Sitting of 23 April 2001

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

  Macedonia
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on military action in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. [156926]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government support Macedonia's right to defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty, including with proportionate and appropriate military action. We are giving a range of non-lethal military equipment to the Macedonian Government to assist them. We have a small number of troops based in Macedonia, providing logistics support for UK forces in Kosovo, and a defence adviser working with the Macedonian Ministry of Defence.
  2
  In Kosovo, UK troops are providing reinforcements to the Multi-National Brigade (East) region in an area that includes the Macedonian border.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is the Macedonian Ministry of Defence, as opposed to the Macedonian Government, being co-operative?
  Mr. Hoon: Yes.

  Procurement Policies
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on his Department's procurement policies. [156927]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The essence of our procurement policy is to secure the best equipment capability at the best value for money, through competition and prime contracting where viable. Our Smart acquisition programme is enhancing the efficiency of our acquisition process by streamlining the organisation, introducing new techniques and commercial best practice, building a closer and more constructive relationship with industry and improving the training and development of our acquisition personnel.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: The Government have just finished paying between £30 million and £60 million to refit 1,100 CVR(T) tanks with diesel engines under a non-competitive contract. Were the Government aware before that contract was granted that those new engines would not operate in an A1 climate, such as that in the middle east; or was that key drawback of the new engines only discovered after the contract was awarded?
  Dr. Moonie: That matter has been referred to before in the House and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the single-source procurement strategy was adopted because Alvis Vehicles Ltd. is the design authority for CVR(T)

  3
  and has certain proprietary intellectual property rights over the vehicle. On the hon. Gentleman's specific question, I understand that there are no particular problems that cannot be managed in theatre.
  Mr. John McFall: The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State recently visited the Clyde submarine base at Faslane, where he talked to the unions about future procurement and work practice policies. He will also be aware that there is a combined trade union response document on securing work for the future. He knows that the work force are committed and loyal. Can he give us a progress report on the discussions between the Secretary of State and the work force and on the options regarding the combined trade union response on the future work practice at the Clyde submarine base?
  Dr. Moonie: We are well aware of the high quality work that has been carried out for us for many years at Faslane. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the unions held constructive meetings during his visit, and
  I can assure my hon. Friend that their submission is receiving the most careful consideration.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): Can the Minister confirm that confidentiality is a very important component of effective procurement and that effective procurement could easily be compromised if, for example, listening devices were present in the Ministry of Defence? Can he confirm, as the Secretary of State implied yesterday, that some 30 such devices have been discovered? Can he say who is believed to have been responsible for their being placed in MOD buildings; estimate how long they have been in position; and tell the House whether it is true that they only came to light when the current refurbishment of the main building began? What additional precautions have been taken to ensure that future procurement is not prejudiced in any way?
  Dr. Moonie: I have always thought that one should not believe everything that one reads in the Sunday press, and this story is a very good example of that principle. I am very sorry to have to dampen some of the feverish speculation that has occurred, but the media reports of bugging devices being found in MOD buildings appear to have been derived largely from a misunderstanding involving an information security exhibition that was held for MOD staff in the main building in March. The exhibition, which was designed to improve staff security awareness, included a stand demonstrating the types of listening device that are readily available in high street shops and which could, potentially, be planted in MOD establishments to obtain information illegally. As I am sure all hon. Members are aware, the MOD protects itself against that threat by maintaining the capability to detect such devices should they be planted in our establishments at home or overseas. Clearly, I cannot comment in detail on the reports, but I can confirm that they are inaccurate and that no breach of security has occurred.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Does my hon. Friend still intend to procure 25 A400M heavy-lift military Airbus aircraft? Has he seen the speculation that
  4
  Britain's A400Ms would only fly in conjunction with French and German A400Ms? Would he care to comment on that speculation?
  Dr. Moonie: I am quite sure that the speculation does not come from my right hon. Friend but, once again, it is an indication of the inaccuracy of reporting in the newspapers. The aircraft are not due to fly for another
  10 years, but I can confirm that it is still our intention to order the fleet.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister confirm that the only way to ensure value for money in the procurement of the type 45 destroyer programme is to be certain that more than one firm will be capable of building the ships? How can he defend the constant prevarication over whether the contract for at least one of the ships will be awarded to Vosper Thornycroft? The uncertainty over that matter is putting the jobs of my constituents who work for Vosper Thornycroft gravely at risk.
  Dr. Moonie: I am happy to confirm that it is still our intention to purchase one of the ships in the manner described. Our policy on the procurement of the type 45 has not changed.

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Mr. Christopher Chope: When the first type 45 destroyer will enter service with the Royal Navy. [156929]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence stated in the House on 11 July last year, we remain committed to an in-service date of 2007 for the first type 45 destroyer.
  Mr. Chope: The Minister said, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), that the procurement strategy had not changed. In that case, why have the Government not rejected out of hand the unsolicited bid from BAE Systems and why do they not confirm that the original strategy—which would give Vosper Thornycroft on the south coast of England an equal share in the programme—still stands? Would it not be a very good way of celebrating St. George's day to place faith in a great English warship builder that has exported more than 300 warships in the past 10 years?
  Dr. Moonie: It is British yards that we are in favour of—not just English ones. I repeat what I said before: the policy has not changed. Of course, it is incumbent on us to give careful consideration to proposals that would ostensibly save a great deal of money, and we would be in dereliction of our duty if we did not do that. However, I can confirm that things are progressing well and that the initial stages of the programme are on time.
  John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that statement, but will he bring forward the orders to help the workers on the Clyde and to ensure

  5
  that they receive a fair share of the work? Perhaps he could also remind Conservative Members that the ships are British, not English.
  Dr. Moonie: The programme is progressing as fast as it can. There have been no delays, information is being shared and the design is progressing. There is nothing more that I can say other than to add that the ships will be brought into service as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Is it not quite clear that the Government's agenda on this matter is to try to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone concerned and to keep it there until after the election? The Government signed a contract with BAE Systems in December for the first three of class and that was supposed to provide for the second of class to be built by Vosper Thornycroft. No such contract has been awarded or has even been offered to Vosper Thornycroft and, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) just said, the Government have markedly not responded to the BAE Systems pre-emptive offer to build all 12 of class, which would be thoroughly inconsistent with everything that the Government have said about their strategy for this matter. Is it not quite clear that the Government have very bad news in store either for the workers of the Clyde or for the workers of the Southampton and Portsmouth areas and that they are simply determined to hold that news back until after the election?
  Dr. Moonie: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but there is no truth in any of the allegations that he has made.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Bill Olner: If he will make a statement on the role of the armed forces in tackling the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [156930]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): May I, first, take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women of the armed forces, to the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the state veterinary service and other Government Departments and to the many volunteers who are working so hard to combat this disease?
  The armed forces have responded speedily and effectively to various requests from MAFF for assistance. Their mission is to provide logistical and organisational support, and thereby contribute to the eradication of the disease and to the return to normality in the countryside. Military personnel have supplemented MAFF regional staff in the co-ordination and best use of contractor teams and other Government assets involved in disposing of carcases. They have also provided direct support to MAFF at other stages of the reporting, identification, culling and disposal chain and in the disinfection of premises.
  Mr. Olner: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I also pay tribute to the armed forces for the work that they have been seen to have done on the ground. Given that the current outbreak is far tougher to deal with than the one that took place in 1967—that is due in part to the vastly increased number of sheep movements across the
  6
  country—are there any further roles that the armed forces can play, particularly in the vexed question of the disposal of carcases?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, in particular for his observations on the comparison between the current outbreak and that in 1967. We estimate that as many as 2 million movements of sheep might have been made before this outbreak was detected, which has presented considerable difficulties in tracking down the disease and in dealing with it. I am also grateful for his comments on the role of the armed forces, which continue to provide support to MAFF. Indeed, I anticipate that a further deployment of logistic troops will be made to Devon to deal with the backlog of carcases in that county.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State may be aware that a case of foot and mouth confirmed yesterday arose because the infection was carried on a person's clothing. Will he give an assurance that every step is taken to ensure that no infection is carried by the clothing of members of the armed forces who deal with foot and mouth infected animals?
  Mr. Hoon: Certainly the armed forces that are involved in combating the disease ensure that their organisation, behaviour and individual activities do not contribute to the spread of foot and mouth. Indeed, we severely restricted training by the armed forces to ensure that they did not use land that might cause them to spread the disease.
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about extra armed service personnel coming to Devon to add to the excellent work that they are doing from the Ministry's offices in Exeter. However, is he aware that their job is being severely hampered by the desperate shortage of disposal sites in our county—[Interruption.] Yes, Devon sunshine. Had hon. Members come to Devon, they would have the same tan.
  Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there are more disposal sites? What discussions has he had with other Departments and, crucially, the Environment Agency about finding more sites to deal with the desperate backlog of carcase disposal?
  Mr. Hoon: Extra logistical support is being deployed to Devon and part of its effort is urgently to address the problem of disposal sites. Work is under way on a mass burial site at Ashmore, but completion is some days away. It is crucial that we clear the backlog of carcases in Devon.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the armed forces on their fantastic work? The way in which they have dealt with the problem since they were called in, and the focus that they have given to the disposal and to the need to speed up the processes, is something on which they should be congratulated.
  An issue arises directly from the fact that the armed forces have been so successful. Last week on, I think, 19 April, we discovered from The Guardian and other papers that Brigadier Malcolm Wood, who is responsible in Whitehall for co-ordinating the role of the armed forces, said:

  7
  "I don't think any of us doubt that we should have been called in earlier".
  When I was looking over the 1968 recommendations, the previous report made the situation crystal clear. It said:
  "but military assistance … should be accepted as early in the outbreak as possible … the earlier the military can be called in, the better."
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to tell us why it took nearly a month from the original outbreak for the armed forces to be deployed.
  Mr. Hoon: I have studied carefully the account of the 1967 outbreak and have told the House that the circumstances then were different, not least because of the considerable number of animal movements across the country before this outbreak was detected. The hon. Gentleman is not right to suggest that it took a month before members of the armed forces were involved in dealing with the outbreak. They advised and assisted early on. He continues to pursue his argument because he confuses the presence of the armed forces behind the scenes, in which they gave advice on logistics, with their public participation, which became necessary when the scale of the outbreak became known. Since then, members of the armed forces have been involved in extensive work to combat the disease, which they will continue to carry out.

  Compensation
  Miss Anne McIntosh: How much his Department has paid in compensation to ex-service men in each of the past five years. [156931]
  Mr. Tim Boswell: How many compensation claims are outstanding against his Department. [156933]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The Ministry of Defence claims database does not distinguish between claims from former and serving members of the armed forces. The total amount of compensation paid to serving and former service personnel in each of the past five years was £20.5 million in 1996–97, £30.2 million in 1997–98, £37.4 million in 1998–99, £40.9 million in 1999–2000 and £47.9 million in 2000–01. The last figure is provisional and subject to final validation.
  There are 8,570 claims outstanding against the Ministry of Defence. Of those, 2,092 are third party motor claims, 1,981 are service personnel employer's liability and 1,451 are civilian employer's liability. A total of 2,341 of those outstanding claims are from serving and former service personnel.
  Miss McIntosh: I am grateful for those figures, which prove that there is a culture of political correctness and a creeping tendency towards compensation claims in the armed forces, placing officers and those who serve under them in an extremely difficult position. Does the Minister agree that the legal liability under which the MOD will pay compensation has increased under this Government
  8
  since we signed up to the European convention on human rights, and that it would increase yet again if we agreed to join an international criminal court?
  Dr. Moonie: What I can confirm is that the number of outstanding complaints has remained relatively constant over the past four years, which would suggest that what the hon. Lady asserts is not the case. The major change came about in 1987, when we accepted full liability for compensation issues. Clearly, court decisions on human rights will have some effect on numbers as rights are established or not. Overall, however, we expect the number of outstanding claims to decrease over time as the time scales for case management introduced by the 1999 civil justice reforms take effect.
  Mr. Boswell: In light of my hon. Friend's comments, will the Minister not acknowledge that the numbers are going up and that there is a prevailing climate of litigiousness and political correctness? It is essential that Ministers give no signal whatever that it is open season for compensation claims. Will he assure the House that risks will be properly and professionally managed, that claims will be handled tightly but not unfairly and that, wherever possible, losses will be mitigated through effective rehabilitation?
  Dr. Moonie: I have already said that the number of outstanding claims has remained constant over the past four years, so that deals with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. With regard to rights, I do not see anything wrong in serving members of the armed forces, male or female, having the same rights as any other citizen in this society. We manage our claims very carefully. Where there is clearly a liability to pay compensation, we do so, and where there is not, we defend our position vigorously.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: May I ask about compensation claims arising from active service, particularly in relation to Sierra Leone? Ten members of 1 and 2 Para returned from Sierra Leone with malaria and had not been given tablets before they left, but the Ministry of Defence is giving compensation to only one of them. Why are the Government expecting the other nine to go through the courts to get their compensation? Will the 100-plus other troops who have come back from Sierra Leone with that debilitating disease be given compensation?
  Dr. Moonie: The answer to the second question is no. The answer to the other is that 17 claims were made against us. We feel that we clearly have liability in one case because the person was not treated until after four or five days in theatre. In all the other cases, treatment was started prior to deployment, despite what has been said to the contrary, and we will not be paying compensation.

  Army Manpower
  Mr. John Bercow: When the Army will reach its full manning strength. [156932]
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The Army remains firmly committed to achieving full manning by 2005. Although the current

  9
  strength figures pose a very significant challenge to achieving that target, work is in hand across a wide range of initiatives.
  Mr. Bercow: That was a risible response. With the Army 8,000 under strength and the extremely worrying slippage in the target date for full manning highlighted by the Select Committee on Defence, which concluded that insufficient energy and imagination were being applied to the task, why can the Minister not see that what he needs to do is tell the House whether he agrees with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in rejecting full manning? If the Minister is not big enough to stand up to the Chief Secretary, why does he not make way for my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who certainly is?
  Mr. Spellar: I do not think that I should trade sizeist comments with the hon. Gentleman. Boomerangs are probably not the best choice of weapon that he could make in that respect.
  The hon. Gentleman should accept that part of the reason for the gap between trained strength and liability is that we raised the level of liability: in the strategic defence review, we considered what the post-cold war requirement was, rather than stick to the previous figures. There was a gap of 7,736 in 1992, under the previous Administration, and when we came into power the gap was 5,597. His criticism of the Army recruitment teams is misplaced—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) must let the Minister answer.
  Mr. Spellar: It is heroic to have achieved the current recruitment numbers in the face of the lowest unemployment for 25 years and the 1 million extra jobs owed to excellent management of the economy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That does not mean that we are complacent. As I said, there are a number of initiatives under way, many of which are bearing fruit. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should recognise that recruiting in the face of full employment is always more difficult than in the conditions of unemployment that the Conservative Government left us.
  Mr. Russell Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the range of measures introduced since 1997, including the service families taskforce and the recent announcement on service accommodation, will go a long way towards making life in the armed forces more attractive to recruits? Do they not clearly demonstrate the Government's commitment to overcoming the very difficult conditions for recruitment seen under the previous Government—
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Oh, so it is our fault is it?
  Mr. Brown: There is no doubt that we have taken major strides forward while Conservatives have merely thrown bricks and barracked.
  Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that. He is right, not so much about recruitment, although such measures have an impact in that respect, as about retention of experienced and trained members of the forces.
  10
  The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) asks whether it was the Conservatives' fault. The answer is yes, it was, to a significant extent. The Conservatives mismanaged the adjustment at the end of the cold war and considerably overshot the number of troops they forced out of the armed forces. The best advert for the armed forces is someone who goes back home and says what a good time he is having and what a worthwhile job he is undertaking as a member of those forces. The worst possible adverts were people who had thought that they had a career in the armed forces, but were made compulsorily redundant under the previous Government. The previous Administration sent a clear message that the Army was no longer recruiting, and it has been the subject of a major and successful effort by our recruitment teams to turn around that message and make it clear that we are open for recruitment and open for business.
  Mr. Martin Bell: Is the Minister aware that some infantry regiments are spending up to £40,000 of privately raised money on their recruitment? Should not that be the Government's responsibility and not theirs?
  Mr. Spellar: We are spending considerable sums on recruitment. Individual regiments rightly and proudly undertake a lot of their own recruitment work, as they want to ensure that their personnel are as well recruited as possible. That is a traditional activity. We need to read across from the successes of some regiments in order to learn the lessons and to spread them to other regiments. A significant amount of work is being done to spread best practice in that regard.
  Mr. Robert Key: Neither the Minister nor my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) need be sensitive about size. I am sure that we could arrange for the signing of a compact against sizeism in the forthcoming election. The problem with his figures is that they do not add up. Nobody doubts the success and determination of the adjutant-general's department in respect of recruitment and retention; indeed, they are beyond doubt. The problem is not that the Ministry of Defence lacks commitment, but that the Treasury lacks it. We have heard that there is a shortfall of 8,000 troops, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that it would cost £1.3 billion pounds to fill it. At the same time, however, the defence budget continues to fall as a percentage of gross domestic product. That is the problem. Will the Minister commit himself, and say that there will be no further reductions in county regiments, old regiments afoot, the Lancers or the Royal Tank Regiment? Will there be no further cuts?
  Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is weightier than his arguments. The situation is limited by the ability to recruit. We have had success in that respect, although there have been some retention difficulties. The measures that I outlined just now, and which we have announced previously, have improved matters, but circumstances are extremely difficult, as high employment—we have the lowest unemployment for 25 years—is a major challenge to recruiting. Our people are rising to that challenge, however, and all who meet the standard are being recruited into the armed forces. That is welcome and that effort is being properly funded. If he goes out into the

