondly, we are paying £156 million in optional agrimonetary compensation to livestock farmers. Payments begin this week. This package is worth some £2,750 to the average dairy farmer, £650 to sheep farmers, £650 to suckler cow premium claimants and £450 to beef special premium claimants. Thirdly, we have introduced the livestock welfare disposal scheme as a last resort for livestock farmers whose animals face welfare difficulties as a result of FMD-related movement restrictions. The tariffs for the animals slaughtered under the scheme are generous. The estimated value of this optional scheme depends on take-up, but it is likely to be in excess of £200 million.
"Finally, we have ensured that where animals slaughtered are the subject of a current subsidy claim subsidy entitlement will be preserved as a result of the application of EU rules on force majeure. Overall, we have committed over half a billion pounds to farmers so far in the course of this outbreak.
"Vaccination remains an option, but it is not an easy option. There are no easy options. Members are aware of the arguments for and against vaccination. We are prepared to vaccinate if necessary. We have obtained the approval of the EU Standing Veterinary Committee for vaccination in the UK under certain circumstances. But it would be a major step to take with significant consequences. We are constantly reviewing the position and will continue to do so.
"Many farmers are currently keeping cattle indoors, and this is helping to minimise the risk of spread of infection.
"We hope that soon it may be possible to release some areas from restrictions, either completely or partially. There are two aspects to this: first, we will be looking at whether we can safely reduce the size of one or two areas that currently extend beyond a 10 kilometre radius; and, secondly, once all the necessary veterinary inspections and blood testing have been completed we will be looking to lift one or two infected areas completely where there have been no new cases for 30 days. I hope that it will be possible to start making progress on both of these actions in the next week or two. But again, disease control must remain the priority.
"I and my ministerial colleagues in many other departments are doing all we can to promote the message that the countryside is not closed. More and more properties and visitor attractions are opening again and being publicised. We hope that over the Easter period the visitors will return. We have provided updated advice to zoo owners and to Royal Parks which will help them to make decisions on whether to re-open.
"My right honourable friend the Minister of State is today participating in the Informal Council of EU Agriculture Ministers on my behalf in northern
1016
Sweden. She will be updating colleagues on the progress of the outbreak here. We are continuing to work very closely with our EU colleagues, who remain supportive of the efforts we are taking to bring the outbreak to an end.
"We will continue to channel all our efforts into ensuring that our targets of 24 hours from report to slaughter and 48 hours to culling neighbouring farms are met. With the continued support from members of this House, from the farming organisations and many others, together we can succeed in our aim of eradicating this disease."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier today and for bringing us up to date on the issue before the Recess.
Your Lordships will be aware from the Statement that these figures are even worse than the backlog figures I recorded last week in our Wednesday debate. While we welcome the EU's appraisal and approval for the possible future use of vaccination and the Government's moves with regard to financial help for farmers, there are still matters of concern.
Perhaps I may again stress our thanks and appreciation to those working in the field to try to ease this terrible situation. The Minister particularly mentioned the Army. I remind the House that in our debate on this matter on 8th March I asked for the Army to be called in.
Everyone hopes that the crisis will be brought under control. The tributes that I have paid reflect the feeling and understanding within the House of the devastation caused not only to families immediately affected in farming but to those in rural businesses and tourism.
As I said earlier, these figures are horrendous. The first figure we had for animals awaiting slaughter was 440,000. Today's figure has increased to 478,000. There is also an increase in the figure of animal disposals from 266,000 to 329,000. Why has the system of reporting changed? How can we be kept up to date during the Recess if those figures are no longer available?
The Statement recorded the increased number of vets and of Army personnel. How many slaughtermen are being used? Are there sufficient slaughtermen to tackle the dreadful backlog?
The Minister touched on zoos. In our previous debate zoos were talked about at greater length. The Statement referred to helping them with their own decisions. We debated the whole question of animal welfare and whether vaccination within zoos might be considered. It is a very difficult problem, but perhaps the Minister will report to us again on it.
Another issue raised was the enormous problem of getting fodder to animals on farms where they are stuck and cannot be moved. The situation is dire. What one sees as one drives through the country is

1017
appalling. Have the Government considered airlifting to farms any of that food rather than transporting it by lorry? I mention that issue because this weekend there was an outbreak of the disease in Jedburgh. One of my northern colleagues suggested that there was a lorry taking animal feed from Carlisle to Jedburgh and that it could have been the cause of the outbreak. If that is so, it has huge implications. Perhaps the Minister will reply on that matter.
With regard to money, it is welcomed that the payments are starting so soon. All those affected will be grateful for that. However, will the money include advances to farmers against their eventual compensation payment, particularly with regard to animal welfare because obviously there is a great lack of cash flow at the moment? Further, will the financial aid cover the "over-30 months" scheme and also the lambs which have cut second teeth?
I turn to the question of reinsurance for farmers and insurance for those who want to put on events in the countryside. I was not sure from the Statement whether that issue was covered. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
I move now to emergency powers. The Statement urges farmers to co-operate with the Government, particularly those who may have infected animals or be close to the culls. Do the Government have existing powers if that co-operation is not forthcoming or do they need to return to Parliament and get extra powers? They have made appeals to farmers, but, understandably, some farmers are reluctant to co-operate with the decisions, particularly when they have clean stock which they hope will not be included. If emergency powers are needed, what are the Government's plans to bring them forward?
The Statement referred to the appointment of some 11 directors of operations. Perhaps the Minister will say whether they are to be MAFF officials or who they are to be. Further, what will their relationship be to the vets, the slaughtermen and the Army? Lastly, who at the end of the day will be in charge of those directors? The Statement is not clear on those matters.
The Minister referred to animals in isolation, animals that are being kept indoors. Will animals which have been kept indoors be exempt from a contiguous cull?
Vaccination was referred to in the Statement. That question has been talked about at some length in this House. I accept that there is no easy option. I think that we all agree with that. What are the criteria that are referred to in the Statement? What will decide the Government to kick in on the question of vaccinations? Are there enough vaccines available? Have the Government considered vaccination of dairy farm cattle first—I do not include beef cattle—because of the possible threat to our milk supply? Again the Statement is not very clear on that subject.
The Statement refers to trying to open more of our countryside. Will that be left as a local decision? If so, how will people find out which parts of the countryside are open, because it may be that within a certain area, or even within a county, some is open and some is
1018
closed? Will it be the responsibility of the tourist board to act as a help-line or will there be a MAFF organised help-line in each of those areas?
I have another question. The Statement states:
"Secondly, once all the necessary veterinary inspections and blood testing have been completed we will be looking to lift one or two infected areas completely where there have been no new cases for 30 days".
Is that a simple statement or does it involve anything else?
We on this side of the House very much hope that the Government will reinstate our daily records to keep us informed of the achievements in, and control of, the outbreak. It is crucial that we know that, especially during the Recess when, if the figures are not available, none of us will be able to judge or comment in any way during that time.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in the other place. Have the two new and fairly isolated cases been dealt with by computer modelling? Are there firm theories as to how those cases may have occurred? Is the cause likely to be airborne? What advice has been given, in view of the change in weather conditions in the past few weeks?
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that her colleague mentioned the possibility of a lorry transferring the disease to an isolated place. I think that I asked about that route during questions on the previous Statement about road closures. I hope that the Ministry is keeping under review the issue of road closures and disinfectant points, even in so far uninfected places.
I wonder whether it would be helpful for the Government to think about changing the language slightly from countryside open and countryside closed to something that reflects reality a little more. It is footpaths which are open or closed; the countryside is open everywhere. Indeed, I went to an open event held at a local pottery in the middle of the Somerset Levels at the weekend, and the public were well aware that it was open. It was on the road and very well supported.
The public often go to the countryside just to look. In our discussions on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, noble Lords agreed that the public often do not walk anywhere; they park their cars and look at the view. If they are happy to do that and then visit the local pub, that is marvellous. Perhaps we should remind everyone that that too can be a pleasant activity that people have enjoyed for years.
I have a couple of specific questions to ask the Minister. Has MAFF drawn up plans for the lambs that would normally be exported at this time of year? We usually expect sales of new lambs to be coming on line shortly. There is, I understand, a backlog of 1.6 million hoggets—lambs about a year old—as well as new lambs. I wonder whether the Government are thinking of undertaking a promotional campaign for British lamb to counteract the shortfall in the lamb export market. Given the effectiveness of the licence to

1019
slaughter scheme, perhaps not enough is being said about buying British meat. When I shop in local supermarkets, I do not find British meat widely on sale or widely labelled, which is an absolute disgrace.
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister about the animal welfare disposal scheme. I understand that there are difficulties and that farmers are running out of feed. The Minister mentioned that stock are still being kept indoors and that that is being encouraged. But feed is an issue. It is still wet and cold in many places and animals kept outside are suffering severe difficulties. It seems that the intervention board does not have computerised records of the applications made to it and it is suffering a severe backlog. I understand that it is very difficult to get through to the intervention board and, although there is an MPs' hotline, my honourable friend from another place has informed me that it is stone cold. The Minister said that it was put in place as a last resort, which it certainly is, but it must be activated quickly for those in great need. The animal welfare issues are obviously extremely severe.
Will the Minister consider allowing local vets to authorise short distance movements of stock to better conditions, particularly in light of the fact that the intervention board is clearly unable to cope with the vast volume of applications it is receiving at the moment?
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their contributions, which were, as ever, based on great knowledge.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that there are concerns about the numbers of carcasses awaiting disposal. We are all concerned and that is why so much effort has been put into targeting the 24 hours and 48 hours periods and opening up extra disposal sites. I am the last to be over-optimistic. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that the statistics were extremely gloomy. However, the statistics of the number of cases over the last week were not extremely gloomy; they were not along the worst curve that the epidemiologists predicted. While there is no certainty that that means that the number of cases has reached a plateau, we can say that the graph is not continuing on the curve that was predicted by all the epidemiologists. That reflects the enormous amount of work that is being undertaken.
I can assure the noble Baroness that as long as she has access to a website or telephone to ring the helpline, she can find out the number of new cases, the figures updated during the day and the daily cumulative figures of the animals identified for slaughter, those awaiting slaughter and those awaiting disposal. Those figures will be divided by species.
There was a wobble on those figures because people were anxious to ensure that we were comparing like with like, day by day, week by week. It is not always easy to do that. The number of new cases reported in a single day will not be comparable with the number of
1020
infected premises slaughtered out within 24 hours because the figure relates to 24 hours back. The same applies to neighbouring premises slaughtered out in 48 hours, because the figure refers to 48 hours back. We need to ensure that the data are comparable and when that is done the information will be made available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about airlifting food. She should be careful about that, especially with regard to helicopters, which are great for spreading disease and virus and should not be used in these kinds of circumstances. If transfers are made by lorry, there are basic biosecurity and disinfectant routines to follow, which are extremely important. It is crucial for all livestock farmers, whether or not they have disease on their farms, to act as if they have in terms of movements on and off their farms.
That relates to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the epidemiology of these new cases. It was always known and suggested by the epidemiologists that there would be what they call "sparking"—new cases beyond infected areas. That would not necessarily be because of wind-borne disease, but because of person-to-person and vehicle movements. Obviously we investigate every case.
I echo what the noble Baroness said about not having a bland message about the countryside being open or closed. It is a matter of footpaths. Some of them are closed because they go through farmland or are near susceptible animals and so should be closed. Some are still being closed on a deeply precautionary basis, which is not based on veterinary or scientific advice. That has a ripple effect on all sorts of other business, of the kind to which the noble Baroness alluded. The matter has to be examined case by case. Some footpaths are closed in some counties, but in counties that do not have a single case, to close all footpaths so that no one can go to a country pub is a deeply damaging message for the rural economy.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, animals taken under current policies are taken on veterinary advice that they have been exposed to infection. That means that they are being taken under the Animal Health Act. We have the necessary powers and so there is no need for emergency legislation. The noble Baroness asked about vaccination. We have stocks of 500,000 high dose vaccines. We have European cover to vaccinate in Cumbria and in Devon if that should be the policy decision. The noble Baroness asked whether there are enough doses of vaccine. That depends on the intention. If one intends to vaccinate 55 million animals—a mass vaccination—there are not enough doses. It depends on whether one is going for, as the noble Baroness suggested, the dairy herd, the dairy herd in specific areas or vaccination as a firebreak. How much vaccine one needs depends also on whether one is using vaccination as an adjunct to slaughter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about the welfare disposal scheme. She will be reassured to know that the intervention board has written to everyone who has registered with the scheme. It should be a scheme of last resort. That means we do have to take