  11
  streets of Salisbury to urge more youngsters to join the armed forces, as I hope that he will, they will be recruited and properly funded.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: By how many the Territorial Army is under strength; and if he will make a statement. [156934]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The latest available official figures show that the Territorial Army is under strength by 520 personnel.
  Mr. Waterson: May I inform the Minister that, like many other hon. Members, I visited my excellent local TA signals unit in Eastbourne during the recent TA open day? Does he agree that the morale of the extremely committed men and women in the TA is potentially undermined by the fact that the Government have cut the TA during the current Parliament, but are requiring ever greater service from serving TA members, to a level that has never been required in the past?
  Dr. Moonie: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed visiting his local TA unit. I enjoyed a similar visit a couple of weeks ago. The current TA bears little relation to that of 10 years ago. It is a far leaner organisation and is far better fitted to the tasks that we want it to perform than it was when it had the rather inappropriate structure which we were bequeathed. I am confident that the organisation will continue to go from strength to strength, especially as we have just started a recruitment campaign to encourage people to join it.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: When I met the commanding officer of the Royal Monmouthshire Engineers last week, he did not tell me that his regiment was under strength. However, he informed me that certain members of the regiment had volunteered individually to help in dealing with the foot and mouth crisis, and that the local information centre for the crisis, which was set up by the Welsh Assembly, had been housed at the regimental headquarters in Monmouth. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the work of the regiment in supporting our farmers at this time?
  Dr. Moonie: Yes, I certainly shall. We are grateful for the role that reservists play in joining up with units for a period of service, especially with regard to the work that they are doing on foot and mouth. Currently, almost 500 volunteer and regular reservists are called out on operational duties. I can only say how much we appreciate their efforts on our behalf.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: What recent discussions he has had with his French and German counterparts on the proposed European rapid reaction force. [156935]
  Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the European security and defence policy. [156936]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I regularly meet my French and German counterparts to discuss a range of defence matters. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary attended the European Union Defence Ministers' informal meeting in Brussels on 6 April. European security and defence policy was discussed on that occasion.
  Our efforts are focused on delivering the headline goal to improve the military capabilities available to the European Union and NATO. Nations identified initial contributions to that goal last November. We are now engaged in the detailed analysis of the required improvements and the action needed to effect them.
  Mr. Robathan: Did the Under-Secretary tell the Secretary of State that it was revealed at the meeting in Brussels that the German Government, who have a deficit of £1 billion in their defence budget, would be unable to fulfil their commitment to provide 18,000 troops to the European defence force? Would the Secretary of State like to comment on the remarks of the French Chief of General Staff who said that NATO and the European defence force would be entirely separate? The Secretary of State has denied that; nevertheless, it is the case. Furthermore, the American Secretary of State—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State has got the drift.
  Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) stands in any forthcoming elections to the Bundestag, he will be able to ask the German Defence Minister those questions. However, I have already dealt with the other matter fully. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are committed to improving European military capabilities.
  Mr. Paterson: The Secretary of State says that he has dealt with the question fully. What does he say to General Gustav Hagglund, who is in charge of the rapid reaction force, and who claimed that we were considering not a subsidiary of NATO but an independent body? What about the comments at the weekend of a German defence spokesman, who said that the proposed European air transport command would "operate independently from NATO"? Can the Secretary of State spin his way out of that?
  Mr. Hoon: Another Member of Parliament seems anxious to join the Bundestag. As to the highly speculative accounts in certain newspapers, which are fuelled by the shadow Secretary of State, I stress that members of the RAF will remain firmly under British control.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: On the question of deployment, does my right hon. Friend agree that any premature referendum in Montenegro could destabilise

  13
  the whole region? If conflict spilled into Montenegro, who would be deployed as peacekeepers: NATO or the rapid reaction force?
  Mr. Hoon: Montenegro's relations with the former republic of Yugoslavia are a matter for Montenegro, not the British Secretary of State for Defence. Arrangements for KFOR to be deployed in Kosovo have already been made. They will continue unless and until its presence is no longer required.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: While I have no present plans to stand for election to the United States Congress, may I ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has noted that a series of influential, experienced and pro-British American statesmen have said that the European rapid reaction force poses a serious threat to the future of NATO and to the American commitment to the defence of Europe?
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman would have to hold US citizenship for 20 years before he could stand for Congress. I am sure that he has time for that. If he were elected, he would find a range of opinions there, as in any democratic country. There are some who are critical of improvements in European capabilities; however, in my experience, there are more who support the efforts of European nations to be more responsible for their security and thus less dependent on the United States taxpayer.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: When listening to the Secretary of State, I am led to wonder whether he has not already sought election to the Bundestag. We never get an answer to a straight question. When the remarks of any Government are quoted, the Secretary of State simply says, "Well, that's their opinion". They are also the opinions to which he signed up.
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could comment on the proposals from the Germans and others for the joint transport command, reported in various newspapers. When questions on that point were put to the Ministry of Defence over the weekend and today, the Secretary of State's spokesman—or probably the Secretary of State himself, as he does not much like quotes being attributed to him—said that he was unaware of such proposals. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is unaware of such proposals or not?
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman's kneejerk prejudices on European questions are well known. I have already made it clear in relation to those reports that the RAF and its equipment will remain firmly under British control. That is an answer to his question, and if it is the answer that he was seeking, perhaps he will accept it. The proposals that have been made over a long period for improving the co-ordination of European forces—not simply of air forces but of navies and of armed forces on the ground—have been well known to anyone who has followed this debate closely. I assume, given the hon. Gentleman's objections to this kind of co-operation, that
  14
  if he had been Defence Secretary in either 1914 or 1939, he would have refused to allow British forces to co-operate alongside their then European allies.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State is again attempting to use smooth words with nothing behind them. The reality is that he knows about this matter only too well. His spokesman told the newspapers yesterday that he was unaware of any such proposals, but the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that Rudolf Scharping has been proposing this for some time: right back into 1999, at which time the right hon. Gentleman was fully aware of it.
  Will the Secretary of State tell us what is different about the situation now? He knows that these are proposals not just for co-operation but for a unified force, in exactly the same way as the Euro army proposals are. The Secretary of State should face up to what he has committed this country to, and admit now that the Government begin to deny, they deny more, then they sign the documents and pretend that they have not signed them: what a falsehood they put on us.
  Mr. Hoon: I mentioned 1914 and 1939. Perhaps I should bring the hon. Gentleman more up to date. There was co-ordination and co-operation among air forces in the bombing campaign over Serbia, which was conducted effectively by a combined allied operation. That has been the history of aerial warfare throughout the past century. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that it is in the interests of all European armed forces to be able to work more effectively together, and that he does not accept that—I say this for the third time today—the RAF, its personnel and its equipment will remain under British control.

  Defence Contracts (North-East)
  Mr. Jim Cousins: How many civilian jobs in the north-east of England he has (a) created and (b) safeguarded by the awarding of defence contracts since the completion of the defence review. [156938]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Approximately 350,000 jobs are dependent on defence expenditure and equipment exports. More than 60,000 new contracts are placed each year and the Ministry of Defence does not record the number of jobs created or safeguarded as a result of each individual procurement decision. As my hon. Friend will know, in March of this year the Ministry of Defence confirmed a contract worth £250 million with Vickers Defence Systems for the supply of 66 specialist Challenger-based engineer tanks. That will help to sustain all 500 jobs at its Newcastle plant and up to another 1,000 jobs among UK sub-contractors.
  Mr. Cousins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts. I also congratulate the Minister for Defence Procurement on her unfailing helpfulness and courtesy to north-east Members of Parliament when they pursue these issues. However, my hon. Friend will be aware of the very difficult situation facing shipbuilding workers in the north-east, which is part of the fallout resulting from the difficulties of the Cammell Laird group. Is he also

  15
  aware that, whereas one in 10 members of the military forces in the United Kingdom is recruited from the north-east, only one in 200 of civilian MOD employees is located there? Is my hon. Friend giving his attention to these matters, and will he offer any prospects for assistance?
  Dr. Moonie: I am well aware that areas such as the north-west and north-east, which supply the largest percentage of our recruits in England, suffer when it comes to the deployment of Ministry of Defence jobs. It is our policy where possible to devolve jobs away from the south-east to other regions, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will do all that I can to ensure that that happens.
  We are also well aware of the problems that Cammell Laird is experiencing. We support the receiver's aim for RFA Argus to be completed at Birkenhead, and have agreed on a system whereby that can be done. We are also in discussions with the receiver on the best options for the company's contract for work on RFA Fort George, which is due to arrive at the yard on the other side—rather than the north-east—on 7 May. It is, however, too early to speculate on the outcome.
  I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing all we can to support our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, and their efforts to find a solution to the problems of Cammell Laird.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: What the Minister did not say about Cammell Laird is that the company had hoped for a considerable amount of work in connection with ro-ro ferries—work that the Government have placed in Germany. Is that not a betrayal of hundreds of workers in the north-west and north-east of England?
  Dr. Moonie: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the contract for the ro-ro ferries encompasses their management and service over their lifetime, as well as their construction, which represents a very small part of the total value of the contract. It has been let to Weir, the British company that will control it.
  We spent a great deal of time and effort on the contract. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the yards are not subsidised. We sought best value for money throughout, and we believe that as a consequence we achieved the best solution.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on the contributions of British forces to security and training in Sierra Leone. [156939]
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on the armed forces' deployment in Sierra Leone. [156944]
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): British troops are in Sierra Leone to assist the democratically elected Government to establish effective and accountable armed forces. We have between 550 and 600 troops on the ground in Sierra Leone at any time. They constitute the United Kingdom's contribution to the international military advisory and training team, soldiers
  16
  providing the short-term training teams, and a brigade headquarters. The short-term training team commitment has recently been taken on by 2 Battalion The Light Infantry, which succeeds 2 Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles. As I announced in January, we will continue to provide the training teams at least until September this year.
  In January we deployed a field surgical team to cover the gap in medical facilities caused by the roulement of the UN medical facilities.
  Mr. Gapes: Will my hon. Friend send a message of support from the House to our soldiers and other personnel, whom I have seen doing an excellent job in Sierra Leone?
  How is progress being made towards the establishment of the international military advisory training team with the Canadians and others? What proposals have the Government for the strengthening of the Sierra Leone Government's control over its territory, enabling that Government to taken more and more territory away from the Revolutionary United Front and the appalling activities of those terrorist thugs?
  Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the excellent job being done. It is a great advantage that a number of Members from all parts of the House have been able to visit Sierra Leone, and to see that work being undertaken. It has also given considerable encouragement to the troops.
  A number of countries are already participating in the IMATT, and, again, excellent work is being undertaken for the training of the Sierra Leone army. We have been strengthening the headquarters of UNAMSIL—the United Nations mission to Sierra Leone—so that it, and the Sierra Leone army, can establish normality in the country.
  Mr. Mackinlay: How many United Kingdom forces personnel, including our special forces—police, security and intelligence services—have been killed during their deployment in Sierra Leone, or as a consequence of that deployment?
  Mr. Spellar: According to my recollection, one member of the Paratroop Regiment was killed in an extremely successful operation to rescue some of our forces—an operation that was widely remarked on not just in the House, but across the world.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Minister said that the short-term training commitment would last until at least September this year. When does he expect the Sierra Leone Government to be able to achieve normality in that country, which I presume means the defeat of the RUF? Will he confirm that it is only then that our troops will be able to come home?
  Mr. Spellar: Our forces are there primarily in the training role. Obviously, it will be a matter of assessing the capability of the Sierra Leonean Army and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies, success on the ground. It is a little difficult to predict a time scale on that.

  Defence Policy Priorities
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What representations he has received on his amendments to defence policy priorities since the strategic defence review; and if he will make a statement. [156942]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): There have been no fundamental changes in the Government's defence policy priorities since the strategic defence review was published in July 1998. However, the Government recognise the need to adapt to a changing world. That is why, for example, we recently updated our strategic analysis and published the results in two publications: "Defence Policy 2001" and "The Future Strategic Context for Defence."
  I have had discussions concerning the strategic defence review and our defence policy priorities with a wide range of people and received and responded to many representations on those defence policies.
  Mrs. Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Given its significant potential contribution, what steps have the Government taken to develop their policy of multinational defence co-operation? In particular, does my right hon. Friend see any further scope for the development of co-operation between the Royal Navy and the navies of allied countries?
  Mr. Hoon: Clearly, there is strong potential for further effective co-operation between the Royal Navy and the navies of other countries. We could, for example, build on the success of the French ship attachments to the United Kingdom and Royal Navy involvement in French exercises—building on work set out by the last Conservative Secretary of State for Defence. We can improve the interoperability of our Navy further through joint exercises. Opportunities are provided by membership of the five powers defence arrangement for regular joint exercises and training with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore. We are also seeking to develop closer co-operation on amphibious issues with France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the SDR priorities was to recruit all three services up to strength and to provide 3,000 extra men for the Army? Will he further confirm that every category of regular personnel except naval officers lost numbers during the previous fiscal year; that premature voluntary release is at a 10-year high; that medical downgrading is at almost its historic peacetime high; that the addresses of over a third of the regular reserve have been lost; that officer recruiting for the Territorial Army has collapsed; and that the royal naval reserve is also losing numbers fast? It is time that the Secretary of State thought again a little about his personnel policy options.
  Mr. Hoon: What I can confirm is that the Government remain committed to the force levels set out in the strategic defence review, but that, in a strong economy, we recognise that retention is an issue with which we have to deal. We are putting considerable administrative effort into improving retention levels. Notwithstanding the strong economy, recruitment is proceeding satisfactorily and many young people see the armed forces as an
  18
  attractive way of life, particularly given the activities in which the armed forces are currently engaged. There is a matching up between the advertisements and the reality of life in service.

  Female Soldiers
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: What recent assessment he has made of the fighting capabilities of female soldiers. [156946]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): A review of the employment of women in the armed forces is currently in progress. I expect to receive advice on its conclusions later this year.
  Mr. Swayne: What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the criteria against which female soldiers will be measured are not watered down, to the detriment of our operational capabilities?
  Mr. Hoon: The review that is being conducted is extremely thorough. It comprises a wide-ranging review of scientific literature. There is an attitude survey, a field trial looking at team dynamics and assessments from each of the three services, but I emphasise that operational effectiveness will be the deciding question. We will not allow any decision to be taken that in any way compromises the operational effectiveness, the combat effectiveness, of our armed forces.

  Army Manpower
  Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on Army manpower. [156947]
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): As at 1 March 2001, whole Army strength stood at 100,199, a shortfall against the currently assessed post-strategic defence review requirement of around 8,000. The Army remains firmly committed to achieving full manning by 2005 and work is in hand across a very wide range of initiatives.
  Mr. Brady: The Secretary of State said a few moments ago that recruitment to the Army was progressing satisfactorily. Does the Minister understand that the real problem is retention within the Army? Is not the failure of this Government to make the Army and the other services an attractive career the real reason why the Defence Committee says that it will be 2008 before the target is reached?
  Mr. Spellar: It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman prepared his question before hearing the earlier replies, which made it clear that retention had improved considerably, not least because of the considerable measures that we have undertaken to improve the quality of service life. Much of that was needed to address the significant problems that had built up in the 18 years of Conservative Government, not least the question of accommodation. Equally, we must recognise that recruitment and retention are taking place against a background of a strong economy, in which unemployment is at its lowest level for 25 years, there are 1 million extra jobs and a considerable number

  19
  of youngsters are going into tertiary education. The recruitment teams for the Army and other services are performing a magnificent job in bringing youngsters into the armed forces, but they are not complacent, and additional work is being undertaken to improve recruitment at all levels. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, along with his colleagues, will be going to local schools to urge youngsters seriously to consider the armed forces as a good career prospect.

  Russia
  Dr. Vincent Cable: What discussions he has had with the US Administration about threats posed to western security by Russia. [156948]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have had discussions with the US Administration on a wide range of defence items, including threats to western security. The 1999 NATO strategic concept made clear that Russia was not currently regarded as a threat and that
  "a strong, stable and enduring partnership between NATO and Russia is essential to achieve lasting stability in the Euro-Atlantic area".
  Dr. Cable: Does the Secretary of State share the increasingly sceptical and hostile attitude of the Bush Administration to Russia on proliferation, espionage and other matters, or does he feel that there is an opportunity to strengthen our relations with Russia under the common European Union framework?
  Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear that, under the framework of NATO, we support NATO's 1999
  20
  conclusion that efforts should be made to secure a strong, stable and enduring partnership between NATO and Russia.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Dr. Julian Lewis: What representations he has received concerning the European security and defence policy. [156955]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
  Dr. Lewis: I am delighted that the Secretary of State has referred me to his earlier answers, because that enables me to point out how inadequate they were. Is it not a fact that senior American politicians, the Finnish general in charge of the European rapid reaction force and the French Chief of the Defence Staff—who has not, incidentally, modified or retracted anything he said, despite the earlier predictions by the Secretary of State—have made it perfectly clear that the ERRF is to operate outside, not inside, the NATO structure? Will he now stop his waffle about the need to co-operate with our European allies—which we all support, within NATO—and set our doubts at rest? Is not what is being proposed the building of something outside NATO which will undermine NATO—something of which our American allies are becoming increasingly aware?
  Mr. Hoon: We have now had experience of two American Administrations, and both have made it clear that they support efforts by European nations to improve their military capabilities because by doing so they contribute to the success of NATO. We have made it clear that we regard the development of any improved European capabilities as a contribution to NATO.

Rural Taskforce
3.30 pm
Mr. Archie Norman(by private notice): To ask the Minister for the Environment if he will make a statement on the work of the rural taskforce with regard to the foot and mouth crisis.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): It became clear, soon after the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease began, that the disease and the restrictions that were introduced to control its spread would have implications for the rural economy that went well beyond the agricultural sector. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister therefore asked me to set up the rural taskforce with a remit to consider the implications of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease for the rural economy, both immediately and in the longer term, and to report to him on appropriate measures.
The taskforce includes all the Government Departments involved, the devolved Administrations and experienced members from the private and voluntary sectors, including the rural business and tourism sectors, farmers and representatives of rural communities. It first met on 14 March. There have been four further meetings so far, and the next meeting will take place on Wednesday. I am extremely grateful for the hard work and dedication that the members of the taskforce have put in and for the practical common sense that they have shown in discussing the issues.
The taskforce's work covers both short-term measures to alleviate the hardship that so many people and businesses are facing and measures to aid the speediest possible return to normality. I shall remind the House of measures that have already been announced, starting with the measures to assist businesses to weather the immediate problems.
First, I have announced a number of measures to provide relief from business rates. They include increased Government funding, from 75 per cent. to 95 per cent., to enable local authorities to offer hardship rate relief to businesses in rural areas, targeted at businesses below £12,000 rateable value, and offering reductions of up to £1,290 over a three-month period. A further measure is the deferment, by three months, of the deadline for business rate appeals in rural areas.
Rural businesses will also be, helped by the Government's legislation to extend mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief to all food shops in small rural settlements, and that legislation will also provide a transitional, five-year, 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief for new enterprises on former agricultural land. At the same time, recent regulations have extended 50 per cent. rate relief to sole village pubs and garages with a rateable value of less than £9,000. We have also arranged that when a rural local authority agrees to defer payments my Department will in turn defer the payments that the authority is due to make to the national rate pool. The Valuation Office will consider applications from businesses for a reduction in their rateable value to take account of the impact of foot and mouth disease.
Secondly, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise will take a sympathetic approach to requests for deferral or extended time to pay for tax and national insurance contributions, especially for rural businesses in agriculture,
22
transport and tourism, and related retail businesses. Thirdly, the major banks have made it clear that they will, on a case-by-case basis, consider mechanisms such as extended lines of credit, capital repayment holidays and other measures. Fourthly, we have extended the types of business that can apply for loans up to £250,000 under the small firms loan guarantee scheme.
Fifthly, I announced a further £15 million for regional development agencies to help rural businesses in the worst hit areas. Sixthly, to help those who have lost work because of foot and mouth, the Benefits Agency has announced that it will provide quick assessment of applications for jobseeker's allowance from such applicants, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has announced a skills boost package to ease the impact of foot and mouth disease on jobs.
Finally, the Government have pledged to match public donations to rural charities, to help to address cases of severe hardship and to provide support for organisations responding to rural stress. The scheme is being administered by the Countryside Agency and will apply to personal donations, including the generous donations of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Westminster.
Everyone agrees, I think, that the key to recovering from the serious economic effects of the disease is to get back to normality as quickly as possible. That is why the taskforce has put a lot of effort into ensuring that the message that most of the country can be safely visited is widely understood. Its work has led to a number of advertisements under the auspices of both the Government and other key organisations, to explain the position to the general public and encourage people to go and enjoy the many facilities that are open.
The Countryside Agency will also make available grants of £3.8 million to help local authorities to open their footpaths. Further advertising by tourism organisations is being promoted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced additional support of £6 million for the English Tourism Council and the British Tourist Authority to get the message across that Britain is open for business.
That all adds up to a total package for immediate practical help for the rural economy of more than £200 million, but that is not the end of the story: there is a great deal more to do, especially in considering longer-term measures to help to get the rural economy moving when the disease has been dealt with. I look forward to further meetings of the taskforce to advance that important work.
Mr. Norman: We welcome the Minister's response. Let me remind the House of the chronology of the crisis. The first outbreak of foot and mouth was reported on 20 February, and it took nearly four weeks to form the rural taskforce. The rate relief measures to which the Minister referred were announced a month after the outbreak, and the loan guarantee scheme for affected businesses was announced on 6 April.
When the Minister last made a statement to the House, about a month ago, on the measures to be taken, he described them as a preliminary package. We welcomed them, as far as they went, at that stage, but it is now clear that the impact of foot and mouth on rural businesses is

23
at least as severe as we all feared at that time. It is reported that, over Easter, there was a 70 per cent. drop in bookings in the Yorkshire dales; a 40 per cent. fall in rural Cumbria; and a 35 per cent. decline in business in rural Devon.
Although the number of reported cases of infection has now reduced, the crisis is far from over for business. Indeed, it is reported that since Easter the level of bookings in most rural tourism areas has declined still further. The British Hospitality Association estimates that the total loss from overseas visitors alone will be £3 billion, with a further £2 billion from domestic tourism.
Some businesses are already on the point of closure. Indeed, some have closed, including small abattoirs, such as Lamberhurst abattoir in Kent. If ever there was an emergency in a business sector, it is now. If ever there was a need for a generous, speedy and decisive Government response, it is now. For those businesses, the acid test of the Government's response is whether cash is hitting the bank account, as we said a month ago. It is not whether there are high-profile ministerial visits, but whether those businesses are being enabled to survive the crisis. The question, therefore, is whether the Government's response today, which contained no new proposals and no new money, is generous and long lasting.
The Minister says that the rural taskforce has met four times in about six weeks. Will he tell us when it last met and reassure us that it will continue to meet throughout the duration of the crisis? Will he reassure us that he will continue to come to the House to report on the progress that it has achieved and the extent to which the £200 million package to which he referred has been dispensed to small businesses? While he is about it, will he confirm his previous, very helpful, statement that there will be a formal public inquiry into the crisis? What will the terms of reference be, and when do the Government plan to announce the details of the inquiry?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the rate relief package. He will be aware that many rural businesses consider the Government's arrangements woefully inadequate, on two counts. First, the rateable value ceiling of £12,000 excludes many—if not, in some areas, most—rural businesses. It seems to many businesses miserly compared with the £50,000 limit in Scotland and Wales. The difference between those two limits is, for many, inexplicable. In the south lakeland area alone, it is reported that a quarter to a third of all businesses, and a half of all tourism businesses, are ineligible for the scheme. Indeed, quite small hotels and bed-and-breakfast businesses will not qualify under the £12,000 limit.
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many district councils are unable to afford the remaining 5 per cent. of rate relief? Indeed, the costs of administration and other costs imposed on them by the foot and mouth crisis mean that large increases in council tax are already looming in those areas. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, as we have proposed, introducing rate relief of 100 per cent. and providing extra support for those councils worst affected, or does he believe that council taxpayers should bear the cost of the crisis for years to come?
24
On the loan guarantee scheme, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the absolute fury expressed by many small businesses at the 8.75 per cent. interest rate to be charged? That seems extortionate in the light of the fact that many can borrow more cheaply than that through their own bank account or overdraft. How much money has been extended through the scheme and how many businesses, if any, have benefited specifically, or is the scheme a smokescreen for the fact that the Government are unable to offer any realistic long-term support? Will the Minister discuss with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), the possibility of bringing into force the interest-free scheme that we proposed some four weeks ago?
The third area of support is marketing support for tourism. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the reasons for the Government's parsimonious approach to support for tourism? If ever there was a time to promote Britain abroad generously, on a long-lasting basis, it is now. Yet the English Tourism Council has been granted only an extra £4 million, compared, we understand, with an extra £5 million being spent in Scotland. The British Tourist Authority put in a bid for £20 million in support but has received only £2 million. If ever there was a time to take decisive action to market Britain, it is now. We have proposed giving a £10 million grant to the English Tourism Council and doubling the BTA's budget. Can the Minister say whether he is prepared to consider those proposals or why the Government have made such an ungenerous response?
The environmental effects of burning carcases have been much reported in the media. We welcome the Minister's recognition this morning on the "Today" programme that there is no risk-free option for disposal, and we share that view. Does he accept, however, that the widespread concern across the country has resulted from a lack of reassurance to date? Does he accept that if the Environment Agency had been more forthcoming in identifying sites for burial, and if the Government had been quicker in introducing more on-site farm burial—as we recommended and as was recommended following the inquiry into the 1967 outbreak—the problem would not have been as great as it has been?
The Minister last made a statement to the House on 20 March, and we hope that this will not be the last time we hear from him. Does he agree that what he then called a preliminary package should indeed have been so? That statement should have been the first of a series of bold announcements to tackle the crisis decisively and communicate action effectively.
Since then, however, we have had a flurry of high-profile ministerial visits and an awful lot of public relations, but very little money for most businesses. For businesses suffering under the threat of bankruptcy and deeply worried about the future, the Government's response has been parsimonious to the point of penny-pinching, confused in communication and ineffective in delivery.
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions of varying relevance. I shall try to deal with each of them.
The hon. Gentleman twice made derogatory references to ministerial visits. The visits that I and a great many Ministers have made have been extremely well received,

25
and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think it beneficial for Ministers to get into the countryside to see things for themselves and talk with whoever wants to talk to them about the situation. Perhaps he would prefer just to sit here in Westminster.
We announced our proposals on rate relief within days of the formation of the rural taskforce. Those measures were announced extremely quickly and other measures have followed ever since.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned figures suggesting that bookings for Easter were down. In some cases they were, but the Easter summary produced by the English Tourism Council estimates that business reached 70 to 80 per cent. of last year's levels. In Cumbria, attractions fared pretty well.
Mr. David Maclean: Oh!
Mr. Meacher: Even in Cumbria, 50 per cent. of attractions reported an increase in visitors. Resorts, coastal towns and cities have generally done well or very well, as have day-out attractions. The hon. Gentleman's Jeremiah picture went fairly wide of the mark.
The hon. Gentleman was anxious to say that the amount of money made available by the Government was small. As I said in my statement, it amounts to more than £200 million, and I do not think that that sum is as small as he suggested. It has been well received, and we are considering further measures.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the rural taskforce will continue to meet under my chairmanship until foot and mouth disease has been overcome, election or no election. I hope that he is content with that.
With regard to the public inquiry about which I have spoken, I should make it clear that I was honestly saying what I believe will be the case. It is, of course, a matter for the Prime Minister to announce the terms of reference, in his own time, and I am sure that he will do so.
On the £12,000 rateable value threshold and the 5 per cent. payment by rural authorities, the hon. Gentleman asked a genuine question, as opposed to some of the political points that he made. We are aware of complaints that that is insufficient. We have asked the Local Government Association to provide the evidence to justify those allegations. We asked some time ago—
Mr. Maclean rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to catch my eye, but his chances will diminish if he keeps interrupting the Minister.
Mr. Meacher: We requested the Local Government Association, some time ago, to give us the information by the end of today—we shall make a decision on that basis.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) asked how many firms have used the small firms local guarantee scheme. The Small Business Service has received more than 400 inquiries relating to foot and mouth disease compared with a normal inquiry rate of 40 a day. More than 700 applications for information had been received about a week ago—the number is certainly more now.
26
With regard to the £6 million boost for tourism, perhaps the best way to answer is to quote the comments of Edwin Griffin of Meeting Planners International from the United States. After visiting this country at the invitation of the British Tourist Authority, he said:
"Our media has distorted the true picture—a disservice to the public by not properly informing them. It was good to see the unaffected farm life in comparison to those TV reports. I will be telling my 20,000 members to investigate for themselves what Britain can offer."
I think that money was extremely well spent.
Lastly, on the question of pyres, I made it clear this morning that the Government's first priority is—and remains—to maximise the use of rendering, of incineration in properly controlled industrial plant and of burial in registered landfill sites. I am very interested to note that the preference of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is for on-site farm burial. Let me tell him that the place where 160,000 carcases are not yet disposed of is Devon, so his solution is totally unworkable because of the high levels of the water table there. Our proposals are the only practical option.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I welcome my right hon. Friend's opening remarks; his words will be read by many people in my constituency. Despite two good days at Easter, the tourism industry in the west of the Lake district is really in crisis. We had stage 1 a month ago—my right hon. Friend referred to it. May we have stage 2—not compensation, but financial support, highly targeted, to help people who really are suffering?
I witnessed the work of the taskforce last Thursday—the proceedings were excellent. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the taskforce to take evidence not only from local authorities and organisations identified with local authorities, but from some of the grass-roots organisations that have sprung up in these areas to represent the people who are in trouble, such as Cumbria crisis alliance in my constituency? That organisation has done some good work on small measures—inexpensive but targeted—that could be introduced and would change the fortunes of people who are in financial difficulty. Will my right hon. Friend put his weight behind the right of such organisations to give evidence to his taskforce?
Mr. Meacher: I am happy to support those measures. Looking at the evidence over Easter, we are aware that bookings and takings for many small rural businesses were much better than many had feared, but they were certainly still down. In Keswick, Ambleside and other places in my hon. Friend's constituency, takings were relatively good, but I accept that there are areas with really severe problems. I repeat that we are looking at further measures for giving practical, selected and targeted advice to help them.
I am also happy to agree that the evidence feeding into the regional development agencies comes not only from bodies such as those my hon. Friend mentioned, but from some of the smaller bodies, such as the Cumbria crisis alliance. I was impressed by the quality of the evidence that I received from many of the bodies that I visited on that day and I intend to return before long.
Mr. David Heath: On the matter of footpaths and bridleways, can the right hon.

27
Gentleman confirm that the animal health authorities' powers to close footpaths lapsed on 16 March and that some authorities are concerned that, if they reopen those footpaths, they will not be able to close them again if circumstances require that to happen?
On the publicity campaign, assuming that it did not cost £6 million to bring the group of American tour operators to Britain—a worthwhile objective in itself—will the right hon. Gentleman tell us to what extent there has been a properly targeted marketing exercise, overseas and in this country, to encourage people to visit our rural areas again?
Has the right hon. Gentleman a conception of how broadly defined are the businesses affected by the foot and mouth disease crisis? Is he aware that they go well beyond those businesses that are directly affected by agriculture or tourism? In my constituency, I visited a garden centre, where takings are down by 80 per cent; a mower supplier, where takings are down by 60 to 70 per cent; and a marquee supplier, which is now laying off staff. Many such businesses are not in towns of fewer than 3,000 people and hence do not qualify as being in rural areas. Is he aware of the disappointment at the patchiness of the response from the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the banks, despite the encouraging statements made by him and others? Will he consider the approach taken by the utilities to those businesses?
On hardship relief and rates relief, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long the current measures will last? Why was no assessment made of how many businesses would be encompassed by a £12,000 ceiling on rateable value, or a £9,000 ceiling for garages and pubs? Many of us in rural areas think it extraordinary that that cut-off point was put in place. Will he tell us how many business rates revaluations have taken place and how quickly they are being processed?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why no date has been allocated for the Second Reading of the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill, which was presented to the House some weeks ago? Why are there no Government amendments to the Finance Bill, which will be debated today and tomorrow, to provide relief for rural areas? Does that not suggest that the Government understand neither the scale of the problem for rural businesses, nor the urgency with which measures must be taken to deal with it?
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman asks whether the powers exist to close footpaths that have been reopened. Of course, if there is justification in terms of the spread of the disease or new infections, the powers could be invoked. The Government have made a considerable effort to reopen footpaths, parks and other facilities, so we are anxious to ensure that they are not closed again, unless there is very good reason to do so in terms of the disease.
I believe that the BTA's efforts in the 12 main overseas markets are, as the hon. Gentleman says, a properly targeted exercise. The hon. Gentleman asks about the need to extend aid such as rate relief beyond immediate farm businesses. That is exactly what we propose to do for haulage and retail businesses, and it represents an extension of the existing limits on rate relief.
I should like to know about the patchiness, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, in the response of the Inland Revenue and the banks. I have made it clear that if there
28
is any evidence of that, I will certainly ensure that I, or others, speak strongly to those who have made it clear that there will be no such patchiness and that sympathy will be generally and fully displayed.
I understand that the £9,000 threshold represents an extension or increase on the current level, but we believe that it is justified; it has not been arbitrarily set. The hon. Gentleman asks how many revaluations have taken place. I cannot give him tha figure, but if we have the figure, I will certainly write to him. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point about the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill. I am very keen to see that Bill make progress, and I will certainly discuss it with my colleagues in Government.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Have my right hon. Friend and his taskforce been able to make any progress in opening footpaths, particularly in coastal areas and on arable land? Many people who have made representations to my office feel that some local authorities have shown tardiness in making progress on this important issue. Has any progress been made, either, on preserving the genetic stock of rare breeds, such as the rare hefted sheep breeds on the moors in the North York moors national park?
Mr. Meacher: I pay tribute to the work of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes). She has taken particular responsibility for getting footpaths and other facilities open and has achieved considerable success. For example, Norfolk has reopened more than half its network, Surrey has reopened a similar proportion and even Cumbria, which has been badly hit by foot and mouth, reopened more than 100 paths before Easter. British Waterways has reopened two thirds of its 1,600 mile towpath network, the Forestry Commission reopened 80 sites before Easter and hundreds of National Trust properties are now open.
Let me say, particularly to Conservative Members, that even authorities, such as Buckinghamshire, that have retained a blanket approach are now responding to public demands to review decisions on individual paths. Such authorities may or may not be playing politics with the Government, but they must understand that they certainly should not play politics with rural businesses in their areas.
We are aware that rare breeds, particularly the hefted Herdwicks on the fells, are a real issue. Those special bloodlines must be preserved and we are still considering the best way to ensure that they are.
Mr. Tom King: Is the Wales Office represented on the Minister's working party? If so, has he explained to it why he proposes to offer businesses—whether in Somerset, Devon or Cumbria—significantly worse terms of assistance than those that will be offered in Wales?
I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). It is true that seaside areas had a reasonable Easter for tourism, because some people who might have gone into the countryside or to the national parks were diverted to seaside areas. However, prospects in truly rural areas, such as the national parks, are every bit as dire as so many of us