1021
action to open up the livestock markets—from market to slaughter for uninfected animals—and it is hoped that we can make some progress on that. The noble Baroness's point about LVIs licensing short distance movements is an important one. The frustration involved in getting through to the intervention board has been noted. We have installed a good many extra lines. However, as the noble Baroness said, it is a last resort scheme. It is important to ensure that the urgent welfare cases are dealt with and that the scheme does not become an alternative to the market, particularly in that area of hoggets, to which she referred, where normally there would be an export market.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, in East Anglia, where I live, we are fortunate enough not to have this terrible pestilence, yet farmers are still being forced to slaughter thousands of sheep because they cannot move them, despite what the Minister said. They have no more food. The food has run out. The welfare disposal scheme is not working because it is practically impossible, first, to get through and, secondly, to get someone to slaughter the animals. We have thousands of starving sheep. There is chaos. Most of the countryside and footpaths are closed. I am referring to East Anglia and Norfolk. Is the Minister really satisfied with the situation?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand that in the very near future Norfolk will reopen many of its footpaths. Of course I am not happy if sheep are in deep distress Norfolk is not an infected area. Those sheep can go, under licence, into the food chain. As I understand it, there are no problems—if the noble Baroness tells me otherwise, I shall be glad to hear it—about licensing into the food chain. There are problems with the welfare disposal scheme. I recognise that. I acknowledged it in my remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. There have been huge problems.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Baroness has misunderstood that question. My noble friend asked whether the Minister is absolutely satisfied that there are no healthy sheep in uninfected areas that are likely to be killed by the RSPCA because there is no food for them.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I did not understand that to be precisely the question. I am not satisfied that that is the case. That is why we have given a great deal of advice to people about managing welfare problems on farms. We have made it possible to move animals, particularly pregnant ewes, for which there was a problem, either over short distances or on the longer distance movement scheme. We have also introduced as a last resort the welfare disposal scheme. That scheme is not currently operating as it should. The throughput is very limited at the moment. We are making an enormous effort to get more abattoirs working and more landfill sites for eventual disposal working. But—I revert to what I said at the
1022
beginning—the most urgent cases come from infected areas where there is no possibility of movement onto the market. Of course, there are also welfare problems in non-infected areas. Of course, everyone is suffering because of the disease. We have put in place a scheme. It is not working as well as it should be. That is why we are putting a great deal of effort into making it work better.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank my noble friend, her department and the Army for the efforts they have made. However, there is still concern about the movement of stock and about the application of form D. There are restrictions but farmers have not been told of the restrictions. Farmers have also been subjected to form D but have not been told when the restrictions have been lifted. There are persistent press reports in Cheshire about the movement of carcasses to rendering plants and to the fact that they have been taken in open-top lorries and that spillages are occurring. Can my noble friend comment on those points?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend asked about form D. Farmers should know whether they are under a form D because it has to be personally served on them. Some of the confusion may have arisen because some form Ds are time limited to 21 days and simply expire at the end of that time. That is marked on the form D. Some of them are not time limited and have to be specifically notified. I f there have been problems with that, perhaps my noble friend can let me know.
My noble friend referred to the movement of carcasses. Concern has been expressed on that point. The veterinary risk assessment has been carefully undertaken. The journeys are not in open lorries. They are in lorries that are doubly sealed—once with weighted-down polythene and then with tarpaulins over the top. I am sure that on occasion it will not be impossible to find someone who has not abided by the rules. If that is so, we can follow those up. But the system in place seeks to ensure that when there are trips through non-infected areas they do not pose a disease risk.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, perhaps I may be forgiven for bringing her back for a moment to the welfare scheme. Will she bear in mind the plight of those sheep farmers who brought in their ewes for lambing some weeks ago and in past weeks have lost hundreds if not thousands of ewes and lambs as a result of welfare problems arising not from a lack of food but from very poor physical conditions, which have led to some lambs being smothered and dying of disease in overcrowded sheds and holding fields? Will her department give sympathetic consideration to the losses suffered by farmers in those conditions? Will it recognise that farmers in those conditions, particularly where they are very near foot and mouth areas, really deserve to be compensated at the same rate as their

1023
colleagues who have had foot and mouth? In the past week I have had one farmer on the telephone to me saying, "I wish I had foot and mouth on my farm".
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are anomalous regimes according to the circumstances in which people find themselves and which are nothing to do with their own intervention. That is a far broader issue of consequential loss at a time of disease that applies in the circumstances described by the noble Lord and in many others as well. The farmers who depend on bed and breakfast activity that they have not been able to carry out have lost income, just as farmers have lost ewes through lambing. Pregnant ewes are a big problem. There have been more than 50,000 applications for licences for movement under the welfare scheme. More than 90 per cent have been granted. As I said earlier, the welfare disposal scheme is a real problem, but we should not forget that we have tackled these problems in some areas and tackled them satisfactorily.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, further to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, I know that the Minister is aware of the communication problems that we have encountered. I know that the Minister is also aware that on Saturday I spent a great deal of time trying to sort out those problems in Worcester. As a result of talking to the vet in the area, I believe that it would be extremely helpful if those groups which are accustomed to working on the telephone and which have local knowledge, such as citizens' advice bureaux and the Samaritans, could greatly help local veterinary services by providing farmers with consolation. We should not forget that farmers are in an extremely anxious and wound-up state. They ring the State Veterinary Service because they are worried about what will happen to their stock. Once they know that the animals have got to die, they accept the situation. However, does the Minister agree that the period in between when farmers do not know exactly what is happening and it appears that no one is able to tell them is particularly stressful? Can the Minister look at this and see whether the problem can be resolved?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Countess has put her finger on an important point. A great deal of work is being done to provide support for people in distress on the national level, primarily through the Rural Stress Information Network. Furthermore, cross-referencing takes place with the Samaritans, the RABI and other organisations. However, there is also an enormous demand at the local level for specific information. Vets on the ground who are desperately getting out to fight the disease have difficulty in trying to deal with those farmers who are one down the line, so to speak. Part of the improvements in regional operations being led by regional operations directors concerns the strengthening of communications efforts in the widest sense. I shall certainly look again at the point made by the noble Countess to see how we can ensure that clear, concise and specifically relevant information is disseminated locally.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps I may express my astonishment that the Statement made by her right honourable friend made no reference to the dangers posed by the disease being spread via unburied corpses or corpses which have not been disposed of, of which apparently there are 329,000. I appreciate, however, that the noble Baroness touched on this in her later remarks. Is she aware that an increasing number of farmers believe that this has been one of the main reasons for the spread of the disease, in particular the "leap-frogging" of the disease via gulls? The birds eat the meat from carcasses. Does the noble Baroness know that recently in Cumbria, after lying on the ground for several days, a pile of corpses was about to be moved with a JCB? As soon as work began, a host of rats escaped from the pile to make their way to neighbouring farms. Will the noble Baroness now admit that, contrary to the Government's comment that a minimal risk of disease spread is posed by corpses, there is a real danger? Just as a target has been set for the period between diagnosis and slaughter, will she set a target for the period between slaughter and disposal?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, a target was set for the period between slaughter and disposal at the beginning of the outbreak, as was a target set for the period between diagnosis and slaughter. The problem lies not in setting targets, but in fulfilling those targets when hundreds of thousands of animals have to be dealt with. I know that the noble Lord is concerned about this issue and I know that he does not accept the veterinary advice that I have received and have then transmitted to him on earlier occasions. However, I shall repeat that advice as clearly as I can.
When animals have been slaughtered on infected premises, the foot and mouth virus will survive in some tissues. For that reason, the outsides of the carcasses are sprayed with disinfectant to kill any surface virus. For those carcasses to contribute to further spread of the disease, it is necessary for the carcasses to come into contact with susceptible animals. Controls on infected premises prevent people from removing anything from them. In most cases where the epidemiology has been examined, it has been found that aerosol transmission from person to animal and from vehicles leaving infected premises to outside flocks and herds have been the sources of further outbreaks. The vast majority of new cases can be traced back to such sources. There is no risk of aerosol transmission from decomposing carcasses because of the pH levels. I know that the noble Lord does not like me to refer to pH levels, but the scientific advice is very clear on this: decomposition after rigor mortis reduces infectivity except in bone—that is why animals that are imported have to be de-boned and so forth. Of course there remains a minimal risk from scavenging animals, but that comes very low down the list of risks of transmission.
The noble Lord is absolutely right: in an ideal world, one would dispose of all the carcasses instantaneously. However, it is not possible to dispose of 1 million carcasses instantaneously. If priorities have to be set,

1025
the main priority has to be given to stopping live animals from exhaling the virus and thus infecting other animals.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend on the clarity of the information now being given. In particular I point to the clear distinction being drawn between the need to institute the 24-hour cull policy on infected farms and then the need to institute the 48-hour slaughter on the adjoining farms. Although some concerns are still being expressed about the latter priority, is it not now clear, from the information given last week by epidemiologists in a MAFF briefing available to all noble Lords, that the best guarantee of "bringing down the curve" in infection rates over the next few weeks is, as I have said, to institute the 24-hour cull policy on infected farms, followed by the 48-hour cull on adjoining farms? As the Minister has now made this point very clear, everyone should get behind that policy.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I should say to him that sometimes delays occur not through what is always referred to as bureaucracy, but because a farmer will not readily accept that animals free of symptoms need to be culled. Farmers care about their animals; they care about the dairy and beef herds that they have built up over many years. Some think that it is possible to wait and see whether the disease develops. Sadly, those animals can be free of symptoms but infectious. That is why the 48-hour cull on adjoining farms is absolutely crucial to the policy. Furthermore, that is why everyone needs to understand the scientific basis for the 48-hour cull and why the co-operation of all concerned, hard though it is, is absolutely crucial in the fight against disease.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, can I ask the noble Baroness how much money has been spent advertising the fact that the countryside is open? Would it not have been more sensible, in the effort to encourage people to go to the countryside, to try to persuade the media not to display such grotesque pictures in our national newspapers and on television?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not believe that those two things are mutually exclusive. Sometimes the only way to get the truth into the media is to pay for it, which is why the informative advertising campaign, which I believe has cost something over £1 million, is extremely worthwhile. It is important for people to understand that there is no single, simple, blanket message. Different circumstances do apply and the public should not be led to believe that everything is closed because certain footpaths are closed. We have welcomed the opening by the National Trust and by English Heritage of a number of major tourist attractions. For example, I understand that Stonehenge is about to reopen. Such moves transmit important signals. We need to give people clear information based on scientific and veterinary advice, and that needs to be done without interventions from
1026
the media, who sometimes prefer a good story to the boring detail. For that reason, the campaign represents money well spent.
Earl Peel: My Lords, in the Statement the Minister referred to certain farmers who have been moving stock without a licence. Regrettably, I can confirm that that is the case. I mentioned that point when we debated this matter last week. I urge the Government to take very strong action against those few bad apples that are letting the side down. I know of a case in my part of the world where precisely this has been done. To the best of my knowledge, unfortunately the farming family concerned has got away with it. It has caused a great deal of consternation in the Yorkshire Dales and, again, I urge the Minister to take action.
I should like to ask one further question on the issue of hefted flocks. So far as I know, to date we have not been given a clear directive from the Government as regards how they will cope if the disease gets into hefted flocks in the fells, the Yorkshire Dales or the North Yorkshire Moors. Fortunately, it has not happened yet—but I fear that the way things are going there is a real danger that it will.
I appreciate that, at the moment, most of the ewes are off the hill and on the in-by land, but when they go back on to the open fells, if there was an infection, how on earth would the Government deal with the problem? Would they introduce vaccination; would they allow the disease simply to go through the flocks; or would they instigate a mass slaughter? We need some direction from the Minister as to how she and her department would deal with such a very unfortunate situation if it were to arise.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is an extremely worrying situation. At the moment, when we have potential cases of this kind, we carry out a very detailed analysis to try to apply the principles of contiguous premises in circumstances which are far from the normality. It is an enormous anxiety. There is a debate about exactly the kind of options described by the noble Earl. Vaccination—perhaps not of the sheep themselves but of neighbouring cattle—would be a possibility. But any action involving vaccination would have the repercussions that we debated last week.
Earl Peel: My Lords, with the greatest respect, debate will simply not be enough. I am looking for a definitive statement from the Government informing the House of how they will deal with such a situation if it were to arise.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Earl will not get that definitive statement today. I am not going to tell him something in order to be definitive and risk it being wrong. We have not yet reached exactly the situation that the noble Earl described. I can merely reassure him that a great deal of work is going on in order that, were we to be in those circumstances, we would have done the least worst thing. I can assure the noble Earl that it will be the least worst thing rather than any ideal solution.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, the letter that was sent out today urging all livestock farmers to co-operate is entirely appropriate and is in keeping with all of the action taken so far. However, I am concerned when I hear that a very small number of farmers will resist. If this should be the case and they challenge a decision through the courts, will it be possible to prosecute such cases with great speed? Clearly time will be of the essence—I am talking hours rather than days or weeks—for the hearing of such cases for the general good of all farmers in the vicinity.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the ideal is for peer pressure and an understanding by individuals to result in co-operation with a policy that is in everyone's interest. It is possible under the Animal Health Act for action to be taken without consent. Obviously, no one wants to get into that position. It is equally possible for there to be judicial review of such a decision. Then it is up to the courts to decide whether the policy must be halted in the interim—I am grateful to see the noble Lord nodding—or whether the current policy should continue while judicial review proceedings go through. So I am afraid that, again, I cannot give a simple or absolutely certain answer.

Elections Bill
5.25 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee upon the Bill.
Lord Elton: My Lords, on that Motion, may I ask the Leader of the House if she will put to the Procedure Committee—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Question is that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should have known better. Will the Leader of the House draw to the attention of the Procedure Committee that a number of noble Lords were not able to comment on this Statement—or, indeed, on the previous Statement on agriculture—and will she ask it to consider whether 20 minutes is enough for that purpose?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is not within my gift to refer a matter to the Procedure Committee. If the noble Lord wishes to do so, the Procedure Committee may well entertain such a submission. However, having myself experienced the handling of Statements on the summit conferences of European leaders, it is always the case that more noble Lords wish to take part than is possible in 20 minutes—but that is one of the conventions of the House.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in that case, would it not be reasonable for the Government to
1028
grant your Lordships' House a debate on the Treaty of Nice in advance of the Bill coming before us for ratification?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will not expect me to say anything other than, "Nice try".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly on Clause 1.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Countess of Mar) in the Chair.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1. line 5, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (1 ), "local government election" means the same as in section 203(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983."
The noble Baroness said: I can be brief. The amendment seeks to include in the Bill a definition of "local government election" by reference to an existing definition in the Representation of the People Act 1983, which defines "local government election" as,
"the election of councillors for any electoral area"—
and which defines "electoral area" to include all those electoral areas with which the Committee is familiar, including parish and community areas.
I asked the Minister at Second Reading whether the Bill extends to town, parish and community councils, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, confirmed that it does. Indeed, the compendium letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which has been sent to many of your Lordships, also states quite simply "It does". I tabled the amendment before I received the letter. However, it may be appropriate to ask that if a definition was thought to be necessary in the statute passed in 1983, why is it not necessary now?
Stretching that point a little in order to make a point—this is the best place at which I can make it—perhaps I may refer to another paragraph of the compendium letter which refers to postal votes. It explains, among other things, that people who have submitted an application for a postal vote for 3rd May—for a particular reason appertaining to 3rd May—will have to submit a fresh application. I do not seek to argue the point, but can the Government ensure that returning officers are recommended to write to those who have applied for postal votes for that date to alert them to the need to apply afresh for the later date? There is scope for some confusion and some electors will assume that, having applied for the earlier date, their application will stand. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment. As she said, it was tabled before my compendium letter was sent out. I hope that the letter has clarified the

1029
situation. As I explained, it is clear that the Bill as it stands covers elections to town and parish councils. That is certainly my understanding. Any elections to such bodies which would have otherwise been held in the period 3rd May to 6th June are also postponed. I accept that this is not spelt out in the Bill. However, it is implicit and I can assure the Committee that that is the case.
The noble Baroness asked about postal votes. We shall probably have to talk to the Association of Electoral Registration Officers to see whether what the noble Baroness suggested can be practically done. I am sure that it can be done. I take the point. It seems to be an important point and I shall certainly pass it on. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Norton Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 5. at end insert—
"( ) The provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of elections to unitary authorities.
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading, we discussed the case for delaying elections from 3rd May to 7th June in fairly general terms. There is a need to tease out why the elections should be postponed on a uniform basis. Local elections are not all held on the same day throughout the United Kingdom; normally local government elections are held in Northern Ireland on the third Wednesday in May, not on the first Thursday.
I can see why it is difficult to proceed with elections to county councils. In some areas it is extremely difficult to campaign: most of those involved in electioneering are busy trying to cope with the foot and mouth crisis. I can see that there would be difficulty in allowing elections to proceed in some counties but not in others. However, unitary authorities are a separate category. Only 11 have elections this year, and of those nine are electing one-third of the membership. Also, the authorities generally cover urban or suburban areas. I therefore felt it appropriate to ask the Minister to justify why these elections are included.
I can see that the explanation could be practical or moral. I checked on the practical explanation earlier: it relates to campaigning. It is not difficult to hold the elections at a particular time; the Government have conceded that it is physically possible to hold them. I doubt whether the present crisis will interfere substantially with local campaigning in unitary authorities. There may be a practical objection, in that it may be difficult for the parties nationally to have to cope with one set of elections on 3rd May and another on 7th June. That objection may also embody a political agenda which may not be confined simply to local elections.
The moral objection is that foot and mouth disease is a UK-wide problem, or at least a problem affecting most of Britain, and therefore the nation should be seen as acting together in facing the crisis. The decision to delay is thus as much symbolic as practical.
Given that the Bill was not subject to sustained scrutiny in another place—indeed, there was no debate at all at Committee stage—it is important that we use this opportunity to ensure that the Government justify the Bill's provisions in some detail. In that sense, the amendment is not designed to be hostile; it is designed to tease a response out of the Government and to give them an opportunity to place on record the reasons for this measure. It is important that people outside this House know why we are passing this Bill. Are elections to unitary authorities being postponed along with county council elections for practical or for symbolic reasons, or both? I beg to move.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): As the noble Lord has economically pointed out, the amendment would remove unitary authorities from the scope of the Bill. That means that on 3rd May there would be elections in 11 unitary authorities, one of which is the Isle of Wight, where there are vast areas of agricultural land. It is true that there has been no occurrence of foot and mouth disease there so far. Another, surprisingly, is Blackburn with Darwen. It may sound like an urban area, but it is not. It contains significant rural areas, and there are confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease in Lancashire.
Most unitary authorities have some rural hinterland. In Berkshire, for instance, three unitary authorities are up for election in May. There have been confirmed outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the county. I was reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, told us; namely that Essex was the first county to witness the foot and mouth outbreak—and there are two unitary authorities in Essex.
The answer is that it is not a question that is either moral or practical. It seems to me that the general feeling of the country was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee; namely, that it would have been unseemly to continue. I repeat, and stress, what my noble friend Lord Bassam and I have said on a number of occasions. We put off the elections with great care and caution, and indeed reluctance, for the reasons that were identified fully at Second Reading: so that we should be able to hold elections with the minimal period of delay, having arrived at a situation where mechanisms would be in place to bring matters under control.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: In the spirit of this debate, I should be grateful to the noble Lord who moved the amendment if he could help me in my thinking. One of the difficulties with this patchwork approach is that someone somewhere has to make the decision as to which authorities should go ahead and which should not.
I have difficulty in thinking of an objective set of criteria that could be used in making such a decision. My fear is that in many cases the public perception