29
feared they would be, and they continue to be so. In those circumstances, the businesses that are anxiously listening to the Minister will have received scant comfort. Interest-free loans are not a blanket measure, because particular businesses can decide whether to take them up. However, unless the Treasury understands that such loans are the only measure that will genuinely help those businesses, the true infrastructure for tourism in rural areas will be lost.
Mr. Meacher: The question of the level of rate relief and the total to which it applies is a matter for England and the devolved Administrations to decide for themselves. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that, in Wales, the relief is significantly higher, but that is a matter for the Administration there. We have judged what we believe a right and fair package to be.
The right hon. Gentleman said that certain businesses and areas are still suffering, and I am not complacent about that. I am well aware that many businesses are in a dire state. In some ways, what happened over the Easter break has eased the problem a bit. However, that is not true in some cases, and in others, businesses face the long period until Whitsun with a reduction in bookings. I entirely realise that.
The question is to decide the best way of providing help. The fastest way to give businesses help is to use the existing channels, and that is why we made £120 million additional lending available through the small firms loan guarantee scheme—[Interruption.] I am aware of the interest rate, which we are considering. However, we have extended the scheme to more businesses, including catering, retail and tourism businesses. In addition, we have given greater flexibility on repayment holidays and up to 10 years to repay. I have also met the banks, which assure me that they are taking a sympathetic approach. We will continue to consider all the options for helping businesses, including soft loan schemes, but we must be satisfied that new schemes will work quickly and are well targeted. Of course, as we have made clear, we cannot afford to fund every business.
On all the visits that I have made, and in all the meetings of the rural taskforce and with the rural development agencies, I have made it clear that we need precise, quantified evidence of the degree of need and the cost of relief. We are beginning to receive a considerable amount of information from various organisations, including the regional development agencies, which we are actively considering. I hope that we will be able to make a decision soon.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statements today and a few weeks ago reflect his ability to provide some relief because of the state of the economy, by contrast with the time when the Tories were in government—the experts in running up deficits instead of surpluses? Does he also acknowledge that I was in Parliament in 1992 when a crisis was caused in seven separate regions? Thousands of businesses went down the pan. It was not a case of 70 or 80 per cent. losses; all the shops and businesses that relied on the pits went under. Not one single penny was given by the Tory Government to help those failing businesses. Is he further aware that in Carlisle, where the current crisis is causing a big problem, the Tories called for an election for a
30
Liberal seat and the people, who are so appreciative of the money that is being provided, kicked the Tories out, beat the Liberals and Labour won the seat?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend, as so often, makes a telling point. We are all aware that the Tories are extremely good at offering large sums just before an election that they know they are going to lose and which they will not, therefore, have to meet.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, had he come to Staffordshire where there are 47 outbreaks of the disease or on an excursion to the Welsh marches with my wife and me last week, he would have been horrified by the complacency, unimaginativeness and ungenerosity of his statement, which did not begin to acknowledge the devastation in rural areas? Will he also accept that it is far more important to compensate businesses and to ensure that they survive—some of them depend on the agricultural shows that are being cancelled right, left and centre—than to go on bleating about footpaths? Does he know that, in my constituency, canal towpaths are open within 3 ft of livestock in fields, whereas playing fields in village centres are closed? There is total confusion about what is being done and he is taking a risk by encouraging the reopening of some footpaths.
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is usually a fair man, but his comments are over the top. Incidentally, I was in the Welsh marches as part of my most recent visit and I saw at first hand the situation in parts of Herefordshire and Gloucestershire. I entirely agree that some local authorities are confused even now about what can be safely opened. There is no justification for that. The guidelines set out exactly how the guidance is to be operated. The great majority of local authorities are opening not only footpaths, but parks and facilities—including, as he suggests, playing fields inside urban areas. It is ridiculous that they were ever closed, but they can certainly be reopened.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider not just any particular item in the package but the cumulative weight of all the measures to which I have referred. They amount to over £200 million, and if we add what rural development agencies and charitable bodies have offered, the total is about £220 million, which is not a small sum. I am still seeking detailed evidence on which further selective but well targeted help can be based, and the hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that.
Mr. Harry Barnes: There are 111 landfill sites in England being used for the disposal of carcases. What action has been taken to ensure that we are following European Union regulations, which say that carcases should make up only 5 per cent. of the content of such sites, with the other 95 per cent. being normal waste? That is particularly important in my constituency at the Erin void, where there is a problem because the site is right next to the communities of Duckmanton and Poolsbrook. We must ensure that not too many carcases are sent to those areas.
Mr. Meacher: The Environment Agency is responsible for ensuring that landfill sites are used in accordance with both EU and national regulations. I have no evidence that

31
that is not happening, but if there is such evidence, I will be glad to follow it up. I do not know the particular sites to which my hon. Friend referred, but if he writes to me, I will pursue the matter.
Mr. David Prior: Does the Minister agree that the foot and mouth virus could still be entering the country in imported meat products? If so, why does he not ban the importation of all meat products from countries that have the disease?
Mr. Meacher: That is one of the issues that the Government will be considering once the number of outbreaks begins steadily to reduce and we can see an end to this episode. The matter has been raised before, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will examine it closely.
Mr. Eric Martlew: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the £15 million given by the taskforce to the RDAs? It is very welcome in Cumbria, but is it the first instalment? Is he convinced that the RDAs have the mechanism for giving out the money? Will he ensure that Cumbria, the worst affected county, is treated generously when the money is distributed?
Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the package in relation to Cumbria. My discussions with the leader and the chief executive of Cumbria county council lead me to believe that it is welcome, and I am glad to hear my hon. Friend confirm that. We believe that the RDAs are the right bodies to disburse the moneys. They have had considerable success in getting to know all the stakeholders and many of the smaller businesses in their areas. They, better than central Government, can distribute money to make sure that it is maximally effective. If there is further aid, which we are considering, we certainly intend that it should be delivered through them.
Mr. John Burnett: The Minister will know that my constituency has been dreadfully affected by the foot and mouth crisis. It has had a devastating impact not only on agriculture but on every business, including those in tourism and trekking. Dartmoor, in particular, is unbelievably badly affected and has come to a standstill. I spoke just now to the chief executive of Dartmoor national park. Will the Minister please ensure that the affected area boundaries are re-examined every week and that the reasons for changing or not changing them are published? I cannot emphasise enough that it is crucial to get the countryside open as soon as possible.
Mr. Meacher: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I realise that his constituency is one of the worst affected in the country. In terms of dealing with the backlog, Devon is probably the most seriously affected area now that the backlog in Cumbria has been cleared to a large degree. I accept that Dartmoor in particular has been grievously affected.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about a regular—he says weekly—re-examination of the infected area boundaries. I shall certainly discuss that with my right
32
hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I undertake to ensure that what the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve can be achieved, perhaps by the use of some such method as he suggests.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given that the rapid disposal of mountains of carcases is crucial, have the rural taskforce or the Government been in touch with the Nevada department of agriculture at Reno or the school of veterinary medicine at the Louisiana state university at Baton Rouge, both of which have experience of the use of napalm? Is it not true that napalm will dispose of carcases in 60 minutes, whereas pyres take three days, and that because of napalm's lack of vaporising effect, its use does not give rise to the by-products, such as dioxins, that may arise from he burning of railway sleepers or old tyres?
Should not the use of napalm be considered urgently? Is the reason why it is not being considered, even though it was suggested in writing four weeks ago, the fact that there are overtones of Vietnam that might not be acceptable to the public? Given the crisis in the disposal of carcases, should we not at least think about it?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that we have not consulted the Nevada and Louisiana authorities, but I take his point. I have said that the Government's priorities in order of preference are rendering, incineration in industrial plant, and burial on registered landfill sites. Those remain our priorities.
In Devon, the only option—other than the one that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) unwisely suggested—is the use of pyres in the open field. We recognise that issues of public health are involved and we have tried to reduce dioxin emissions, as well as those of other relevant pollutants such as particulates, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide, by avoiding the use of wood treated with chlorinated agents such as lindane, large amounts of PVC on pyres, and chlorine bleaches in disinfectants. However, I have no Vietnam-related inhibitions about napalm and I am perfectly prepared to look at its use. If it can make a contribution to the—I hope—rapidly decreasing number of fires in open fields, I am happy to take it on board.
Mr. Maclean: Can the Minister not understand the seething anger in Cumbria when, with 40 per cent. of the country's cases, Cumbria—and, indeed, England—is treated as the poor relation; when we see £6 million lobbed to the tourist board across the border while peanuts are given to the Cumbria tourist board; and when we see on the Wales Office or Welsh Assembly website the boast that the rate relief given there is far more generous than that given in England? Can he not understand the mounting anger when, although the Labour-controlled county council says that we will lose £530 million by July, we get only a share of £15 million given to the RDA, which is money down the drain? Minister, we need cash now for the businesses that are being affected to save jobs now, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) suggested, not to regenerate them in six months' time.
Mr. Meacher: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity. When I came to Cumbria, I was accompanied by him and I recognised his concern for the area. In areas

33
such as Penrith and Longtown, the region has been extremely badly hit. He is wrong to suggest that sums such as £6 million have been handed over in a cavalier fashion to the British Tourist Authority or the English Tourism Council. Those sums will assist areas such as Cumbria as much as others.
I recognise that although Cumbria and Devon will get the lion's share of the latest £15 million that I mentioned earlier, that is not sufficient by itself. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say on the day of my visit—if I remember correctly, I made this comment in a meeting at Longtown and in Penrith—that I wanted detailed information and quantifiable data on the basis of which I could judge the size of package necessary to tide businesses over. I am glad to say that the Cumbria taskforce, which is a good body, has been diligent in providing that information. I repeat that we are actively considering what further aid can quickly be given in a practical and well-targeted manner.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will my right hon. Friend intensify pressure on local authorities to reopen public footpaths? At Easter, I did a good deal of walking in Devon, where far too many footpaths are still unnecessarily closed. Also, can we please have an extra bank holiday in the autumn, as has been requested by the British tourism industry?
Mr. Meacher: We are extremely keen to reopen more footpaths. I know that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, will redouble her efforts to ensure that that happens. A large number of footpaths—I am not sure whether it is a majority—have now been opened, but many that are still closed could undoubtedly safely be used. We will certainly exert pressure to ensure that the guidance and guidelines are properly adhered to. On the question of a public holiday, I said in the south-west, where I think that the idea was promulgated, that we had considered the proposal. However, it is not currently on the Government's agenda.
Mr. Eric Pickles: The Minister spoke about ways of reducing the public health risks from pyres. Today, he has been reported in various news reports as saying that the Government are monitoring the situation to establish a clear picture of how dangerous the pyres are. However, that is inconsistent with what I was told at a seminar organised for hon. Members three weeks ago, in which I asked what temperature the pyres had to reach to ensure that the virus was killed. I was told that there was a slight risk at the very beginning of the burning of a pyre, before the temperature started to rise, but that the Ministry of Defence was carrying out monitoring down wind of pyres to assess the virus and other risks. Presumably, that monitoring has been going on for a month, so surely an analysis of the health risks is now available. Will he publish the results and provide an assessment now of the health risks from pyres?
Mr. Meacher: I have already made it abundantly clear today that, although there is public health concern about dioxins, the matter must be seen in perspective. We estimate that the pyres have so far generated about 18 per cent. of the total amount—about 350 g—that is generated
34
annually in this country. That needs to be seen in proportion, as the amount is about the same as that which is produced by two bonfire nights. Of course, bonfires on Guy Fawkes night undoubtedly generate a considerable amount of dioxins. That is understood by the public. I put the matter in those terms because it is important to see it in perspective.
We will certainly publish any information that we have about the public health impacts of dioxins. We are not complacent about that and we know that there is a public health risk. We are trying to minimise that risk and we are considering the options for disposal that will produce the least risk for the public. At the same time, we must recognise that leaving carcases rotting in the fields is the worst option of all. The problem needs to be dealt with one way or another. The Holdsworthy pyre is now being monitored. All the main pollutants, including dioxins, are being monitored and we will certainly publish the results.
Mr. Nick Ainger: In Pembrokeshire, we had the best Easter for many years. One of the reasons for that was the work of the county council and the Pembrokeshire coast national park with the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales to open as many footpaths as possible before Easter. I emphasise that every footpath was opened with the full agreement of the local farmer and landowner. That needs to be replicated throughout the country. May I recommend to my right hon. Friend the advice and risk assessment that Pembrokeshire county council and the Pembrokeshire coast national park conducted? All local authorities should work with local farming organisations and tourist associations to open as many footpaths as possible.
Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and the example shown by Pembrokeshire. We are trying to achieve what he recommends. We have called together local authorities, and Government offices in every region have organised meetings with local authorities to ensure that they understand the guidance and the guidelines, and give a commitment to open footpaths, parks and other facilities as quickly as possible. I hope that his request is therefore being rapidly fulfilled.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister will have noted some scepticism in the House about the scale of the package compared with that of the problem. To enable us to judge properly, can he tell us the taskforce's current working estimate of the overall impact of the foot and mouth crisis on the rural economy in lost output? Will he explain why it is considered adequate to spend a few million pounds in 12 major markets overseas to promote the tourist industry when the Government find it necessary to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on promoting themselves in this country? They are now the largest advertiser in the country.
Mr. Meacher: The amount of money spent overseas has had a disproportionately large impact. It is therefore wrong to suggest that it was not well spent. Of course I understand that at such a time people will actively lobby their Members of Parliament for more money to be spent. However, the Government have to examine each case with great care to ensure that businesses are tided over and that due money is provided. The taxpayers provide that money and it must therefore be entirely justified.

35
The hon. Gentleman asked me for our best estimate of losses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport suggested that it is approximately £140 million a week. That is a substantial total. However, the real answer is not more Government money, however desirable that might be, but getting customers and visitors back into the countryside to spend their money in the way they wish.
Mr. John McFall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his informal contacts with the Scottish Executive to ensure that the west highland way and Loch Lomond in my constituency were open for business at Easter. The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are coming to a conference that I am organising at Loch Lomond on Friday. Two hundred businesses will attend and I look to them for maximum flexibility and good news. Despite the protests of the Scottish National party, the ministerial visit and encouragement to tour operators from north America and Europe represent money well spent. Our aim is to open the countryside. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the initiative continues?
Mr. Meacher: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. We acknowledge that some limited quantities of Government money—perhaps, depending on the evidence, more than is currently being spent—are needed. However, the best way to assist people around not only Loch Lomond but in all resorts throughout the country is not simply to throw Government money at them, but to enable people who want to experience the beautiful landscape of Scotland to see for themselves that much of the propaganda that is spread abroad is wrong. They can then take back that message, thus enabling the market to operate normally and encouraging visitors to flock in from abroad. That is beginning to happen. The money has indeed been well spent.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Minister tell the House how little money has found its way into rural businesses from his various schemes so far? The truth is that practically nothing has got through, while thousands of rural businesses are bleeding to death. Are not the Government dithering over vaccination and movement while businesses die and animals suffer?
Mr. Meacher: I know that some Members, such as the right hon. Gentleman, like to prepare their questions and come to the House to make good political points. Let me answer him. We are providing mandatory rate relief of £24 million; discretionary rate relief of £22 million; matched contributions, in regard to donations from the public, of £14 million, including £5 million from the Government; £120 million under the small firms loan guarantee scheme; a £15 million package for the four hardest hit areas; and VAT and income tax deferments that the Treasury now estimates to be worth some £12 million a year. That is solid, clear, precise and valuable assistance. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman makes a sign at me to show that he thinks that that amounts to nil. That is silly, because it amounts to a very great deal. Whether it is sufficient is a matter for
36
argument, but to suggest that it is worthless shows the childish attitude of the Opposition as we approach an election.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Those of us who represent big-city areas have rightly allowed these discussions and statements to be dominated by people such as our colleagues from Cumbria and Northumberland. However, I bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the fact that a particularly vicious and unsubstantiated smear has been widespread. It is that restaurants in Newcastle's Chinatown were one of the sources of the outbreak. That has had a substantial impact on business in Newcastle's Chinatown and on other Chinese restaurants and takeaways throughout Tyneside. They are not covered at all by his proposals or by the Government's proposals to provide relief in rural areas. Is he willing to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and me—we represent the part of Newcastle concerned—to consider how we can address the real problems that have been generated for those businesses by a vicious rumour and smear for which not a shred of evidence has been produced?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. One of the disadvantages in this kind of episode or crisis—whatever it is called—is that allegations are wildly thrown about and undoubtedly do serious damage. As he said, there is no evidence whatsoever—at least, none of which I am aware—that Chinese restaurants in the Newcastle area were responsible for the outbreak. Many other allegations have been made that are quite wrong. I read in yesterday's newspapers that deer had been widely infected with foot and mouth. Again, that is completely untrue, and it is important to correct such reports when we can. If it would help to meet my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) with a delegation to try to put this matter right, I should be happy to do so.
Mr. Brian Cotter: In response to concerns about the ceiling for relief being set at £12,000—many of us think that it should be £50,000—the Minister said that discussions would be held with the Local Government Association. When will we hear the association's response on that issue? The Government talk about a sympathetic approach to deferral of VAT. What exactly does that mean? Furthermore, when people initially rang the hotline to ask for a deferral of tax, they were told that they would have to pay 8.5 per cent. interest, although it has since been suggested that that will not be the case. Will the Minister give the House a clear statement that people in great difficulty will not be charged 8.5 per cent. interest?
Mr. Meacher: On the first question, the hon. Gentleman is right. As I said, we have asked the Local Government Association to provide us, by the end of today, with details of its view—if it is its view—of the inadequacy of the £12,000 rateable value threshold and of the 5 per cent. as well. We will certainly give a response, but it will depend on the quality of the evidence. If we are persuaded that it is true that the 5 per cent. contribution from rural local authorities and the £12,000 rateable value threshold are seriously impeding the whole purpose of the exercise—which is to bring help to needy non-farm rural businesses—we shall be prepared to look at the position again.