1031
would be that the decision had been made more for political reasons than for practical ones. Given that the issue of public support for elections is a prime reason for delay, it would be a nonsense to have a process that had less public support than when we started.
Lord Norton of Louth: I take the noble Baroness's point. I am very conscious of the argument that can be deployed against my amendment. I hoped that it would tease out with greater clarity the case for the Bill, which relates to the precise point that the noble Baroness was making; namely, the criteria that justify the measure. In that sense, I was disappointed with the Minister's response. It somewhat muddies the water. Saying that the reason is neither practical nor moral and using the phrase "would have been unseemly", rather than clarifying the criteria on which the Bill has been brought forward, adds to the confusion.
I hope that later amendments that I have tabled will serve the purpose of drawing out the reasons from the Government, so that we can be clear and we can send out the message. I am not making a case for the amendment and I do not intend to pursue it. I merely use it as a peg to draw out and make sure that we are quite clear in regard to the criteria for the Bill.
As I say, the noble and learned Lord's response, rather than clarifying matters, adds to the confusion. I hope that we may come to greater clarity when we debate later amendments. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 4, 1 must point out to the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 on the grounds of pre-emption.
Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I have tabled two amendments which provide alternatives to the provision postponing the holding of by-elections. It is clear from what has just been said that they are mutually exclusive. I did so because there will clearly not be an opportunity to come back with amendments on Report which take into account the Minister's response at this stage. Looking at the Marshalled List, I see that other Members of the Committee have adopted a similar approach.
Subsection (2) provides that by-elections that would otherwise be held on 3rd May or in the period from 3rd May to 6th June should be postponed until 7th June. The reasons for this are not altogether clear. There seems little reason why by-elections should be postponed, be it for practical or for symbolic purposes.
By-elections can be held up to 3rd May. I fully understand the reasons. If they can be held under the present conditions, why cannot they be held in the period between 3rd May and 7th June? By-elections are not the strain on the time and resources of parties and candidates that full council elections clearly are. Is
1032
the odd by-election, the odd casual vacancy, going to draw away those who are centrally engaged in fighting the foot and mouth outbreak? If it is likely to do so, why not allow the local authority to ask the Secretary of State to make an order postponing a particular election? That is what the alternative option provides for.
However, I am more wedded to the principal amendment; I see little practical reason why such elections should not go ahead. There seems little place for postponing by-elections on symbolic grounds. Postponing or not postponing them will not send out a particularly strong signal one way or the other. They do not achieve high public visibility.
Leaving a local council seat vacant for over a month may not seem too important, but it may have important consequences. One or more casual vacancies could affect party control of a particular authority. Given that, why not allow casual vacancies to be filled? As I say, it seems somewhat perverse to have by-elections up until 3rd May when we are tackling a very severe crisis, but not to have them between 3rd May and 7th June. If they are to be postponed, then we need to be quite clear as to the reasons. I therefore look forward to a full response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am reminding myself that we are now at the Committee stage of this Bill. Nevertheless, I return to the point that I made earlier: an unseemly course of action may be unseemly because it lacks a moral basis. The first amendment would allow by-elections to be continued from 3rd May to 7th June. I believe that that would cause puzzlement to the general public. It might well be distressing because those "casual" vacancies could well be by-elections in significantly affected areas; for example, there might be by-elections in Cumbria or Devon—in other words, in the middle of the worst affected areas. I do not believe that that would carry public support.
If we are sticking to Second Reading principles, I agree that not every action in a Bill is necessarily perfectly justifiable on every conceivable basis. However, I believe that this Bill has, first, the general support of the public; and, secondly, the overwhelming support of this Chamber.
The noble Lord's second amendment falls into the Scott trap, if I may put it in that way, because it lacks any rational sustainability—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I should emphasise that that is not the Scott trap by way of unfortunate question; it is supporting the Scott analysis, if I may make myself quite plain in that respect. I know that the noble Baroness took that to be my meaning, but I could hear unworthy giggling to my left.
The second amendment would mean that a local authority was able to apply to the Secretary of State who would have to reach a conclusion that,
"the capacity to hold the election is affected substantially by the prevalence of foot and mouth disease".

1033
But when will he make such a decision? Will he do so a month before the election is allowed, in the second or third week, or in the week immediately before the by-election when there might be a very significant outbreak? Therefore, I believe, first, that the noble Baroness's question is not capable of acceptable rational answer; and, secondly, it is not workable.
Lord Norton of Louth: I am grateful to some extent to the Minister for that response. However, it worries me slightly because I can see the argument against my amendment; indeed, I am slightly worried because I believe that I could have put it better than the Minister. The arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord do not get to the heart of the matter. Perhaps I may dissect the arguments deployed. The first is that there would be puzzlement on the part of the general public if the selection to fill a casual vacancy in a local government area went ahead. I doubt whether it would be a case of puzzlement. I doubt whether the general public would notice. They do not do so at present, and I cannot imagine that they would be that fussed about such a process going ahead. Therefore, I do not believe that the argument against my amendment can be addressed at that particular level.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said that if this occurred in an area that was affected by foot and mouth there would be a problem with it going ahead. In that case, my second amendment would kick in. So the Minister's objection to my second amendment is essentially in terms of drafting deficiency rather than being directed at the principle embodied within it. The arguments against my amendment are not convincing. They do not get to the heart of the argument both for postponing elections on a uniform basis and postponing by-elections.
Therefore, I make the same point I made when speaking to the previous amendment. There is a case here for the Government to enunciate clearly and sharply the reasons for the Bill. My amendments are not designed primarily to bring forward arguments as to why they are particularly deficient; they are designed to tease out the Government's intentions, and to give them an opportunity to place clearly and loudly on the public record the precise reasons for the Bill. I am worried that the Government have not yet risen to, or met, the challenge. However, I shall keep trying. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 10. at end insert "; but any person who submits a nomination form which was completed prior to 1st May 2001, and which contains the name of a proposer, seconder or assentor who was registered to vote prior to 1st May 2001, but who is no longer registered to vote at the same time the nomination is submitted, shall be deemed to have been validly nominated if his nomination would have been valid for an election held on 3rd May 2001."
The noble Baroness said: Again, I can be brief with my introduction to this amendment, which was tabled before I read the Minister's letter. The amendment
1034
provides that any nominations proposed and seconded by an elector registered to vote before 1st May but who, because of the new rolling register arrangements, is not registered to vote when the nominations are submitted for the new date will, nevertheless, be deemed to have been validly nominated.
The Minister's letter says that the Bill provides that any nominations that were valid for the elections on 3rd May will remain valid for the elections on 7th June. First, I thought it would be helpful to get that point on to the record in the sense of it being included in the Hansard report of these proceedings. Secondly, can the Minister say how it is that the Bill makes such provision? For example, is it implicit in the provision that because it is the same election, but taking place on a later date, the nomination remains valid? I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: This amendment mirrors the amendment that we tabled in another place. I understand that the point has been answered, as pointed out by the noble Baroness,- by the Minister's compendium letter. In the circumstances, we support the action taken.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the Minister a question that is related to this issue in so far as it deals with a matter that has arisen out of the delay in the election. We are technically still in a period that we would call "purdah" in local government; in other words, we are operating under certain restrictions as to publicity, who can speak, and so on. The period is set down in the Local Government Act 1986 where it refers to the period between the opening for nominations and polling day. I seek some clarification as to whether Royal Assent to this Bill will close that period of purdah and then re-open it at a later date, or, alternatively, whether local authorities need to have regard to such issues for the whole period between now and polling day on 7th June.
There is a particular importance in this respect. The guidance that deals with the situation recommends that senior elected members seeking re-election should not act as spokesmen for their authorities, and so on. However, given the fact that part of the rationale behind this delay is the need for clear leadership, both locally and nationally, it seems to me rather strange to tie the hands of the very people locally who deal with such issues. Therefore, some clarification would be appreciated.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the matter was covered in the letter. Where valid nominations have been received for elections that have been postponed, it is the case that they will remain valid for 7th June without the need for the candidate to go to the trouble of collecting fresh signatures and submitting new nomination papers. Any candidate in that position in England and Wales will be able to withdraw his nomination at any point up to the new closing date of nominations—10th May—and will then have a

1035
further opportunity up until the 15th May to withdraw once he has seen the statement of persons so properly nominated.
Clause 1(2) says:
"If the day of election for a local government election in England or Wales to fill a casual vacancy would otherwise be 3rd May 2001, or a day after that day but before 7th June 2001, it is to be postponed to 7th June 2001".
We believe that the wording of subsection (3), which follows, covers the issue now under discussion. Therefore, we do not believe that there is need for the amendment. Quite simply, the Bill provides that anyone who is validly nominated for an election that is deferred remains validly nominated for the new election, whatever may have happened in the interim to those who signed his nomination papers. It does not matter if, as a consequence of rolling electoral registration, those people have been removed from the relevant electoral register. I am sure that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment because, as I said, the issue is covered by the Bill. I hope that my explanation has further clarified the situation.
I hoped that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would raise the issue of purdah. Since she raised the matter with me earlier, I have taken further advice. The Government do not issue specific guidance but the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity was updated on 2nd April this year. From the period of the notice of election until the election takes place all forms of proactive publicity for candidates and other politicians involved in the election should cease. We are not aware of any other guidance from the LGA or within government on these matters. Effectively, a period of purdah is in place as regards the elections that were to have taken place on 3rd May until the Bill is enacted. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the current purdah period will cease until, of course, the election process starts again. That purdah cannot be lifted until the elections are completed on 7th June. I hope that that clarifies that point.
Those who take a leading public role in dealing with problems on the ground must exercise their positions of leadership effectively. I do not think that any reasonable person would object to the leader of x or y county council issuing a statement which had a direct bearing on tackling some of the problems associated with foot and mouth disease. I hope that that clarifies that issue.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister's comments were helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
"(6A) Paragraph 6A(1) of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 (date of annual meetings) is to have effect for the year 2001 as if for "June 30" there were substituted "July 31"."
The noble Viscount said: This amendment would put back by a month the deadline for the annual meeting of police authorities and other joint authorities to which councils nominate members. When the matter was raised in another place Mr Mike O'Brien said that the power in Clause 7 would allow an order to be made to postpone the date on which police authority annual meetings had to be held and that he hoped that that provided reassurance. I note that that is confirmed in the Minister's letter. However, why cannot that be specified on the face of the Bill as our amendment suggests? The annual meeting date for councils is postponed on the face of the Bill. Why cannot similar provision be made for the annual meetings of police authorities and other joint authorities? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I indicated in the letter, we propose to use the order-making power in Clause 7 to postpone the latest date by which police authority annual meetings must be held. We have in mind to put the date back to 31st July—as the amendment proposes—but we are open to representations from the Association of Police Authorities, which might want a slightly later date. The reason we have not included the provision on the face of the Bill is simply that that would fix it permanently, as it were, and we do not want to do that. However, I give a firm undertaking that we shall use the order-making power in that way and that we are very much open to representations. I hope that that satisfies the noble Viscount.
Baroness Hamwee: I was trying to find a way to ask the question I am about to ask. The Minister's reference to representations provides me with that opportunity. Last week a number of noble Lords mentioned the work that new councils will have to do. I refer to the introduction of new council constitutions. I have only just discovered that there is some problem with the date of the introduction. It is understood—I do not know whether that is more than a rumour—that the date for the introduction of the new constitutions under the Local Government Act 2000 will have to be delayed because there is a problem in laying the regulations. I hope that the Minister can clarify that point. I am sorry that I have not given him more opportunity to establish the position in order to report it to the Chamber and, perhaps more importantly, to those many thousands of councillors who will be anxious to know what the position is.
Lord Hanningfield: Before the Minister replies, I hope that I may add that this morning I discussed a programme in Essex. I was disappointed not to see any reference to the matter in the letter we received as in the debate last week several of us mentioned the problems of submitting a plan by the end of June. I have been told that we are awaiting further draft regulations. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the Committee is aware, I am not the local government Minister, interested though I am in local government given my

1037
background. I am not in a position to answer the points raised by the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I appreciate from what has been said that the matter is of concern. If I were involved in a local authority that might be affected by the matter, I too would express that concern. The best I can do in the circumstances is to undertake to consult with my colleagues within the DETR and ensure that there is a clear line taken on the matter. I am more than happy to write to those who have mentioned the matter and who intend to participate in the discussion. I shall place a copy of that response in the Library.
Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the Minister for replying to my question. Before I withdraw the amendment, will he confirm my understanding of the letter; that is, that it is the intention to use the powers for the year 2001 only?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is the clear intention.
Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar): In calling Amendment No. 10, I point out that if it is accepted I cannot call Amendment No. 11.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 20, leave out "50%" and insert "75%"
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are probing amendments as regards the levels of increase in election expenses. The Government have increased the limit by 50 per cent in recognition of the postponement. Some candidates may already have suffered abortive expenditure. These amendments merely seek to explore why the figure of 50 per cent was chosen rather than any other figure. Does not the Minister agree that the extension as it applies to all candidates, whenever they were nominated, will significantly advantage candidates who are nominated in May as they will have the full 150 per cent to spend in one month, whereas candidates who are nominated in April may have already spent some of their expenses limit up to two months before the election? What consideration have the Government given to that point? I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: On Second Reading I said that we were concerned that any increase in the expenses limit might tend to favour those who have cash available, but that, on balance, we thought that the figure of 50 per cent was about right. We could not support a higher limit.
I have given the Minister notice of my next question. What constitutes expenses for the purposes of assessing the limit? It seems to us that there may well be a difference between expenses in the normal sense of the term and expenses in the circumstances that we are discussing. For example, if leaflets have been printed
1038
with the date 3rd May but are not delivered and are pulped, would the cost of those leaflets be included in the expenses limit? It would be extremely helpful to be given clear guidance as to what constitutes expenses in these circumstances. Some people may never have had to address the question of what constitutes expenses because they have never been able to afford to spend much.
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I accept the basis on which the noble Viscount has put forward his two alternatives for the Committee's consideration. I quite understand why he has done so.
I accept that some candidates may already have produced posters, rosettes or leaflets giving the date as 3rd May. The decision to postpone was announced on 2nd April, more than a month before the elections were due and before nominations had closed. We anticipate that only a relatively modest amount of expenditure so far made will turn out to be abortive.
I was asked why 50 per cent was chosen. Obedient as I always am, I simply repeat what the Home Secretary said in another place. With his usual rather attractive candour, he said that the decision was based on instinct rather than scientific analysis. There can be no other answer. It is interesting that on this occasion the Conservative Party is the party of high spending.
We have considered what the proportionate response should be to the problem of expenditure that in some instances will be wasted and will need to he made up. It is true that a county council seat does not have quite the same allure as a seat in the United States Senate, but we do not want money to be more important than democratic argument. I have taken advice from people who are much more familiar with local elections than I am and most of them seem to think that this is a proportionate response.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about material that had been printed but was pulped before it was disseminated, as opposed to being pulped by the ungrateful electors. Ultimately, this is a matter for the courts, but our judgment is that it would probably not be counted against expenses if it was not used.
Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his candour in explaining the arithmetic behind the figure that has been arrived at. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS: SUPPLY OF REVISIONS TO ROLLING ELECTORAL REGISTER

(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, an electoral registration officer shall supply, free of charge and on request, one copy of the relevant items to any of the relevant persons.

1039

(2) Unless the request is for the supply of a printed version, the copy shall be supplied in data form.

(3) In this section—

"the relevant items" means the most recent version of any of the items specified in Paragraph 46(1)(a) to (c) of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, where those items are published before 7th June 2001;

"the relevant persons" means the persons specified in Paragraph 47 (5) to (7) of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001."

The noble Viscount said: During the passage of the Representation of the People Act 2000, the Government clearly stated their intention to make the full electoral register available to electoral users. Perhaps the clearest expression of that intent was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who told the House:
"The full register will be available for electoral purposes to elected representatives, political parties and candidates. This is clearly sensible".—[Official Report, 29/2/00: col. 465.]
In another place, the Home Secretary also gave a similar assurance. For obvious reasons, Members of another place, political parties and candidates at elections need to be able to use the electoral register for electoral purposes.
The relevant regulations under the Representation of the People Act, which provide for the full electoral register to be made available to MPs, local councillors, political parties and council and parliamentary candidates, were approved by your Lordships' House in February. However, it has subsequently become apparent that the wording of the regulations does not reflect the Government's intentions.
The regulations provide that elected representatives, candidates and political parties can request a free copy of the register from electoral registration offices. However, some registration officers around the country are interpreting that as meaning only a copy of the electoral register published in February, after the annual canvass, not the monthly updates that are being made under the new system of rolling registration introduced earlier this year.
That results in elected representatives, candidates and political parties sometimes having to use out-of-date copies of the electoral register, which become increasingly inaccurate as the year progresses, given that the register is now updated every month.
In practical terms, that situation could cause a good deal of confusion for candidates and canvassers around election time. In respect of the local government elections, the confusion will be made even worse by the postponement provided for in the Bill, because the registers will undergo a further update before 7th June. Many new voters could be added to the register in the interim period, but candidates and political parties will not know how many, where they live or who they are. If a general election were to be called, voters who had recently moved home and re-registered could find that the freepost mailing from candidates was addressed to the wrong voter.
The situation is even more confusing precisely because some registration officers are willing to provide the updates and some are not. It is not the fault
1040
of the registration officers. They do sterling work, often in difficult circumstances and with limited resources. It is the fault of the regulations, which are unclear. Some registration officers are uncertain and understandably wish to err on the side of caution. We should bring clarity to the situation.
On a related issue, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will doubtless remember the extensive—indeed exhaustive—debates that he had with my late noble friend, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, during the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. As the Minister will recall, several of those debates concerned the requirement placed on political parties by that Act to verify that every donor who gave more than £200 was registered on an electoral register somewhere in the United Kingdom. Lord Mackay pointed out that without a centralised version of the registers, that would be an almost impossible task. He received considerable support from the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, whom I am happy to see in her place, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The Government gave an undertaking during those proceedings to provide the Electoral Commission and the political parties with a centralised, up-to-date, computerised version of the electoral register. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, told the House on 21st November last year, it will be some months before that solution is put in place.
In the interim period, parties are having to check for themselves that a donor is on the electoral register. As I said earlier, some electoral registration officers are unwilling to provide political parties with the updates to the rolling register because of the lack of clarity in the regulations, despite the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that,
"It is desirable that both the political parties and the electoral commission have easy access to electoral registers".—[Official Report, 21/11/00; col. 696.]
All that makes it even harder for political parties to ensure that they are compliant with the new Act. The situation that has arisen as a result of the regulations is clearly contrary to the intentions expressed by Ministers during the debates in your Lordships' House last year.
I thank your Lordships for your patience in listening to this slightly long speech on this modest but important amendment, which would enable councillors, local government candidates and political parties to receive the rolling update as well as the annual published register. It would exclude parliamentary candidates, because it would not be within the Long Title of the Bill to include them.
The Government recognise that the existing regulations are deficient. In another place on 26th March, the Under-Secretary of State, Mr O'Brien, stated in a Written Answer that the Government were planning to publish amendments to the regulations to allow elected representatives, political parties and candidates to be supplied with the amendments to the registers. However, my understanding is that those new regulations will be some time in coming and they will certainly not be made before 7th June.
The amendment would reduce confusion for electoral registration officers, candidates, political parties and electors. That confusion will arise in greater measure as a result of the postponement of the local government elections provided for by the Bill. The amendment would help the elections on 7th June, whether local or also perhaps national, to run more smoothly. It would correct an anomaly in the regulations that is clearly contrary to the expressed intentions of the Government and of Parliament as a whole. I commend the amendment to your Lordships and I hope that it will attract support from all sides of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: What the noble Viscount said with his usual moderation is quite right. The situation needs to be put right. I do not dissent from his summary and analysis. It was intended that the monthly updates would be available more widely than is provided for in Regulation 47. He is quite right.
As I understand the matter, he is also right that some electoral administrators are interpreting the regulation in a generous way. Some interpret it in a restrictive way and believe that they are unable to provide the monthly updates to MPs, councillors, political parties and candidates. That is not a satisfactory situation.
We are looking at the best route via which we may achieve what everyone agrees should be the position. I believe that we have two alternatives: we may bring forward special amending regulations or we may lay regulations before the summer to implement Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 2000.
It is plain that the House does not want the Bill to be delayed. Equally, it is plain that the noble Viscount has identified an area which is not acceptable. I hope to be able to bring before the House a dedicated regulation as soon as possible after the Easter break. I also hope that I have given as firm an indication as I reasonably can as to what we propose to do.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for intervening in this debate, but I want to spur on the noble and learned Lord in his efforts to bring forward the amended regulations in good time by making two further points about the difficulties of trying to work on out-of-date registers, even if they are only a month or two out of date.
Everyone who has canvassed in elections knows that one is frequently asked whether a person whom one meets is on the register in a particular area. In the past, the canvasser has been able to look at the register, if he has it with him, or has been able to check with his office and provide the information. However, if the information is out of date, it is possible that he will mislead the electors or be unable to provide them with the correct information.
My second point concerns the problem of electoral numbers. I understand that electoral registration officers are advised to use a suffix system of numbering where additional electors must be fitted into the list in a subsequent rolling register, or leave blanks where electors have moved away or died, so that the numbers
1042
are not entirely consecutive. That is obviously an easier way in which to deal with the register. However, electoral registration officers can, and sometimes do, renumber the whole register from month to month between one rolling register and the next. Obviously, it may be convenient to do so if many changes have occurred in an area during the course of a register from February to February.
However, again, if the candidates and parties are using old electoral numbers, it will add greatly to the problems if they do not have an up-to-date register. That means that it is important that the noble and learned Lord does as he aims to do and brings before us the amended regulations to correct the position.
Baroness Hamwee: From these Benches we add our encouragement and anticipatory thanks. In referring to the numbers on the register, I believed that the noble and learned Lord was going to talk about the calculation of expenses limits. I assume that the total numbers on the register are relevant for that purpose, too.
There are many reasons concerning the exercise of democracy why the register to which everyone works should be the correct one. It would be a great pity if, having made this important and very welcome change to the provisions, it was not put into effect throughout the country.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I accept those supplementary points. Of course, the registers are currently available. We are dealing with updates from April and, therefore, the number of people in question is relatively small. However, I accept that that is not the point of principle for which the noble Viscount contends, and I hope that I have dealt as accommodatingly as possible with his concerns.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am sure that I speak for my noble friend Lord Cope as well as for myself. The Minister has given a most helpful reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Norton of Louth: I gave notice of my intention to oppose Clause 2 in order to give the Government the opportunity to explain why the postponement of local government elections to 7th June is to apply to Northern Ireland. In the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House, both the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, questioned why local elections in Northern Ireland should be postponed. The same question was raised in the other place during debate on the Bill.
At Second Reading I advanced four criteria that should be met in order to justify postponing the date of elections. The first was that there must be a clearly recognised crisis. There is a crisis in Britain but it is not