37
The hon. Gentleman asked about a sympathetic approach on the part of banks—or perhaps he referred to the Inland Revenue, and the VAT authorities. If documented evidence is provided relating to the level of takings, and a plausible, demonstrable case is made that that figure results from foot and mouth, the offices involved will treat the matter sympathetically, in terms of the interest rate and the speed of repayment. If that is not the case, I shall be glad to hear evidence.
As for the deferment of VAT—which was mentioned earlier—I read in the paper that an 8.5 per cent. charge was being imposed. That is completely untrue. I said in my statement that in cases of hardship the 8.5 per cent. interest rate would be waived, and that is the case.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Minister explain why Scotland and Wales, which receive all their money via Her Majesty's Treasury, can give their local authorities a far better settlement than he can give English authorities? Has it anything to do with a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer and a fairly incompetent Deputy Prime Minister?
Mr. Meacher: Leaving aside the abuse—which ill befits what is a serious question—I should say that this is a matter for devolved Administrations. One of the consequences of devolution is precisely that those Administrations make their own decisions. They spend their money—they spend their taxpayers' revenues—in the way that they choose. They have done so; they are perfectly entitled to do so; and we have done the same.

Points of Order
4.37 pm
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise the issue of the Crystal Palace Bill, presented on Tuesday 10 April, the day on which the House rose for the Easter recess. I have written to you about it, and also put a note on the board telling the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) that I was going to raise it.
The Crystal Palace Bill would transfer Crystal Palace and the park wholly to the Greater London Authority. Crystal Palace lies entirely within my constituency, although the London boroughs of Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark and, indeed, Croydon surround the park. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central—whose Bill we are discussing—shares a boundary with me in the southern part of Beckenham but does not, as far as I am aware, share any boundary with me at Crystal Palace.
I seek your guidance on a number of matters, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you could tell me what courtesies you believe should apply when a private Member's Bill affects another Member's constituency entirely, in terms of informing that Member—let alone Bromley council, which has heard nothing whatever about the Bill from the hon. Member for Croydon, Central.
More important, I understand that the Bill is potentially hybrid, because Crystal Palace park is governed by private legislation. I note, as you will have noted, Mr. Speaker, that Second Reading is due to take place on 11 May. If the Bill is likely to be hybrid—on which point I should be grateful for your guidance—will it be sent to the Examiners of Petitions? If so, will that happen before 11 May? Will the Examiners of Petitions be able to receive representations about the Bill before that date, or will Second Reading have to be postponed, whatever other external events may occur?
I am sure that you understand, Mr. Speaker, that I regard the Bill as an intolerable interference in the affairs of another Member of Parliament. I believe that it is, of itself, very complex, and should at least have warranted the giving of notice to those involved, as opposed to the total discourtesy of silence.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) was not out of order in presenting his Bill. However, now that the text has become available, it is necessary to see whether the private Bill Standing Orders should apply to it. That will be the task of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, to whom the Bill is today being referred. If those Standing Orders do apply, the Bill will be a hybrid Bill. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is not able under the Standing Orders to make representations directly to the examiners, but if the Bill makes further progress, she will, of course, be able to contribute to the debate.
As to prior consultation with the hon. Lady, notice was given of the introduction of the Bill in the usual way. The House's rules do not require anything further, but it would certainly have been in accordance with the established courtesies of the House if the hon. Gentleman had given notice of his intention to the hon. Lady.
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will want

39
to congratulate the authorities in Turkey on this morning successfully bringing to a conclusion a dangerous crisis involving hostages, including British hostages, without a shot being fired. However, there is another matter in Turkey. I remind the House that the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly said that the criterion for Turkey's membership of the European Union must be an improvement in human rights in Turkey. At this moment, 250 people in Turkish prisons are on hunger strike. Seventeen have died up to today. I think that we should ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on what pressure the British Government are putting on the Government of Turkey to bring to an equally successful conclusion the hunger strike, which, obviously, should not continue.
Mr. Speaker: I am pleased that the people in the hotel in Turkey are no longer in any danger. As for the question of a statement, it is not a matter for the Chair.

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  (Clauses 1 to 3 and 16 to 53 and Schedules 4 to 11)
  Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: On a point of order, Sir Alan. It is appropriate to draw to your attention to the fact that we are witnessing today a historic breach of the conventions of the House, in that the timetable motion limits the flexibility of the Opposition in today's debate. May I quote briefly from "Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures" by J. A. Griffith, emeritus professor of public law, Michael Ryle, a former Clerk of Committees in the House of Commons, and Mr. Wheeler-Booth, Clerk Assistant in the House of Lords? It says, on page 253:
  "after second reading, which provides an opportunity for a broad debate on the Government's tax proposals against the background of the national economy, the committee stage of the bill is now divided between a committee of the whole House and a standing committee. The motion to commit certain clauses to a committee of the whole House (and sometimes new clauses on specified matters) is moved by the Government, but the choice of which matters should be considered in this way is, in practice, largely left to the Opposition."
  The timetable motion means that the Opposition have very little opportunity to raise the matters that they wish to raise. No new clauses are permitted by the timetable motion.
  All the clauses on the aggregates levy—clauses 16 to 49—are being taken on the Floor of the House, and all the serious clauses on that tax come at the beginning of the group of clauses, so have to be finished by 7 pm. The matter has not been left to the Opposition. If there were no 7 pm deadline, it would be easy to address those serious matters within the time scale. Perhaps this is a matter for the Procedure Committee to revisit, because the procedures and conventions of the House have been quite dramatically flouted today.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman will understand that this is not a matter on which the Chair can rule, as it is determined by other means. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point, but it now seems to be a matter of his approaching the Chairman of the Procedure Committee if he would like the matter to be examined further.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. I wish to associate the Liberal Democrats with the request made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). Is it possible for you to consult the Government Whips to see whether they would be prepared to reconsider their position, given the strong feeling throughout the Opposition parties that there should be a chance for other issues to be debated during the Committee Of the whole House?
  The Chairman: I am always ready to try to use my beneficial influence wherever possible in the House,

  41
  but what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is outwith what I am permitted to do, especially in the absence of a Business Sub-Committee, for which no provision was made on this occasion.

Clause 16

  CHARGE TO AGGREGATES LEVY
  Mr. David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
  '(2A) Prior to the commencement date the Treasury shall publish a scheme of rebates to those persons charged with the levy proportionate to the environmental protection measures employed by that person in the process of commercial exploitation of aggregate, and such a scheme shall have effect on the commencement date.'.
  The points of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) are relevant to the debate. A new clause has been tabled that is of direct relevance to the amendment, and common sense would suggest that they should be debated together, but the decision of the business managers means that we cannot discuss the new clause. We are discussing, at best, half the matter under consideration, and there will have to be a further debate in Committee covering very much the same issues; a debate from which, sadly—or perhaps not sadly—I will be excluded, as I will not be serving on the Committee.
  The amendment is crucial in terms of understanding the Government's intentions towards the aggregates levy, the effect on the industry and the way in which the House would wish it to proceed. I represent an area where quarrying is a major industry. It does not employ huge numbers of people, but it is significant. The Mendips—particularly the east Mendips—contain some of the most concentrated areas of production in the national limestone industry, so this matter impacts substantially on my constituents.
  Living, as I do, in the east Mendips area—not a million miles away from quarries from which some of the largest movements of material in Europe take place every day—I am aware of the pressures on the industry. There are strong reasons for providing the best possible environmental protection for the local areas in the context of national aggregates production. However, there are also strong reasons for recognising that this is an important industry which employs a great number of people locally, if not nationally, and is essential to our national well—being, as it produces—literally—the building blocks of our built environment and infrastructure.
  Getting the balance right is important; I struggled with that for 12 years as a member of the minerals planning authority of Somerset county council, when we were dealing with the matter daily. We dealt with new applications and, in the case of interim development orders, with permissions that should have expired. We tried to reconcile the interests of the local community with those of the industry, and came to a reasonably satisfactory conclusion. In the past 15 years we have made substantial progress in finding ways to accommodate the industry, which has responded to the pressures that have been put on it. The industry has sometimes resisted those pressures, but it has also recognised a wider community interest.
  42
  As Ministers will know, the aggregates levy has been much discussed with the industry, and it was no great surprise that provision for the levy formed part of the Bill, because it had been announced in earlier statements.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman said that the issue had been much discussed with the industry, but that suggests that the Government listened to what was said. The proposals have not been altered in any way, and my experience of being involved in at least one discussion suggests that the Government have a closed mind on them.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I was about to say. Although much discussion has taken place, and the industry—to its credit—has gone a long way towards meeting some of the Government's objectives, its proposals have effectively been rejected and a statutory levy will be applied, irrespective of whether it will do the job that the Government, local communities and, for that matter, the industry, recognise needs to be done. We need to improve local environmental standards and procedures to achieve the best possible result, and that is the issue at the heart of the amendment.
  The voluntary proposals suggested represented a good deal for both the Government and the industry. Unfortunately, those proposals were not universally approved within the industry, because—perhaps inevitably—some did not wish to improve their working practices. However, some have already done a good job and were prepared to take on the challenge set by the Government, and to establish a sensible relationship. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is continuing discussions with the industry and recognises the moves that have been made, but sadly, that view is not shared by the Treasury, which is why we have a largely unchanged proposal that includes a half promise that, at some stage in the future, a rebate scheme will be introduced. In the meantime, the Government will apply the tax irrespective of the consequences for the industry and for local communities.
  Mr. Rogers: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to use the word "environment" when talking about this tax. He must realise that the tax will not affect the environmental position and that a regulatory framework already exists. This is a money-raising tax, and has nothing to do with the environment.
  Mr. Heath: I contend that it is possible to inject into the levy a little element of environmental protection, which it does not possess at the moment. The hon. Gentleman chides me for not being sufficiently aggressive towards Ministers early in my speech, but I wish to set out the proposals as I see them, and then to mention one way of improving them.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman should get it right; I am aggressive not towards my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but towards the tax, which is wrong and ill conceived.
  Mr. Heath: Clearly the hon. Gentleman is against the sin, but not the sinner. In my observations I will encompass both.
  Mr. John Bercow: I understand the hon. Gentleman's eminently reasonable concern that the details of the rebate scheme should be published before the commencement date of the levy, but why will he not bestir himself one little bit further and make the reasonable demand that the Government publish those details before the passage of the Bill?
  Mr. Heath: I am interested not in the passage of the Bill but in the start of this iniquitous tax. I have already voted against it in the Budget debate, so my position is absolutely clear. I am trying to get the Government out of the hole that they have dug—which is perhaps the appropriate analogy in this context. They are making exactly the same mistake as their predecessors made with the landfill tax. The way in which the tax is presented reeks of environmental rectitude, but it does absolutely nothing for the environment and hits the wrong targets.
  The great problem with the tax is that it will not work. The amendment would help it to meet at least some of the Government's stated objectives. The tax will not improve the industry's environmental performance or create a more sustainable aggregates supply. The voluntary levy forcefully advocated by the Quarry Products Association and others would have met some of the objectives.
  Crushed rock quarries have by-products, exactly as china clay quarries and others that are exempted from the provisions do. There are scalpings, overburden and washings. Scalpings make up about 40 per cent. of the material produced in a limestone quarry, but they have a very limited market. They are used for various jobs, but there is a strict limit to what people are prepared to pay for them.
  If scalpings are included in the levy, they will not be sold, and other materials will be used. Indeed, the Government have clearly stated that one of their objectives is that china clay spoil should be used as an alternative. What, though, is to happen to the unsold scalpings, which thereby become waste?
  Sir Robert Smith: They will become subject to landfill tax.
  Mr. Heath: Indeed, they could be doubly taxed if they were moved off the quarry.
  The scalpings will have to be dumped, either in piles on the edge of the quarry or impacted into the base, which effectively sterilises quality rock lower down and takes up the productive floor of the quarry, to no one's benefit. It is possible to wash scalpings and separate out the clay, but that will not be done if the aggregates levy is applied, because it will be completely uneconomic.
  The same applies to overburden, which is a substantial by-product of aggregates extraction—in a basalt quarry, for example, or when much of what is taken out is overlying jurassic oolitic limestone. That has to be taken off first if one is not to sterilise the stone that one wants, and it has to go somewhere. It has low quality uses, but if a levy is put on it, it will have no use and no market.
  44
  5 pm
  If there is no system of local environmental improvement and no exemption scheme, we shall effectively be removing the white hills in Cornwall that we have all seen and agree should not be there—the moonscape around St. Austell—and replacing them with piles of red earth in Somerset. People will say, "What a shame, Somerset used to be such a beautiful county and look what they have done to it." We will create a wasteland, a moonscape, simply by applying this tax. I do not think that that is the Government's intention, but it is the inevitable outcome of what they propose unless the clause is amended.
  With products that are derived from aggregates, there is a strong environmental argument that, given that we need pre-cast concrete products, the best way of producing them is as near as possible to the point of production of the stone. Otherwise, large quantities of stone are moved around the country to concrete works to form pre-cast concrete products that are then moved somewhere else, resulting in unnecessary lorry movements and adding to the environmental cost of the product for no benefit. Yet if the levy is applied in its present form to those added-value manufacturing processes, they will be priced out of the market. Producers in other countries will make those products—and although the Bill imposes a levy on raw aggregate, there will be none on manufactured produce. As a result, it will be non-commercial to use a local by-product to produce locally processed goods, and imports will be sucked in to undercut them, simply because of a misapplication of the levy.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are two ways of solving that problem, which is obviously acute if we want to stop 10,000 or so jobs being exported unnecessarily? The Government could adopt either the very wide exemption scheme proposed in his amendment, or our proposal in amendment No. 26, which redefines aggregates in such a way as to eliminate pre-cast concrete from the levy.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. I know that I would be out of order were I to refer directly to the amendment to which he alludes. However, there are undoubtedly two ways of dealing with the problem. It is a very big issue in terms of potential employment and revenue loss. The estimated cost to the pre-cast concrete industry is £40 million; the levy will represent a 25 per cent. take on its profits. That is an unsustainable process of taxation, and it will simply drive jobs out of the country. There might be an argument for that if the levy achieved the environmental effects claimed by the Government, but it will not. It will have quite the reverse effect: it will be of disbenefit in environmental terms.
  Sir Robert Smith: I emphasise my hon. Friend's point about the disbenefit in environmental terms. Transporting such products will clearly be environmentally damaging to the communities and the environment through which they pass.
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He recognises the problem in his constituency, which has both aggregate producers and a thriving port. It is obvious that we must find other areas of supply.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Does not the most severe environmental damage in many areas result from