1043
clear that the situation in Northern Ireland constitutes a crisis. Northern Ireland does not have the same instance of foot and mouth disease as exists in England, Wales and Scotland.
The second criterion was that the crisis had to affect materially and substantially the capacity to hold an election. Although precautions are in place in the Province in order to deal with foot and mouth disease, there is not necessarily a reason to suppose that the local elections could not go ahead on the scheduled date. The case for postponement in Britain is that many people who are engaged in electioneering are tied up in fighting the crisis and, in any event, would have difficulty in campaigning in the way that they would wish. It is not clear—I put it no stronger than that—that such a situation pertains in Northern Ireland. How many of those engaged in local government in the Province are tied up with tackling the problem of foot and mouth disease?
The third criterion was that there must be all-party support, and the fourth that there must be adequate parliamentary scrutiny. The need for Clause 2 has been questioned by Members from different parties. However, thus far, remarkably little discussion on the provision has taken place, and there has been only one attempt in the other place by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to justify its inclusion.
Given that, I believe that it is important that the Minister is given an opportunity to justify the inclusion of the clause. Local elections were not scheduled for 3rd May in Northern Ireland. They are held on the third Wednesday in May and were scheduled for 16th May. Given the present situation in the Province, it is not clear why they should be delayed to give more time for the foot and mouth crisis to be brought under control.
The justification given in the other place was that a UK-wide response was necessary. But why is that necessary? Local elections are not held on a UK-wide basis on the same day. Therefore, why do we need a uniform date now?
It has been suggested that there is a political motivation for the delay, unrelated to foot and mouth disease. The Minister in the other place has acknowledged that, if local elections were to be held at the same time as a general election, turnout for local elections would be likely to increase. Experience supports that proposition. However, formally, we do not know the date of the next general election; or perhaps we may take the word of the Minister in the other place, Mr George Howarth, as confirmation of the date.
If the intention is to ensure a coincidence in the date of both local and general elections in order to boost turnout, should that not be a matter of considered debate rather than something achieved as a largely undiscussed by-product of a Bill brought in ostensibly for a different purpose?
The Minister may be able to assuage my concerns. I say that having seen his compendium letter. As I said in opening, my purpose in giving notice of my
1044
intention to oppose the stand part Motion was to provide the Minister with an opportunity to explain why the clause was included. The severity of the programming Motion in the other place meant that there was no time in which to discuss the clause. The task of ensuring adequate scrutiny thus falls to this House. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's response.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for his probing Question because it takes up a concern that I expressed at Second Reading. I remarked then that, in introducing the Bill, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, had paid scant attention to the Northern Ireland aspect, although, as I pointed out, it comprises over half the Bill.
I specifically asked the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to explain in his reply the reasons for including Northern Ireland in the Bill, given that, as I pointed out and as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, also mentioned, there has been only a single outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland and that could hardly be a reason for postponing the local elections there.
With a superb display of his courtroom skills, the Attorney-General studiously ignored that request and said that he would write to me regarding my more detailed questions. He employed the well-worn diverting ploy of saying, "Never mind the ball, watch my feet!". He humoured and flattered your Lordships' House with considerable flair but avoided the question that I had posed.
The fact of the matter is that the Government, quite ill-advisedly in my view, are disingenuously trying to use the foot and mouth epidemic in Great Britain as a rather implausible fig leaf to camouflage their real motives for applying the Bill to Northern Ireland. The compendium letter referred to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, which echoed my query, but the rather weak answers given compound the deviousness.
There is no need for the Government to be coy. Their real intention, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has explicitly said, is to hold local and general elections on the same day in order to maximise voter turnout and, one hopes, support for the pro-Belfast agreement parties. Those are both eminently laudable aims. However, it does not serve democracy to prevaricate and dissemble in the way the Government have done. The Bill—or at least the major part of it that concerns Northern Ireland—was clearly prepared weeks ago with that covert purpose in mind. The Government have been too clever by half—they have employed the reasons for postponing the local elections in Great Britain as some sort of excuse for doing the same in Northern Ireland. That patently does not hold up.
The actions proposed by the Government—postponing the local elections in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland—are identical but the real reasons for them are quite different. So far as concerns Northern Ireland, the Government's case would have been better served if they had been open and honest

1045
and not attempted to use the foot and mouth outbreak in Great Britain to justify the postponement of the local elections in Northern Ireland. In the black arts of politics, openness can be more machiavellian than deviousness.
That lack of candour has undoubtedly provoked the noble Lord, Lord Norton, into opposing Clause 2, which will apply to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord is wholly justified in raising the issue again in an attempt to get a straight answer. However, I am relieved to hear that he will not test the opinion of the Committee. As I said, Liberal Democrats appreciate the desirability of holding general and local elections on the same day in Northern Ireland because that will maximise voter turnout. However, I wish that that would he clearly admitted by the Government.
Lord Monson: I want to support the arguments that were well presented by the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Smith. This is an emergency Bill that will cope with a grave national emergency. That is why it was rushed through the other place so quickly using the guillotine procedure, to the great indignation of many honourable Members. That is also why it is being rushed through this House almost as quickly. Happily, as has been said, the emergency does not afflict Northern Ireland, where there has been only one case, which occurred quite a long time ago and which has not spread. Even the Government do not pretend otherwise.
Even if the epidemic had hit Northern Ireland hard, postponing the elections by a mere three weeks—or, to be specific, by 22 days—could have made no difference. There may or may not be a case for synchronising local and national elections in the Province. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and others who know the Province much better than I do, favour the status quo.
Even if there is on balance a good case for change, an emergency Bill of this sort is a totally unsuitable vehicle. Accordingly, I support the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in his opposition to the clause. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Smith, however, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, will consider testing the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Fitt: I rise to reinforce what I said in your Lordships' House last Thursday. Since then, I have spoken with many people in Northern Ireland, all of whom are of the same opinion: that the inclusion of Northern Ireland in a Bill relating to the deferment of elections has absolutely nothing to do with foot and mouth disease and that some other reason lies behind the proposal. I suspect that some of the major political parties in Northern Ireland are not happy at the prospect of going to the polls and that they have made representations to the Government.
It is not right for the Government in Westminster to try to decide which way the people in Northern Ireland should cast their votes. Much legislation relating to terrorism has gone through the House during the past two or three years. Some of it has been controversial, including that relating to the release of prisoners and
1046
an amnesty for prisoners. During our debates on those matters we were told, "But Northern Ireland is different because of the terrorist activity, which has lasted for many years. We should not apply the same standards here". In this case, the Government have departed from that dictum. They say, "Northern Ireland is not different; it is exactly the same". I remember that someone once said, "Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley", but that was a total mistake.
There has been only one case of foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland which, thankfully, was contained within that one location in County Armagh. There are suspicions that it got there in the first place because terrorist organisations were engaged in a scam to get livestock imported from England into Northern Ireland and then taken over the Border.
One of the main reasons why we should not agree with the proposal is because two systems of voting are involved. The voting system for the genera] election involves the first-past-the-post system, which applies in other parts of the United Kingdom. The voting system in the local authority elections involves proportional representation, in which one votes for number one, two, three, four, five, six or seven, depending on how many candidates there are. Many people, particularly those who are older, find going into a polling station and being met with two different types of ballot paper greatly confusing. That might involve the same extent of confusion as that which we saw during the last American presidential election in the state of Florida and in Miami. We should remember how long it took the authorities to decide the outcome of that election.
My main reason for opposing the proposal involves my experience fighting elections in Northern Ireland during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, which were times of great terrorist activity. The terrorist organisation that now wears the mantle of democracy and is engaged in legitimate ballot-box politics at that time ordered people not to vote. It threatened people if they went to polling stations to vote and it shot policemen who were guarding ballot boxes. There was much intimidation in all of those elections, but the Government did not say that the peculiar circumstances that operated in Northern Ireland were a reason for calling off the elections. The Government said that the whole democratic process must be adhered to and that there must be no dilution of it. Irrespective of the dangers that then existed, they said that we must continue with the elections.
That has all gone by the board on this occasion. I repeat that the Government's approach has absolutely nothing to do with foot and mouth disease and everything to do with representations that have been made by certain political parties for the elections to be deferred in the hope that that will help their cause. That is a violation of democracy and that is why I oppose the clause.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hope that if the elections are held on the same day in Northern Ireland,