  45
  the transport of the aggregates rather than the digging? Does that not strengthen even further the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith)?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman, too, is absolutely right. Indeed, his point is supported by the research that the Government themselves commissioned into the environmental disbenefits of the quarrying industry. The research found that the main problem was quarry lorries going past people's doors and windows along roads that were never built to accommodate them. That is the aspect of quarrying that people find most worrying—much more so than the occasional distant thud of an explosion that everyone expects anyway, or even the holes in the ground, which are often masked. If the hon. Gentleman came to the Torr works, which is one of the biggest quarries in the country, he would not know it was there until he arrived at the gates, because a great deal of landscaping has been done to ensure that it is not evident. He would, however, be aware of the heavy transport passing through all our villages—not so much from Torr, which has provided a railhead, but certainly from many other quarries. That has a substantial effect on local communities.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about transport, but is he aware that the Government already provide schemes whereby grants can be given to quarry companies to improve rail access, as has happened with great success in some constituencies, including my own?
  Mr. Heath: I have just said that the Torr works has a railhead, as does the Hanson quarry at Whatley. Those are very welcome, but the tax could, if designed properly, encourage more companies to have one. In its present form, with no rebate scheme, the levy will discourage companies from taking steps to improve the local environment. There is no competitive benefit for them; indeed, there is no benefit beyond public-spiritedness and a good relationship with their local communities. I fear that the Bill will result in enormous environmental disbenefit in communities such as mine.
  Mr. John Burnett: Does my hon. Friend agree that many constituencies, including mine, have virtually no railways, but several quarries and utterly unsuitable roads?
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is right. It was ever thus, I fear; when I was leader of Somerset county council, the minutes of the council's first meetings were kept in my office, and when I read the minutes of the very first, I found a discussion of the difficulties caused by quarry lorries in the Mendips and their effect on local roads. That meeting was held in 1889, so the issue is of very long standing.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Is it not likely that the condition of the roads will be even worse once the tax is imposed, as local authorities, whose budgets will be drained by the tax, will have even less to spend on them?
  Mr. Heath: It is an interesting by-product of the levy that the cost will fall heavily on local authorities, which will be trying to repair the infrastructure damaged by heavy transport.
  46
  We were touching on the issue of employment loss in the concrete industry as a result of these measures. There is the same potential in the quarrying industry itself. The Government estimate that the introduction of the levy will reduce demand for aggregate by 10 per cent.—although, interestingly, not demand for the highest grade aggregate, which is the main driver of a quarry's output. The reduction will be in demand for the lower grade aggregate, and will have little direct financial benefit in terms of the demand for new permissions. At the same time, the changes in specification will increase costs for the primary producers. As a result, cost-saving will be achieved only by passing on costs to local authorities, or by reducing the number of people directly employed in the industry.
  The Government's claim for the tax is that the surplus will go into a sustainability fund. That was the way in which it was originally sold to local communities in quarrying areas. They were told that it was a great idea because some money would be taken out of the quarrying industry and put into making their local environment better. However, the proposals and the responses to the consultation on the sustainability fund do not for one moment suggest that communities local to the quarries will benefit.
  I have a great deal of time for the notion that something should be done about St. Austell, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). If money is available to do something about the China clay spoil tips, no doubt he will welcome it. However, to sell that as a direct benefit to communities affected by quarrying in Somerset is stretching the tail a little further than may be appropriate.
  When the Government's own press release of 25 August states that local communities affected by quarrying are set to benefit from environmental improvements, I have to question the good faith of those proposals. Those benefits are not in the draft proposals. Indeed, the draft seems to ignore the responses of the minerals authorities directly affected. I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has received a letter from the minerals planning forum of Somerset county council stating that in terms. It appears to the forum that the views of Somerset, of Derbyshire and of Leicestershire—the key aggregate producing areas, which between them produce almost half of England's crushed rock aggregates—have been almost completely ignored in the proposals for the administration of the sustainability fund. There is a real suspicion that, in relation to their economies and the quarrying industry, much more will go out of those areas than will come back.
  That is why a rebate scheme would be of direct benefit. Such a scheme would actually specify the local environmental improvements to be undertaken by the quarrying companies, and would give them a direct commercial advantage for having done the things that we all want to be done. Indeed, the industry itself has argued strongly for that. I do not want to put words into the industry's mouth—it is clearly against the concept of an aggregates levy in toto—but having accepted that it is the Government's intention to impose such a levy, the industry is saying, in effect, "Let's have a sensible rebate scheme, and let's have it before the tax starts to operate."
  As the Financial Secretary will know, one suggestion made by the Quarry Products Association is that a benchmark might be a formal environmental management

  47
  system such as IS014001. That is one suggestion among many, but it would provide a framework whereby some of the benefits from the imposition of the tax would directly accrue to the communities affected; it would bring the benefits home. That sensible objective should commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House; indeed, I suspect that the proposal represents what the Government will eventually do.
  Mr. Tyrie: That objective is the only reason for suggesting it.
  Mr. Heath: I agree absolutely.
  5.15 pm
  My principal quarrel today is with the fact that, for reasons that escape me, the Government are going ahead with a commencement date for the aggregates levy without having in place the main objective—some may say the subsidiary objective—of the local environmental rebate, which would make the levy work in favour of local communities and drive down the environmental costs, as well as avoiding an increase in the commercial costs to the companies involved. That would be put right by amendment No. 4—in combination with new clause 1, which we are not allowed to discuss now, but which will be debated in the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Will he elaborate a little on the type of environmental protection measures that he wants to be included in his rebate scheme? In particular, he referred to the environmental damage done to local communities by the noise and dust from the lorries that carry the aggregates. Does he want his scheme to include measures to tackle that problem, or should it be dealt with by separate regulations?
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that some things are susceptible to regulation, but having wrestled with the problem for more years than I care to remember, I can tell him that it is very difficult to do by regulation all that is required. An incentive is needed for the companies to take the measures that they know they should implement if they can, because it is sometimes commercially impossible for them to do so. There is an obvious difference in attitude between the companies that take their responsibilities seriously—very often, those are the bigger companies—and those that do not. There is no "big is bad and small is good" argument here; it is often the other way around in this context.
  Many of the companies are prepared to develop the infrastructure that makes a difference. Railheads were mentioned earlier, and they make an enormous difference. If a large quantity of stone can be moved by rail from Somerset to Surbiton—which is done every day—a vast number of lorry movements in inadequate lanes are prevented, which makes a big difference to local communities. If reinstatement schemes are properly funded and made to work, a huge difference is made to the use to which the quarry is put after production.
  Many quarries use old permissions, which were granted in terms that no responsible planning authority would use at this stage in the game. Those companies will respond
  48
  if they are given an incentive to implement all the measures that they could, if they could afford them, and if they are not commercially disadvantaged by doing so. Their proposals show that they are willing to respond. I find it inexplicable that, because of some form of misplaced machismo, the Government are determined to go ahead with the levy without including the necessary rebate structure, which I am proposing. The rebate would make a huge difference to the effectiveness of the tax in terms of its environmental benefits, and I commend it to the Committee.
  The Chairman: May I remind the Committee that there is a limited amount of time to debate such matters, and it would be helpful if hon. Members had regard to the fact that other colleagues wish to contribute? This is not a stand part debate, and although it has ranged reasonably widely until now, it cannot be expanded into a stand part debate. Hon. Members who want to contribute to a stand part debate should bear that fact in mind in making contributions on the amendment.
  Mr. Rogers: I have a little knowledge not of the taxation system, but of aggregates. I support all the Government's efforts in raising and spending taxes in a very positive way. My constituents and many poorer areas of the country have certainly benefited enormously as a result of the Government's financial and economic policies.
  I shall not support the rebate suggestion in the amendment, because it merely tinkers with the central issue that the Committee must address. From what to what will the rebate be made? If the Government cannot get the sustainability fund that arises out of the taxation together in a proper way, I do not understand how any form of rebate system can be of specific benefit to the industry.
  We are debating not a criminal activity, but an industry that is fundamental to the economy of this country. Mineral development goes back to pre-history and the Wealden area and East Anglia contain superb examples of the restoration work that can take place after the mineral workings have gone. Such areas are now popular holiday resorts.
  Up until the industrial revolution and through to the present time, minerals have done much for the life of this country. I am sure that you, Sir Alan, got out of bed this morning in a house that was built of lovely sandstone or limestone, that you stepped out on to a path that was made of aggregates that had been extracted, and then on to a road that was also made up of aggregates. You may have even got on to a train that ran on metal that had been extracted from the earth and on a track that was bolstered by the aggregates that underlay the rails. Wherever we are and whatever we do, we desperately need to extract minerals from the earth.
  I certainly accept that, for years, extraction took place in not too nice a fashion. For example, the china clay pits near St. Austell in Cornwall brought a great deal of wealth and industry to the area, but they are considered scars on the landscape by people who do not appreciate them properly. I come from an area in which there were 63 coal mines and where there was much exploitation and dumping of colliery spoil. Much of that land has now been landscaped and is used in a practical way.
  Mr. Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rogers: No, I will not because of the shortage of time.

  49
  The aggregates tax is a tax on a vital industry, and it will not serve the purpose that the Government suggest that it will. My quarrel with them is not that they are taxing as such, but that they are presenting this tax as an environmental tax.
  About eight or 10 years ago, I remember sitting down with some of my colleagues when the Labour party was in opposition. One of our environmental spokesmen was terribly excited about a meeting at which a representative of Friends of the Earth had said that the extraction of material in a certain place would destroy the water table. When I had a proper job I was a geologist, so I must confess that I was a little confused and wondered how the water table could be destroyed by extraction. However, at the end of the discussion I turned round and said, "I hope that we will have a minerals policy that is not based on the views of the last lobby group to whom our spokesman talked." I fear that that has happened with this tax. It originated with a lobby group and has been dressed up even though there is no way in which it is an environmental tax. If Ministers have been convinced by their advisers or by the political input that has gone into the Department that it is an environmental tax, I am very sorry that that has happened.
  Although I accept that some people may not extract minerals in the best possible way, the industry is doing a good job because it has been regulated. Planning regulations are the way to improve the environmental standards for extraction and restoration work. If the industry does not conform to those regulations, the offending companies should be shut down. However, nearly all the companies that I know of extract in a principled manner and are only too anxious to restore. The national water sports centre in Nottingham is a classic example of effective restoration after mineral extraction. It is not necessary to tax the industry to get it to behave properly, because it is already doing that. Quarries in my area have been used for recreational activities. Companies such as Foster Yeoman—I do not know whether it operates in the constituency of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—do superb restoration work. I recommend the books that it publishes, such as "Wildlife after Gravel".
  The tax is hypocritical. If money is to be raised, let it be done practically. Although not a concern for my constituency at the moment, most mineral extraction takes place in rural areas and is often the only alternative to farming. It provides much ancillary employment in the haulage industry and other businesses that supply the quarries and quarry extractors. A tax on the industry is a tax on jobs. I cannot envisage it improving the environment. The only way to do that is to impose tight planning controls, planning regulations and planning enforcement on mineral extraction.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said that the tax was a tax on jobs, but it is more than that: it is a tax on the cost of a house because a considerable amount of aggregates goes into building a home. Although I hope that we will have time to debate amendment No. 24, which relates to Northern Ireland, I shall concentrate on amendment No. 4, which refers to
  "rebates to those persons charged with the levy".
  The problem is not the detail of the tax, but its imposition. Much of what will be said will focus on its effect on the economy in general. Many people will not
  50
  think that the tax matters to them individually, but it will ensure an increase in the building costs of every house. An average-sized dwelling uses about 80 tonnes of building sand, 200 or 300 tonnes of hardcore and concrete bricks and blocks. That is a considerable weight and adds up to a lot of money. I estimate that the tax will place a hidden extra cost in tax alone of much more than £1,000 on the smallest house and £2,000 or £3,000 on a larger dwelling.
  We are driving up the cost of housing, and the tax will translate into a tax on all houses sold. The increase in the cost of new dwellings will increase the price of existing dwellings. When the Government consider the effect of the tax on road building, they might say, "It doesn't really matter. It's being recycled back to us in one form or another", but that is not the point. Everyone who uses aggregates in buildings and road construction puts on a percentage and the total sum at the end of the cycle will be much larger than the initial tax.
  5.30 pm
  I am aware of, and sympathetic to, the many valid arguments against the tax which will be made in the debate and to many of us individually. The Government's arguments for introducing it are pathetically weak. It has nothing to do with being green; it is simply a revenue-raising exercise that will do far more harm than good. The industry will not have significant revenue returned to it by any other means, so the tax is clearly not revenue neutral.
  The tax will not increase recycling. By and large, where it is possible to recycle materials, people will do so. The resources are finite, and so is the capacity for recycling. Substantial recycling is already being carried out and is economically viable. Without this tax, we could and would go on recycling as much as possible throughout the country. The tax is not environmentally friendly because there is no disincentive for the primary producer who removes material from the ground. He is driven by demand from other industries.
  Once again, unfortunately, it is the peripheral regions of the United Kingdom that will suffer most from the tax. In Northern Ireland, in particular, the burden will be compounded by factors that do not impact on the industry in the rest of the United Kingdom. In a letter dated 31 October last, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:
  "These costs will be significantly higher for the transportation of concrete blocks, as these have to be handled by a specific type of truck. Taking the levy rate of £1.60 per tonne and even assuming transport costs are no greater than 10 pence per tonne mile, it would appear uneconomical to transport the processed aggregate more than … 16 miles."
  Estimates from the industry in Northern Ireland show that it would be easy and viable to transport aggregates and their products up to 25 miles, so at least 50 per cent. of Northern Ireland is within range of the frontier, and there is no tax in the Irish Republic.
  Apart from the low value of aggregates in Northern Ireland and the distribution of the industry there, we must remember that it is the only region of the UK that shares a large frontier with another state. If the Financial Secretary examines the matter a little more closely, he will realise that such a tax was considered by other EU states and rejected, as it was confidently predicted that the

  51
  aggregates industry would collapse in countries such as Holland and France. In Great Britain, the effect of the tax is masked to some extent by the fact that all imported aggregates come by sea, so it is easy to control the taxation of material at ports. However, aggregates can simply be put on a lorry and driven across the frontier into Northern Ireland. It is a different ball game.
  Mr. Bercow: Further to the point that I put to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) earlier, does the hon. Gentleman agree that his fear of an especially adverse impact of the tax on the people of Northern Ireland serves further to underline the necessity of publishing the details of any rebate scheme not merely before the commencement date of the tax, when it will too late to debate them, but before the passage of the Bill itself?
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, and I hoped that the Government, who place so much stress on transparency, would be more than willing to produce all the facts and figures and the details of the research that has been carried out. They have lamentably failed to do so up to now. Those of us who have talked to the industry in Northern Ireland take the view that much, if not all, of the regional aggregates industry will suffer grievously as a consequence of the tax.
  The House knows as well as I do that the Government are not averse to granting regional tax exemptions that they consider necessary—for example, the exemption from air passenger duty for travel between the highlands and islands and mainland Scotland. I think that a similar exemption should have been granted for travel to Northern Ireland. I travelled here today by air and will return home in a few days by air, just like almost everyone else who travels in and out of Northern Ireland. Sea transport of human cargo is far less prevalent now than it used to be. Exactly the same argument applies to Northern Ireland as applies to the highlands and islands—however, that is a debate for another day.
  The Government have demonstrated a certain pragmatism in their approach to regional problems—the problems of being on the periphery of the kingdom—so they should have demonstrated the same pragmatism when considering the imposition of the aggregates levy in Northern Ireland. It is estimated that the industry there is worth about £35 million in tax to the Treasury. That estimate is based on the 1999 figure of 23 million tonnes of aggregates, of which 22 million tonnes would be taxed under the proposed scheme. However, it has been estimated that the imposition of the tax would cost 4,000 jobs—70 per cent. of those employed in the industry in the Province—and that it would cost the Treasury £60 million. The deal does not strike me as a good one.
  The majority of the jobs in the industry are not in extraction, but in the value-added end of the process; however, the value-added end can easily migrate to the Irish Republic—indeed, some has already done so. Raw products would continue to be extracted in Northern Ireland, but they would be taken across the border to be refined or processed, usually into concrete products, and then returned to Northern Ireland, thereby escaping most of the duty—I understand that there is no tax on imported downstream products. Therefore, the environmental tax
  52
  might result in up to three times more lorries on the roads of Northern Ireland, bringing the value-added products into the Province, as well as the loss of jobs in concrete manufacturing. The issue is extremely serious to those in Northern Ireland.
  In addition, it must not be forgotten that the average value of raw aggregates is £2.60 a tonne in Northern Ireland, whereas the average value in Great Britain is £6.50 a tonne. Translating the proposed tax into a percentage of value, it would be a 60 per cent. tax in Northern Ireland, but only a 25 per cent. tax in Great Britain. That disproportionate burden presents an extremely serious problem that the Government should address.
  In previous Budgets, the Government have demonstrated in small ways their willingness to consider the problems of those who are on the periphery of the kingdom—the air tax is one example. I can think of a few suitably pragmatic solutions to the obvious problem arising from the aggregates tax. I do not know whether the Government have carried out a thorough analysis of the impact on the industry in Northern Ireland—I shall not embarrass Ministers by asking—but to my knowledge none of their research was conducted in the Province, and I dispute the mythology of the contingent valuation system. I seek some rational consideration of the impact that one-way cross-border trade will have on the economy and job prospects in Northern Ireland. The Government should give at least some assurance that they will consider that problem.
  It would be possible to exempt the Province from the tax and for the Treasury to make a net saving in the process. As a lesser evil, the Government could impose the tax at a rate that fairly reflects the lesser value of raw aggregates in Northern Ireland; that could be done by setting it at a lower rate, or introducing it as a percentage of product value. The Government could at least tax imported value-added products. Those are real options and I urge the Government to consider using them to protect the industry in Northern Ireland while there is still an industry there to protect.
  Over the years, I and other Northern Ireland Members have uttered clear warnings about the effect of the steadily increasing tax on fuel. The Financial Secretary knows perfectly well about the consequences of ignoring those warnings with regard to Northern Ireland, and about the enormous loss to the Treasury that is associated with fuel smuggling, racketeering and thuggery of all sorts. Interestingly, since foot and mouth reared its ugly head, the amount of smuggled fuel seems to have fallen rapidly and has stayed down. People now seem able to seal the border to stop foot and mouth disease getting across, even though they could not seal it to stop murderers crossing. However, I let that go, as it is also a matter for another day.
  The Government have a chance to consider seriously the tax before it comes into operation, and they should give favourable consideration to the impact that it would have in the regions and, in particular, in the Province that I have the honour of representing. They must consider what will happen, unless they can achieve the miraculous feat of persuading the Republic of Ireland Government to introduce the same tax in the Republic, which would put us all on a level playing field. At the end of the day, that is all that we want, but we do not currently have it.