1047
all goes well. I am sure that we all hope that. I also hope that the special circumstances in Northern Ireland will not make that any more difficult.
I want to raise one or two small points about the problems of having elections to different bodies on the same day. That arose in Scotland, when the Scots Parliament was elected on the same day that local government elections were held. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, wrote to my noble friend Lord Cope, he was kind enough to send me a copy of his answer. He has taken on board the problem that I described.
Therefore, I hope that the publicity issued before the election will help. But not knowing all the intricacies of the situation in Northern Ireland, I cannot quite imagine the problems which will occur. The Government seem to have thought very hard about this and feel that political considerations override the others in this case. It certainly cannot be about foot and mouth. However, I hope it goes extremely well.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, accused me of being devious, disingenuous and dissembling and even worse, said that I was behaving like a lawyer.
It is true that there has been only one confirmed case of foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland. We all hope and pray that that will continue to obtain. But a few weeks ago, I could have said that in area X, a particular part of Wales, for example, there has been no report at all of foot and mouth. As it happened, I was down in west Wales on Friday and Saturday and there has now been a reported case. So I do not believe that simply to say that there has been only one case so far is necessarily determinative of that point. If I were anything to do with farming in Northern Ireland and someone said to me, "There has only been one case", I should meet that with deep displeasure.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. How is postponing the elections for 22 days going to make things any better?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have not suggested that it would make things any better. I was about to develop my argument, which I think is a proper one, that the mere fact that there has been only one case confirmed is not determinative. In fact, Northern Ireland depends particularly on agriculture in that economy, which has been battered extensively, for the reasons of which my noble friend Lord Fitt spoke, for the past 30 years. I know that these facts are in the compendium letter but not everyone will have had the opportunity to read it. Five per cent of jobs are in agriculture while the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole is only 1.6 per cent. So one has to have a fairly careful approach.
I believe that the careful, prudent and precautionary step to put off the elections to the same date in Northern Ireland is right. Those who are irretrievably bathed in cynicism will either not listen or not agree, but that may be their problem rather than mine.
1048
I turn to some specific points. Apart from the point that there has been only one confirmed outbreak, which I do not take as a point of value at all, the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture, to whom we should pay some attention, has called—I use his phrase—for the fortress farming approach to be maintained. Nineteen road blocks are now in place in a 10 kilometre surveillance zone in Newry and Mourne. It has been said that there has been some confusion.
Lord Fitt: I should point out to my noble and learned friend that the Northern Ireland Minister is a lady. Unless she has had a sex change over the past week, she remains a lady. But she has made representations to Europe and the parliamentary authorities there have said that Northern Ireland can be classed as a disease-free zone. She made representations to Europe to that effect. It has been agreed that Northern Ireland should not be classified in the same way as all the other areas in England and that it is a disease-free zone.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course, and all our efforts must be to try to keep it that way. I believe that it is responsible and prudent to maintain that slight deferment.
My noble friend Lord Fitt and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, spoke about combined polls. My noble friend Lord Fitt said that elderly voters sometimes become confused. I believe that the noble Baroness was referring to the generality of voters. We shall be using additional publicity to inform voters if—and I stress I do not know—there is a combined poll.
I should say about Northern Ireland, with which I have had a lot to do over the past years, that it has been polled more often than any other part of the United Kingdom. Over the past years, it has had a poll, on average, once every 14 months. So I do not believe that it could be described as an unsophisticated electorate. "Bored witless" might be one description but it cannot be described as unsophisticated and not knowledgeable about the voting mechanisms and the process.
Quite often in the past it has been asked why Northern Ireland should be treated differently. If there is an election, which is coincident with the local election, then that would mean that Northern Ireland would be treated similarly to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Many of those points have been put in the compendium letter. I have repeated them briefly because not all Members of the Committee will have seen those points in the letter. I anticipate that I shall not have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Norton, but equally, he has not convinced me, so we must part amicably, as we always do. I think it is a perfectly reasonable, sustainable part of the Bill. Had this step not been taken, I believe that there might have been quite vigorous criticism as to why Northern Ireland was not potentially capable of being treated in the same way. I put "potentially" and I put "capable"

1049
because I do not know the date of the election. If I did, I should be a happy man beetling down to William Hill this very second.
Lord Monson: The noble and learned Lord accuses those of us who oppose this clause of cynicism. However, I refer him to the Explanatory Notes on the Elections Bill produced, I assume, by his department.
The notes first refer to Northern Ireland in any substantive sense in paragraph 15 which states:
"The Bill takes the opportunity",
and note carefully that word "opportunity",
"to bring Northern Ireland electoral provisions into line with those of the rest of the UK".
So it is nothing to do with the proportion of people engaged in agriculture or foot and mouth or anything like that. It is using the Bill as a convenient vehicle to bring the provisions in Northern Ireland into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Who is being the cynic now?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: What the noble Lord has said absolutely underlines what I said a second or two ago. This is capable, potentially, of bringing Northern Ireland into line. That is no different from the Explanatory Notes phrases which were read out. I did not accuse any Members of the Committee of cynicism in adopting the stance that they did. I said that if any Members of the Committee failed to accept what I said, they might have been bathed in cynicism. But, of course, I never resort to personal abuse of any sort in this House, whatever the temptation.
Lord Norton of Louth: First, I do not criticise the Minister at all for putting on record what was in the compendium letter; quite the reverse. That is exactly the sort of material that should be put on the record and I am extremely pleased that he did so.
Secondly, I was not trying to persuade the noble and learned Lord of the argument against the clause. Rather, I was trying to create the opportunity for the noble and learned Lord to make the case for the clause and, in some way, willing him on to do that. I hear the points he has made which I believe are reasonable. I should have liked him to go a little further in some of the justification but I believe that he made a better case for Clause 2 than he did for some of the provisions of Clause 1. Given that there is agreement about the nature of the Bill, I believe that it would not be wise to divide the Committee on it. That would not achieve any purpose. My purpose has been achieved by the noble and learned Lord putting on record the case, so that it is quite clear and self-contained in relation to this particular clause. Therefore, I no longer oppose the Question that this clause shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Compensation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 22, after "may" insert ", by way of an order pursuant to Section 7"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 13 proposes that any compensation scheme made by the Secretary of State should be made by way of an order under Clause 7, that is an order exercisable by statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. In the next group of amendments we shall debate the desirability or otherwise of a scheme of compensation. However, I believe that it is generally agreed that to pay compensation out of the public purse to election candidates is not a small matter. As the Bill provides for orders in Clause 7, it seems to me that it would be entirely proper for any scheme brought forward by the Government to be brought before both Houses of Parliament, or at least for there to be the opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to consider the matter.
The Government have already indicated that they do not intend to make the scheme available for candidates who are representatives of the registered political parties, only for individual candidates and, of course, for local authorities. The compendium letter from the Minister indicated that the Government hope to be able to announce the details of the scheme before the delayed elections on 7th June. I should hope that is the case.
I am aware that the Minister indicated that there will be consultation with the parties, presumably in both Houses. I am not sure what form that will take. I believe that this is an important provision and one in which the order-making power should apply. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment. The Bill contains a power in Clause 6 for the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to compensate local authorities and candidates for the additional costs which they incur as a result of the postponement. It would be fair to say that there is general agreement that compensation should be paid to local authorities for their additional costs. The noble Baroness drew attention to the fact that that was confirmed in the compendium letter.
In respect of the candidates there is all-party consensus which might better be described as an all-party self-denying ordinance that no compensation should be paid to candidates of registered political parties. I confirm that we will respect and abide by that consensus. We recognise that independent candidates may have a better case and we will entertain claims from independent candidates who suffered genuine and significant losses as a result of the delaying of the elections. Again, as I indicated in my letter, we would be more than happy to discuss the detail of that with opposition parties. It is also worth drawing attention to the briefing note issued by the Local Government Association. The association welcomes the Government's recognition of the additional costs involved in postponing the elections and our willingness to compensate councils and candidates who are particularly affected. There has been a broad range of welcome for the proposal.