  53
  The tax impacts differently with in Great Britain and impacts on Northern Ireland in particular, but it is a bad tax anyway.
  Mr. Levitt: A few weeks ago, The Mail on Sunday described me as sycophantic. Obviously, it had never heard me talking about aggregates tax. I am co-chairman of the parliamentary minerals group and a member of the GMB, which is the largest trade union in the quarrying industry. The Quarry Products Association was launched in my constituency in 1997. Quarrying is the largest single part of the manufacturing industry in High Peak, which has nine major quarries and many smaller ones. I lay some claim to the second runway at Manchester airport, all 2 million tonnes of which used to be located in my constituency, but were transported by rail to the site.
  In the quarries of High Peak, we have some of the best environmental practices that are used in quarries today. We have some massive quarries that are practically invisible to the outside world. Blue Circle at Hope takes some 70 per cent. of its product out by rail rather than road, and always stays one leap ahead of the law in terms of environmental emissions and so on. Some very good practices are followed not only by Blue Circle, but by Tarmac—formerly Buxton Lime Industries—RMC and Lafarge. The big names are all represented in the area, but unfortunately, so are some of the worst. In particular, a quarry at Moss Rake, next door to Blue Circle, is a disgrace. I shall say more about that very small, but highly visible, quarry in a few moments.
  My views on aggregates tax in general are well known to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I have spent many happy hours debating the issues either publicly or privately. I have tabled parliamentary questions and led delegations in relation to the matter on behalf of the all-party minerals group. I am a sceptic about the aggregates levy, which is why I think it right to consider carefully the possibility of introducing a rebate scheme. That does not lead me to conclude that I shall vote in favour of the amendment, for reasons that I shall explain in a moment, but I think the tax needs improving.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he will vote against the clause?
  Mr. Levitt:I shall say exactly which way I shall vote, but the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that moment to arrive. [Interruption.] I shall not change my position between now and a few minutes' time.
  Let me say why the tax needs improving. I believe that it is based on a very narrow and controversial definition of costs and benefits. It does not discriminate between existing good and bad practice. It makes the assumption that it is only improvements on the current state of play that will be taken into account. Contrary to some claims for it, I do not understand how the tax promotes recycling.
  5.45 pm
  Contrary to the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the landfill tax accelerated a move towards recycling. The investment of many companies in recycling building materials, the fact that some parts of the country have a greater demand for
  54
  materials while others have a greater supply, and transport costs that can militate against using recycled materials, even when companies want to, all mean that the industry is already reaching its maximum capacity for recycled materials. The supply of recycled materials is not available in the right place and at the right time to enhance further use, even if an aggregates tax provides an incentive.
  The industry remains unconvinced about the operation of the sustainability fund. I suspect that those who tabled the amendment wished to replace the tax or at least complement it with a system of rebates. At least the sustainability fund has the advantage of being proactive, whereas a rebate scheme would presumably only react to changes. The industry—certainly the Quarry Products Association—is well aware of its responsibilities.
  Nowadays, the industry cannot and must not ignore environmental interests and progress. Quarries are part of and integral to their neighbouring communities, where many of their employees live. The industry recognises that, and the fact that a clean reputation is commercially and hence economically a good asset for quarries. Good practice already exists in environmentally sound quarrying. We must not pretend that it does not, or fail to reward those in the industry who have got their act together in the past and produced some excellent environmental measures.
  Over the years, the Quarry Products Association has presented arguments on behalf of the responsible elements of the industry. However, its strategy has a major flaw. It accounts for only 80 or 90 per cent. of the industry. The remaining 10 per cent, which, by and large, comprises the smaller operators who may be represented by the British Aggregates Association, and, more importantly, those represented by nobody, do the most damage to the environment and the industry's reputation. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) nods. It is therefore odd that the amendment that he has tabled in the next group would exclude such cowboys and smaller operators from the Bill.
  Mr. Ottaway: I was nodding because I believed that the hon. Gentleman said that small quarries were environmentally effective. We believe them to be so.
  Mr. Levitt: I invite the hon. Gentleman to the Peak district where he can compare large and small quarries. Planning regulations are tighter in national parks than elsewhere, but he will find that the worst offenders, who are prepared not only to leave an unacceptable scar on the landscape but to raise two fingers to health and safety regulations, are the smaller operators. I do not want them excluded from the Bill. However, that is covered in the next group of amendments.
  Mr. Ottaway rose—
  Mr. Levitt: If the hon. Gentleman has something to say about my comments rather than about the next group of amendments, I shall give way.
  Mr. Ottaway: I rise because I do not believe that we shall reach the next group of amendments. The point behind them is that the smaller quarries are in rural areas. They are environmentally effective because they are dotted around the country—
  The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Michael Clark): Order. We cannot debate the next group of amendments simply because the hon. Gentleman believes that we will not reach it. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) is talking about it."] If the hon. Gentleman does that, I shall check him.
  Mr. Levitt: I will not go further on the question of smaller quarries. I shall do precisely the opposite, in saying that one of the quarries in my constituency, at Tunstead, is visible from the moon. It has the largest quarry face in Europe and is in a very rural area.
  I return to my conclusion. Let me not give the impression that the Government have not been listening. I disagree with those hon. Members who have suggested that they have come up against a brick wall. There has been no such brick wall. Certainly, £1.60 a tonne is less than the amount that it had appeared might be introduced, and imported aggregates being subject to the same levy is an improvement on the original proposals.
  The fact that there are many exemptions will also be welcomed by many industries and many parts of industries, although the provisions could be incredibly complex because quarries such as the Tarmac quarry in my constituency produce materials that might be subject to the aggregate tax in certain circumstances but not in others—perhaps if they were dirty but not if they were clean—and might be subject to it at some time in their life but not at others.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Levitt: I want to draw to a close so that others can speak.
  It is significant that a rebate system of some sort—I do not know what—is, I believe, being discussed by the Government and the major representatives of the industry, those whom I call the responsible elements of the industry. A rebate system must take into account good practice and the current records of the companies. It must encourage progress on environmental measures and apply to the whole of the industry to be affected by the tax. However, I do not think it essential—this is the key—to include such a rebate scheme in the Bill. The sustainability fund is in the Bill, and because how it will be used is not defined, it will be able to be used in a way that could include a rebate system.
  Sir Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Levitt: I want to conclude, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me.
  I voted for this part of the Budget, and I shall vote for the Bill at the end of the Committee and on Third Reading, however much I think there are opportunities for improvement. The amendments before us today are at worst mischievous and opportunist, and at best—as in this case—premature and, hopefully, unnecessary. That is my objection to the amendment under discussion.
  It is three years since the aggregates tax was first suggested, and a year before it is to be implemented. Now that the basic arguments against the levy have been lost and the Government have the backing of the House to proceed along the lines that they are, this is not the time to rock the boat. It is the time to tell Ministers that the
  56
  tax is unpopular with large sectors of industry and the work force. The proposal assumes a starting point that all quarries are equally bad; it promises much to the green lobby without providing the capacity to deliver; and it is far from complete in terms of being a genuine and fair package of measures to balance the legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate. However, the opportunity for correcting those issues is still there.
  The way in which the sustainability and environmental clauses relating to the aggregates tax will be implemented will be an essential factor in the way the Government's environmental record is seen. It is important to have a very strong environmental element in the Bill, and in the levy. We must recognise and reward those parts of the industry that have already gone down that road. Without my full enthusiasm, but in opposition to the amendment and in support of the Government's position, I hope, on balance, that the Minister will take the opportunity to redouble his efforts to find an environmentally acceptable way forward in co-operation with the industry.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Unlike other Members who have spoken this evening, I do not have any significantly large quarries in my constituency. However, there is a fair number of small quarries, all of which are run by large operators. The small number of jobs that those quarries provide is important in the rural context, in which it would be significant to lose even half a dozen jobs in a small village or town.
  The amendment deals with environmental protection, which is a worthy objective. However, in my four years in the House, I have not had a single complaint from any of my constituents about any of the quarries operating in my constituency. They are carrying on blithely unaware that their environment needs protection from the quarries in their midst.
  In terms of the amendment, it seems eminently reasonable that if protection measures have been taken, are being taken, or are to be taken in future, there should be some rebate to compensate the companies for so doing. However, if protection has to be put in place and measured, we need something against which to measure it. We need to be able to assess the damage that has allegedly been caused—or could be caused—by the quarries.
  Initially, when I heard about this tax, I thought, in my naïveté, that some assessment or measurement of the damage being caused had been undertaken. It was only after some probing that I came across the measurements to which the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) referred, relating to the environmental costs and benefits of the supply of aggregates, which are, in effect, a glorified opinion poll asking people how much they would pay to have the quarry on their doorstep taken away.
  That reminds me of how people are asked how much they would pay for organically produced foods in their supermarkets. Of course, when they go to the supermarkets, they do not, by and large, pay the extra money for such goods. They simply take the goods that represent the best buy. That is perhaps what we should be doing with aggregates, rather than listening to this sort of nonsense. Incidentally, no survey was ever undertaken in my constituency. None of my constituents was ever asked whether they felt that any environmental costs were being

  57
  inflicted on them. In fact, only two quarries in the whole of Scotland were surveyed, and—as we heard earlier—none in Northern Ireland. It is nonsense to base any way of assessing environmental damage or environmental protection on such measures.
  The small local quarries to which I have referred produce mainly for local consumption. The aggregates produced in my constituency are not trucked long distances, except perhaps within the constituency itself, because it is more than 100 miles long and about 100 miles wide. If those quarries were closed, the product would have to be brought in from elsewhere, at greater cost to the environment. That cost would not be measured, and nothing in the Bill would prevent it.
  Where there will be environmental benefits, we should help them. However, the best protection for such benefits in my constituency would be to keep open the quarries that are currently producing there. The best way to protect the environment would be to scrap this tax. The second best way might be to pass the amendment.
  Mr. Edward Davey: If the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) was not guilty of sycophancy today, he was certainly guilty of casuistry in developing his case. He also made an error in saying that provision for the sustainability fund was in the Bill. It is not, and that is why the amendment—and new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), which we shall debate later—are so important.
  The Liberal Democrats believe that the acceptability of the aggregates levy might live or die by whether an environmental protection scheme and a rebate scheme are incorporated in the provision at the same time. That is what the Government promised. Indeed, in the Red Book of March this year, they reiterated the promise that the rebate scheme would be introduced at the same time as the levy. Yet we are faced with a Bill that contains no such scheme.
  We have been told, when the Minister went before the Environmental Audit Committee, that the Government are finding such a scheme very complex, and difficult to design. What faith are we supposed to have in the Government if they state so openly that they are having problems drawing up such a scheme? Can we believe that they will produce one? Until they do, the aggregates levy should not be allowed to commence. That is why the amendment is so important.
  6 pm
  Sir Robert Smith: Is it not very damaging to the cause of any environmental debate that the Government should be cynical enough to be seen to introduce a tax that purely raises money for the Treasury, when they have not worked out how to give the money back?
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that intervention, which brings me to my next point.
  Time and again, Governments—Conservative Governments, and the current Labour Government—have introduced environmental taxes saying that they will give the money back, and have then not fulfilled the pledge. That is indeed very damaging to the cause of the environment. It undermines the faith of consumers, both individual and corporate, who, when they hear future Governments talk
  58
  about environmental tax, will think, "Oh yes—here comes another revenue-raising measure." It also undermines the whole case for environmental taxation, which is very strong if the policy is implemented properly. I do not believe that the Government are implementing it properly in this instance. Introducing the tax without a rebate scheme is bad politics; it is also bad economics.
  I support the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome spoke with great authority; I think that those who read the report of this debate will be impressed by his grasp of the detail, and the Committee is indebted to him.
  Mr. Letwin: I intend to speak for approximately 30 seconds, owing to the constraint imposed by the ridiculous way in which the timetable motion was proposed.
  I agree, broadly, with nearly all that has been said by Members on both sides of the Committee about the desirability of an amendment of this kind if we are to have clause 16 at all, but I shall reserve virtually all my remarks for the extreme desirability of not having the clause in the first place. I shall therefore forgo my opportunity to rehearse all the arguments that have already been advanced so pellucidly.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I shall be brief and confine my observations primarily to the points made in the amendment, although we have had a rather more wide- ranging discussion. I hope that we shall have further debate once the amendment has been dealt with.
  I do not accept Opposition Members' complaints about the arrangements for the debate. It was Opposition Members who said that they wanted two days' debate on the Floor of the House, and those two days have been provided. They also said that they wanted to discuss the aggregates levy, hydrocarbons and income tax, and all those topics will be discussed over the two days.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) suggested that there should be a debate on new clauses at this point, but debates on new clauses always take place at the end of Finance Bill debates. That is not a feature of the timetabling arrangements; it is a long-standing arrangement in itself.
  Mr. Ottaway: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: I will, but I want to be brief, given the other matters on the agenda.
  Mr. Ottaway: I shall certainly be brief.
  The Minister was present for my point of order at the beginning, when I pointed out that the instructions on procedures of the House written by the Clerks made it clear that new clauses could be debated on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Timms: In the case of Finance Bills, new clauses are taken at the end of the proceedings. That has always been the case.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made a number of wide-ranging points about, for instance, scalpings and pre-cast concrete blocks. As both issues are

  59
  dealt with in later amendments, I shall not go into detail now. He also talked about the Quarry Products Association package. At the time of last year's Budget, we had got as far as a proposal that was not supported by a significant proportion of the industry, and that was likely to be open to legal challenge from those in charge of smaller quarries who objected to the package. Because the package was not viable at that stage, we decided to proceed with the levy.
  The levy will directly help to address issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and others, in three ways. It will ensure that the price of aggregates reflects the environmental costs of obtaining aggregates through quarrying; it will give an additional price advantage to recycled aggregates; and it will provide resources for a sustainability fund.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend said that the levy is partly intended to cover the environmental cost of extraction. Can he quantify that environmental cost, say, per tonne?
  Mr. Timms: I can indeed. The environmental costs and benefits of aggregates have been the subject of extensive research published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which my hon. Friend may not have had a chance to see. It is probably the most authoritative study of its kind in the world. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, it is a contingent valuation methodology study. It concludes that the average environmental cost is £1.80 per tonne. We have taken a prudent and cautious view, and gone for a levy of £1.60 per tonne.
  The third way in which the levy will help directly to address the issues relates, as I said, to the sustainability fund, which will deal with the impact of quarrying in the communities that are affected. Initially, it will amount to £35 million a year.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome feared that some responses to the consultation had not been taken into account in the consultation summary. Owing to difficulties, some submissions, including the one from Somerset that he mentioned, did not reach officials in time to be included in the summary. However, I can reassure him that all responses received, including those received after the deadline, will be taken fully into account in decisions on how the sustainability fund will be used, and that those decisions will be announced in due course.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) argued that there should be further regulation. The Government are considering revising mineral planning guidance to improve the sustainability of quarrying for aggregates, and to reduce further the environmental impacts of extraction, but it is right to address cost issues as well. He spoke of a tax on jobs, but this is the opposite: the package will use the proceeds primarily to reduce employers' national insurance contributions, thus reducing the tax on jobs.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry suggested that the package was not revenue-neutral, but it is, for the very reason that I have just given. The proceeds of the levy will be used to reduce employers' national insurance
  60
  contributions, and also for the sustainability fund. This is not a revenue-raising measure for the Treasury; there will be no net benefit for the Treasury.
  Sir Robert Smith: Does the Minister accept, however, that the package is in no way region-neutral? The charge will be levied in areas containing quarries, but the money will not necessarily go back to those communities.
  Mr. Timms: Certainly, the levy will not be neutral for particular communities, but it will be neutral nationally. It has been suggested that this is a revenue-raising measure; I simply wanted to point out that it is, in fact, revenue-neutral.
  The points about Northern Ireland raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry will be dealt with in a later debate, but I will say now that I was pleased to hear from him that the incidence of fuel smuggling across the land border had fallen. Hon. Members will want to raise other points about Northern Ireland when we reach the relevant part of the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that other countries were not proceeding with levies of this kind. That is not the case: there are already aggregates levies in France—one of the countries that he mentioned—Sweden and Denmark. I understand that the Netherlands is proceeding with the proposals that it has drawn up.
  My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) has taken a close interest in the matter. As he said, we have discussed it in a lively way on a number of occasions. Recent research published by DETR indicates that there is significant scope for additional use of recycled aggregates. The figures show that about 22.7 million tonnes of recycled aggregates are being used a year and that another 12.7 million tonnes have potential for recycling, so over half as much again is available. There is therefore a good deal of mileage in improving the price attractiveness of recycling in the way that the levy does. The figures that I have referred to do not include the use of china clay spoil, to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred, so there is a lot of scope there.
  The amendment seeks in effect to delay implementation of the levy to allow development of a rebate scheme under which persons responsible for subjecting aggregate to commercial exploitation who undertake environmental protection measures would benefit from a rebated rate of aggregates levy. That is rather narrower than a number of the points that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made. The proposal is that the amount of the rebate would be proportionate to the extent of the environmental improvement measures.
  We indicated in the Budget that we were attracted in principle to applying a lower rate of levy to aggregate extracted from quarries with the lowest environmental costs—so-called "green quarries." However, in discussing that matter with the industry, I have always made it clear that developing such a scheme would not be straightforward. It certainly cannot be put in place before the implementation of the levy next year. There are a number of difficulties to be overcome. There will be practical difficulties in relation to assessing compliance, defining environmental performance, the treatment of imports, EU state aid rules and UK competition policy.
  We will continue to explore how we can overcome those difficulties, but it will take some time. In any case, the actual terms of a legislative clause cannot be