1051
We do not see the need to make the power to establish a compensation scheme subject to the negative resolution statutory instrument procedure. We are not alone in that view. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, whose views on such matters we always take seriously, had this to say:
"The Committee decided, for the sake of completeness, to refer in this report to the power in clause 6 to make a scheme compensating local authorities and candidates who incur additional expenditure because elections are postponed to June. The Committee does not regard this as a delegated power and sees no objection to leaving it as an informal administrative matter not requiring the formality of a statutory instrument".
In the light of that view, the view expressed by the Local Government Association, and our generous disposition to consult on this matter, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall do so, but not before I have expressed disappointment in that reply. I do not think that it addressed the point. I accept that the Government have indicated that they will consult with the parties, but consultation is not the same as allowing both Houses of Parliament to consider the matter. I do not argue for the affirmative procedure. We are talking of payment from the public purse to individuals. I am straying, as I believe did the Minister, on to issues covered by the next group of amendments. We need to ask ourselves whether it is right to allow the Government to come up with a scheme which will judge who should be paid compensation; on what basis it should be paid and, frankly, one which is likely to be arbitrary.
My noble friend Lord Goodhart raised with me the question that the provision in Clause 6(1) could be read as referring back to Clause 1(7). That is the provision which allows an increase in expenses of 50 per cent to be paid. He asked whether that would mean, for instance, on the basis of Clause 1(7) that an individual candidate spends 50 per cent extra and, because of the wording of Clause 6(1), he says to the Government, "I want to be paid the excess"? That may sound fanciful. However, it is the sort of reason why the Committee should have the opportunity to consider the scheme.
I note also that the Minister did not give any further indication of the date when this proposal will he introduced. Perhaps I may say that I hope that this will be dealt with swiftly and not at the last minute. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 23, leave out "or candidate who"
The noble Baroness said: As I have just said, we have already strayed onto this ground. Nevertheless, the argument needs to be made and answered, even if briefly. Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 seek to leave
1052
in place the provision for a scheme for compensation to local authorities but not to any candidate, whether independent or otherwise.
I do not want to be tedious on this point. I have already stated that we are talking of money paid from public funds. I wonder whether the public would think it right that any candidate for election should be able to have recourse to public funds to support him or her in that election. As a matter of principle, to be entitled to make such a claim is not right.
The Minister referred to the "all-party self-denying ordinance" and spoke of the scheme not applying to candidates representing registered political parties. That was not wholly clear in the winding-up speech on Thursday. First, there was an undertaking that the scheme "would not be for candidates"—which were the words used—but later the reference was to independents only. I do not know whether the Minister feels that he has anything to add to what he has already said. I give him the opportunity to do so by moving the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: We had considerable discussion on this matter at Second Reading. Perhaps I may reemphasise that the proposals that independent candidates should at least be given the opportunity to put forward a claim now has all-party support. There was a suggestion at Second Reading that the Conservative Party had somehow tried to kibosh that proposal. I want to be clear that there has never been any intention by this party to do anything other than support the position that those supported by parliamentary parties should not seek compensation in this way.
It was correctly said by the Home Secretary in another place that there may be people who already suffer financial problems as a result of being farmers who have been exposed to current difficulties. Therefore, it seems proper that there should be a scheme of some kind. I understand that the Home Secretary, or someone in his department, will have to adjudicate, but provided it is confined to independent candidates and does not extend to members of political parties we will support the proposal.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I want to make two brief observations. First, given that the decision to postpone the county elections was made the day before nominations closed, I do not have a huge amount of sympathy with anyone who has incurred a great deal of expenditure. After all, candidates could not be sure who would be standing against them, to which party they belonged and so forth. Most prudent candidates would not print leaflets until they had such information. Having it ready on the computer is another thing.
Secondly, I can imagine that it would be difficult to ascertain whether a candidate was independent. It is easy to tell whether someone is standing under the banner of a party but whether he or she is a member and what the links might be would be difficult to ascertain.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: A few points for clarification have emerged during the short discussion. It was not our intention to suggest that the Conservative Party wanted to put the kibosh—a great term which my mother loved using—on the proposal. The compendium letter which we dispatched made it plain that we wanted to respect the fruits of all-party consensus on the issue.
Baroness Hanham: My accusation, if it was that, or dart was not directed at the noble Lord.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for that clarification. It is on the record.
As regards the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, we are talking about independents who are not members of a registered political party. The letter clarifies that issue. In another place, the Home Secretary gave a clear example of what he had in mind and it was precisely that which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised; that of the farmer candidate who had suffered as a result of foot and mouth and had then lost a large amount of money on wasted election literature.
I suspect that few people will fall into that category. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, it would be unusual for the large chunk of literature to be produced by independent candidates prior to the closing of nominations and so forth. However, my experience is that initial leaflets are prepared at that stage. They can cost perhaps £150, depending on how many are to be distributed and how far, so a significant sum of money could be involved. We want to have the facility for compensation in such situations.
I accept that there will be administrative difficulty in seeking to ensure that the money has been spent in the way that was claimed. However, I cannot believe that that is an insurmountable problem and I am sure that most people who stand for local government are straight in the way in which they approach such matters. I would not want to cast doubt on their bona fides and believe that we must take such things at face value.
We are simply trying to be helpful. We respect the position of independent candidates and our approach is designed to achieve that objective. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the Minister's point that members of a political party should not receive compensation under the scheme. I dare say that I am not the only Member of the Committee who has come across members of local authorities who sit as independents but who are members of a political party. Will the Minister confirm, or seriously consider the point, that in assessing a claim for compensation the Government will ensure that the question is asked: "Are you a member of a political party, whether or not you are standing under the banner of that party?"
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is entirely proper that the individual is asked whether he or she is a member of a registered political party. That is the important question.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that answer, which is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Consequential provision]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) The powers provided by subsection (1) shall not extend to altering the date of 7th June 2001, wherever it appears in this Act, to any other date."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment was tabled before we received the Minister's letter. It seeks to provide that an imaginative use—I was going to say "devious"—of Clause 7 should not be made so as to change the date of 7th June. The letter gave me a categorical assurance that the order-making power in Clause 7 could not be used for that purpose. It indicates that the order can be used only to make the necessary changes which are consequential on the main provisions of the Act. Clause 7(1) refers to
"consequential, transitional or supplemental provisions".
Can the Minister confirm that it would not be possible to use Clause 7 in that way? I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is the final amendment to which the compendium letter refers. Perhaps I may say on behalf of all Members of the Committee how grateful we are to the officials at the Home Office. They had to work very hard indeed. Our Second Reading debate was on Thursday and they delivered this full and helpful letter on Friday. It has been of great assistance in the efficient running of this business. So often the work of officials goes unsung—not unheeded but unsung—and I am grateful to be able to say that on behalf of the Committee.
I give the absolute assurance that the order-making power cannot be used to change the date of the deferred elections from 7th June or for that matter to change the date of any other elections.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I shall not sing my thanks to the officials. I am mindful that I am keeping some Members of the Committee from choir practice. We are very much aware of the work which went into the letter, which was extremely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Schedule: [Northern Ireland: Modification of Election Provisions]:
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7. line 9, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 will place an absolute duty on the returning officer to make arrangements for the opening of the ballot boxes for the parliamentary election and any ballot papers for the local election to be taken out. By the same token, he can make arrangements for the opening of the ballot boxes for the local election and any ballot papers for the parliamentary election to be taken out. I attest to the point made by the noble and learned Lord about the sophistication of the Northern Ireland electorate, given its experience. I had never voted so frequently as in the eight years that I lived there. No matter how skilled and practised in voting the Northern Ireland electorate may be, there is no guarantee that every single paper will end up in the correct ballot box. We believe it is essential that there are suitable arrangements in place to ensure that there is as little confusion as possible, and it should not be left to the judgment of individual returning officers. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I support the amendment. I very much wonder why the Bill does not say "shall". I believe that I indicated at Second Reading that this was included in the Scotland Bill. I have not checked to see whether this matter was compulsory. However, as a polling agent I was informed at the time that it would happen. Polling agents had to be present when the box was opened and resealed before it went to a central place for the votes to be counted. At the polling station where I was located a number of ballot papers, which were colour-coded, were placed in the wrong box. Provided the people who did the count were not colour blind there was no problem. However, it was good to see that happen. I would have thought that this would be a good idea in the context of Northern Ireland where this is a very sensitive matter. Before I am satisfied I believe that the Minister needs to explain why it is not compulsory. I am sure that if it was compulsory it would work better. It sounds like a small point but when there is a count, tension is high, and I am sure that it is higher in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. It may be—I am not sure—that Scottish voters are less sophisticated than those in Northern Ireland. But I believe that we are also quite canny in deciding which votes go into which box. Mistakes can be made. The Minister needs to look at this matter rather carefully.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that we are entirely agreed on the purpose identified by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. We are agreed that the reconciliation of ballot papers which have been put into the wrong box is a very important element in the conduct of a combined election where separate boxes are used. I can reassure the Committee that the chief electoral officer and deputy returning officers who
1056
conduct any combined election are fully aware of the need to use this procedure in the present circumstances, because it is their obligation to ensure that there is a fair election. They must complete a ballot paper account before counting the votes.
The only reason why the word used is "may" and not "shall" is that circumstances surrounding elections change. Procedures that are sensible and useful now may need to be amended in due time, and we simply offer returning officers a degree of flexibility. But the clear intention is that these steps shall be taken in the first elections. There is no hidden plot or mystery about it: that is the reason.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: With respect, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord gives an adequate answer. The opening of a ballot box after the end of the poll is a very sensitive issue. Anything can happen if people "may" open a ballot box, but if they have to do so and polling agents must be present nothing can go wrong. It must be a formal ceremony, as it were, which is witnessed by all the parties. If it is not compulsory, returning officers may not believe that it is necessary, and it may happen in one place and not in another. Is that good enough?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, but it would not be competent for anyone other than the returning officer to open the ballot box or make these arrangements. We simply insert "may" and not "shall" because in different circumstances in future returning officers may need a degree of flexibility, and that is all that we offer. They fully intend to follow these procedures. It is their statutory duty to ensure a fair election, and a fair election will involve the steps which the noble Baroness specifies.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I too would have preferred "shall" rather than "may". I cannot quite envisage other circumstances which would require flexibility. Nevertheless, I am reassured by the response of the noble and learned Lord that returning officers will be enjoined to observe what are in effect guidelines. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment. Then, Standing Order No. 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 5th April), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Regulatory Reform Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.

  Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal
  Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal
  Angola
  Angola
  Balibo: Death of Journalists
  Balibo: Death of Journalists
  European Cybercrime Convention
  European Cybercrime Convention
  Abnormal Loads
  Abnormal Loads
  Government Website Probes
  Government Website Probes
  Prison Service Instructions
  Prison Service Instructions
  Criminal Cases Review Commission: Consideration of Human Rights
  Criminal Cases Review Commission: Consideration of Human Rights
  Hi-tech Crime Investigation
  Hi-tech Crime Investigation
  Lewes Prison Report
  Lewes Prison Report
  Drug-related Crime
  Drug-related Crime
  Freedom of Information Legislation
  Freedom of Information Legislation
  Asylum Seekers: Detention at Oakington
  Asylum Seekers: Detention at Oakington
  Police Station Closures
  Police Station Closures
  Vladimiro Montesinos: Bank Accounts
  Vladimiro Montesinos: Bank Accounts
  Personal Data
  Personal Data
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Compensation
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Compensation
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Imports from South Africa
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Imports from South Africa
  Animal Welfare Organisations and MAFF
  Animal Welfare Organisations and MAFF
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Assistance to Businesses Affected
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Assistance to Businesses Affected
  Lords of Appeal
  Lords of Appeal
  Consolidation Bills
  Consolidation Bills
  Prudential Assurance Company and Commission for Holocaust Claims
  Prudential Assurance Company and Commission for Holocaust Claims
  Gulf Veterans: Symptom Data
  Gulf Veterans: Symptom Data
  Manual of Military Law, Part III
  Manual of Military Law, Part III
  Kosovo: Cluster Bombs
  Kosovo: Cluster Bombs
  Army Rifle: Calibre
  Army Rifle: Calibre
  Balkans and Iraq: Call Out of Reservists
  Balkans and Iraq: Call Out of Reservists
  Late Payment of Commercial Debts
  Late Payment of Commercial Debts
  Clothing and Footwear Sizes: Standardisation
  Clothing and Footwear Sizes: Standardisation
  Sex and Relationship Education
  Sex and Relationship Education
  European Year of Languages: MPs Taking Courses
  European Year of Languages: MPs Taking Courses
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Human Infection
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Human Infection
  Hospital Hygiene
  Hospital Hygiene
  NHS Performance Fund Payments
  NHS Performance Fund Payments
  Widows Inherited SERPS
  Widows Inherited SERPS
  State Retirement Pensions
  State Retirement Pensions
  Pensioners Living Abroad: Pensions Uprating
  Pensioners Living Abroad: Pensions Uprating
  Tourism: CBI Recommendations
  Tourism: CBI Recommendations
  English Tourism Marketing
  English Tourism Marketing