  61
  determined at this stage. I am not quite sure what a "scheme of rebates" linked to "environmental protection measures" means. It was not spelled out in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but something along those lines might be one way to do it. There may be other ways, too. For example, for it to be effective, we would need to ensure that any reduced rate scheme benefited quarries with the lowest actual environmental costs. It may be that those are linked directly to location: a quarry that is well managed, but located in a densely populated area or an area of outstanding natural beauty may still have a greater impact on the environment than one that creates a lot of dust and noise, but is located in a remote, sparsely populated area. Those are all issues of which we need to take account.
  The amendment could not be implemented as it stands. It would require at the very least a significant delay in the implementation of the levy. We have had a lengthy period of preparation for the levy and I would not support a delay at this stage. I therefore hope that hon. Members will not support the amendment.
  A number of hon. Members have queried the benefits of the aggregates levy. I disagree with them. There are clear environmental benefits from the introduction of the levy. I am glad that others support that view. For example, last month, the Wildlife and Countryside Link wrote to me as the liaison body for a coalition of organisations and with the support of the Council for the National Parks and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It expressed its strong support for the Government's proposed aggregates levy:
  "The environmental damage which the Aggregates Levy is designed to address is occurring now. WCL therefore urges the Government to introduce the Aggregates Levy as soon as possible".
  I agree.
  Mr. David Heath: The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) made a convincing speech, used all the right arguments and then came out with completely the wrong conclusion. The Minister used neither the right arguments nor reached the right conclusions. He totally failed to convince and I must ask the Committee's opinion on the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 149, Noes 268.

  Division No. 186]

  [6.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Burnet, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burstow, Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Campbe11, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clappison, James

  Bercow, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Boswell, Tim

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Cotter, Brian

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brake, Tom

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Brazier, Julian

  Day, Stephen

  Breed, Colin

  Dunca, Alan

  62

  Evans, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Faber, David

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Fallon, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Oaten, Mark

  Flight, Howard

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Paice, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Paterson, Owen

  Gill, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Green, Damian

  Prior, David

  Greenway, John

  Randall, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Rendel, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Harvey, Nick

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Hayes, John

  Ruffley, David

  Heald, Oliver

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Salmond, Alex

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Horam, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Keetch, Paul

  Swayne, Desmond

  Key, Robert

  Syms, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lansley, Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Leigh, Edward

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tredinnick, David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Trend, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Viggers, Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Waterson, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Webb, Steve

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  McCrea, Dr William

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Willis, Phil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Maples, John

  Mates, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Sir Robert Smith and

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mr. Bob Russell.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Allen, Graham

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Benton, Joe

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Best, Harold

  Ashton, Joe

  Betts, Clive

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blackman, Liz

  Austin, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blizzard Bob

  Barnes, Harry

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Borrow, David

  Battle, John

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Bradshaw, Ben

  63

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Hain, Peter

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Hanson, David

  Browne, Desmond

  Healey, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hendrick, Mark

  Burden, Richard

  Hepbum, Stephen

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hill, Keith

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Casale, Roger

  Hope, Phil

  Caton, Martin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Chaytor, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hurst, Alan

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hutton, John

  Clelland, David

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clwyd, Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Coleman, lain

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Colman, Tony

  Jamieson, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Corbett, Robin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cummings, John

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Darvill, Keith

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dobbin, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Levitt, Tom

  Doran, Frank

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Drew, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lock, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McCabe, Steve

  Edwards, Huw

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McDonnell, John

  Ennis, Jeff

  McFall, John

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Fisher, Mark

  MsIsaac, Shona

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Flint, Caroline

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNulty, Tony

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  MacShane, Denis

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gapes, Mike

  McWalter, Tony

  Gardiner, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Martlew, Eric

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Grogan, John

  Miller, Andrew

  64

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

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

  Soley, Clive

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mountford, Kali

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Stevenson, George

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, David (Invemess E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Pike, Peter L

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pond, Chris

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Pope, Greg

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Timms, Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Todd, Mark

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Trickett, Jon

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Truswell, Paul

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tynan, Bill

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rogers, Allan

  Watts, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  White, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Roy, Frank

  Wills, Michael

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Salter, Martin

  Worthington, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 12, line 31, at end insert—
  '(4A) The first 250,000 tonnes of taxable output per taxable person in each accounting period shall be exempt from the levy; and for the purposes of this subsection, where a taxable person carries on business in partnership, that partnership shall be the taxable person for the purposes of the exemption.'.
  The purpose of the amendment is to help the small quarry operator—the type of operator described by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) as a "cowboy". I do not accept that description, because there are many good small operators and that was an unwarranted slur on them.
  Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ottaway: I am sorry, but the timetable motion is so tight that I intend to be very brief.
  Five large companies control 80 per cent. of the aggregates market and 90 per cent. of the market in ready-mixed asphalt. The existence of the small quarry

  65
  operators maintains competition, leads to environmental improvements and provides jobs in remote rural areas, where the small operators are located. The amendment provides that the first 250,000 tonnes of aggregate would be exempt from the levy. The principle is the same as applies in personal taxation, with tax-free allowances, and in the small business rate of corporation tax, which is lower at the bottom end of the scale.
  The aggregates levy will make it harder for the smaller operators to compete. They tend to be located in the remoter rural areas, and the major operators are mainly in the south of England, where aggregates earn £12.50 a tonne. In remote areas, such as Scotland, the value of aggregates is £2.50 a tonne. The flat rate levy wi11 therefore be 12 per cent. in the south-east but more than 50 per cent. in remote rural areas. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned secondary aggregates; they can be worth as little as £1 a tonne, which would make the aggregates levy a huge 160 per cent.
  The second factor that will make life more difficult for the small operators is that the majors also tend to control the downstream operations in ready-mix and in asphalt. The majors will load the levy on to those products, but that option will not be available to the smaller operators. The third factor is the bureaucracy that the levy will involve. Some of the product mined will be used as aggregate for construction, but some will be used as an industrial mineral and will not attract the levy. That will lead to complex bookkeeping arrangements. In-house products, such as recycled or reclaimed products, can be blended with mined product, which will also lead to complications in bookkeeping. Complex computer systems will be needed, and the small operators doubt whether they can afford the additional cost of the software.
  The result will be that the small operators will go out of business. Jobs will be lost in rural areas and the big companies will move in and finish off the smaller guys, as they have been trying to do for some time. The environmental consequences will be serious, because customers will have to travel further to get their aggregate and it will have to be delivered further afield, with consequences for transport systems. Fewer, larger quarries will result, which will be both environmentally and commercially detrimental.
  Most small operators tend to be family-run organisations with limited staff and resources. The burden of regulation is tough enough for them, and the levy will be the last straw. The consequence will be job losses and environmental damage.
  Mr. Levitt: I wish to put it on record that I did not say that all small quarry operators were bad. However, bigger operators, which can invest in environmental measures, tend—in my experience of the quarries in my constituency—to have a better record. Some of the smaller operators are more likely to flout planning regulations and to take the least care of the environment. They also put health and safety regulations to one side and refuse trade union recognition Therefore, the special pleading on behalf of smaller operators is not justified. I would be happy to be proved wrong, and I will happily visit all the quarries in the constituency of the hon.
  66
  Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) if he will visit all the quarries in High Peak—but I have no hesitation in opposing the amendment.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I wish to put on record my opposition to the tax, and to express my great disappointment that the voluntary scheme proposed by the Quarry Products Association has been ignored in favour of this huge cost imposition. It will be a tax on jobs, which are very valuable in rural areas. Of course, the economy in those areas is already suffering badly as a result of the Government's mishandling of the problems caused by foot and mouth and the downturn in the agriculture sector.
  The tax will impose an additional cost burden on every construction project, from roads, railways and port facilities to housing developments, property repairs and home extensions. There are several quarries in Ludlow, some run by small private companies and some by large plcs. They quarry sand, gravel, limestone and granite. In particular, stone from Clee hill is sent to south Wales, where it is converted into rockwool, an insulating material. I hope that the Government will take some notice of my concerns about the effect on the valuable and irreplaceable jobs in my constituency, which will be prejudiced by this unnecessary and unjustifiable tax.
  Mr. Timms: I hope that the House will not accept the amendment. The package is not a tax on jobs. Indeed, I made the point earlier that it is the opposite, because the bulk of the proceeds from the levy will go on a reduction in employer national insurance contributions. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) mentioned the new deal proposal by the Quarry Products Association, but one of the reasons why that was not a viable package in the end was the opposition to it from the smaller quarries, which argued that
  "The QPA new deal has been tabled as an industry-funded alternative to taxation, but heavily discriminates against the smaller independent operator."
  It is precisely the smaller quarries that felt that the package should not go ahead.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) rightly said, the levy is being introduced to deal with the significant environmental costs associated with quarries, and applies to all aggregates extracted from any quarry, including the first 250,000 tonnes in an accounting period to which the amendment refers. Typically, there will be four accounting periods in a year, so we are talking about quarries producing up to 1 million tonnes a year. Not only small quarries but some of significant size would benefit, so the amendment is not targeted quite as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) intended.
  A de minimis limit is in any case not usual with a specific, one-stage, non-deductible tax. Another serious difficulty about the amendment is that such an exemption would be seriously anti-competitive for the UK as a whole, because under EU law all imports would have to be treated as below the de minimis level and therefore exempt from the levy, which would obviously have a very detrimental impact on UK quarries that paid the levy.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Ottaway: I am grateful for that response, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Letwin: In a rational world, we would now be beginning a significant debate on the clause, which is the single most important clause in the Bill—not a great dignity in this case, but true. However, because of the way in which the Government have timetabled the proceedings, that option is no longer available. Moreover, we will never get to debate the serious amendments tabled to clauses 17 and 18, which are the second and third most important clauses in the Bill. I do not think that there is any previous example of a Government so determined to ram through a half-baked Bill that they fail to allow any time whatever to debate its most important parts.
  To do Ministers justice, I suspect that this is a comedy of errors rather than an attempt to undermine parliamentary sovereignty. I fear that that is also true of the whole of the clause and the tax that it introduces. There are some half-good ideas sitting at the back of somebody's mind, but they have not been brought to the forefront of the lobes of the Ministers and officials involved. Still less have they been translated into a coherent regime. That is because, although it has taken three years in the gestation, the whole scheme bears all the appearance of having been concocted at the last moment without the necessary consultation.
  This is above all a tax that demanded a Special Standing Committee procedure, which would have enabled the Financial Secretary to discuss properly with the industry how it could be implemented so as to achieve the Government's aims for it. Nothing of that kind has been done, as became very clear in the response to the debate on amendment No. 4. The tax was produced by the wrong procedure, and is therefore the wrong tax.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Does he agree that it would have been possible for the Government to introduce an aggregates tax with a better rebate scheme, and that it would still be possible for them, having heard the debate, to design a tax that might gain wider support?
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Letwin: Yes. We know that it would have been possible because the climate change levy, which my colleagues and I inveighed against at length, was none the less much better designed than this tax in just that respect: at least it was so constructed that it aimed to allow the arbitrary powers of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to be brought to bear on that part of industry that the Government wanted, as they put it, to reform its ways. I objected to that tax, and I object to this one. I object to that manner of proceeding, but at least it would have been a rational and coherent manner of proceeding—objectionable but rational. This tax is objectionable and irrational, because it has been wrongly introduced, just as the hon. Gentleman said.
  I want to dwell on a feature of clause 17 that we will not have time to debate. The tax is amazingly complicated to enforce. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to the problem with scalpings,
  68
  and there are many similar problems, as exposed in the amendments tabled to clause 17. It is extraordinarily difficult to disentangle one item that is being extracted from a quarry from another.
  It is not only a matter of Ministers having moved too fast. Even were they to have moved at a reasonable pace, they probably would not have been able to design an easily enforced version of the tax. One of the principles of taxation should be that it is so clear that it is easy to enforce. Many theoreticians thought that the selective employment tax was wonderful. Alas, it had disastrous consequences, because it was almost impossible to enforce in any rational way. This bears all the hallmarks of being another such tax.
  At best, the tax will be highly intrusive, because the machinations required for the inspectors to enforce it properly will be horrible. Most businesses already resent the appearance of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise at their premises, partly for good reasons and partly for bad. One good reason is that they find it a distraction from their ordinary business. The distraction involved in a normal VAT inspection will be as nothing to the distraction involved in the heroic efforts of inspectors from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to turn themselves into geological experts who can disentangle one extracted item from another, when none of the quarry operators involved find it easy to do so.
  Far worse, this comedy of errors is in fact a tragicomedy, because the Government, for some unfathomable reason, have ignored—they cannot have forgotten it, because it has been pointed out to them so frequently—the fact that, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, the way in which the tax has been designed, although an improvement on the climate change levy in the respect that it allows for credits against exports and taxes imports, means that it does not tax the form of import that has been incorporated in pre-cast concrete, for example. That will prove a disastrous blow for the aggregates industry in Northern Ireland and a significant blow for parts of the industry in southern England that will face severe and unsustainable price competition from Normandy and elsewhere in northern France.
  I do not know why the Government have chosen needlessly to expose British industry in that way, putting at risk between 4,000 and 10,000 jobs, depending on which estimate one takes, but it is clear to me that it can be no part of a rational economic policy to design a tax with that effect. As the Bill is drafted, it has that effect ineluctably. Had the Government been willing to accept the exemptions proposed in amendment No. 4, some firms at least would have been able to avoid the effect, but as it is none can.
  Mr. Timms: I should like to challenge the hon. Gentleman on his point about concrete blocks. As I understand it, the current proportion of consumption in the United Kingdom of concrete blocks supplied from abroad is 1 per cent. What does the hon. Gentleman think that it will be once the levy has been introduced? His point is entirely vacuous.
  Mr. Letwin: I am surprised, because although I often disagree with the Financial Secretary, he almost always makes a powerful argument. As I understand the matter,

  69
  having talked, as he must have done, to the Quarry Products Association and the British Aggregates Association—before I go any further, I should declare an interest, because I may have one that I am not aware of—there will be the ability to import a series of substances made up from aggregates from south of the border in Northern Ireland, and concrete blocks from Normandy and northern France by ship, to substitute for what are currently used as building materials because of a huge inbuilt price advantage. If I remember correctly, the equivalent tax in France is about 5p per tonne. If there is a price advantage of £1.55 per tonne we can expect to see a change in the structure of the industry and of demand in the UK. That point must have been made to the Financial Secretary.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that significant transport costs must be set off against any tax differential that might exist. That is why I think that his suggestion that the introduction of the levy will result in large job losses is entirely unfounded.
  Mr. Letwin: Industry experts have gone through the cost structure of transport with us, which was alluded to earlier, and have demonstrated to our satisfaction that where demand for these products is appropriately located, as in Northern Ireland and on the south coast, and where there is a readily available means of transport, whether it be by rail or road or ship, the transport costs are not prohibitive and there will remain a significant cost advantage. If the Financial Secretary has figures showing the contrary, surely he would have been able to persuade the industry of that fact by now. There is no reason for the industry to make this argument if it is not true, because the Financial Secretary has already taken the trouble to exempt exports and imports otherwise. Surely he could now do what the industry asks in relation to fabrication.
  Mr. Timms: I will be meeting industry representatives next week and will be discussing that with them. There is an issue to do with Northern Ireland that we will come to later. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point about supplies from France to southern England is a serious concern.
  Mr. Letwin: I very much hope that the Financial Secretary is right and that he will be able to persuade the industry of that, although I am not persuaded. We will indeed come back to the question of Northern Ireland.
  I turn now to an element of mythology, which the Financial Secretary has been assiduous in peddling, if I may use a derogatory term. He and his colleagues exposed the myth in the Budget. The hon. Gentleman maintains, as he did with the climate change levy—and I do not doubt his honesty in maintaining it, but it is a myth—that it is a fiscally neutral measure. Of course, he is right—on day one, it is a fiscally neutral measure. The landfill tax was also fiscally neutral when it was introduced. This Budget increased the landfill tax. Did it increase the rebate of national insurance contributions likewise? No.
  Will we have an assurance from Ministers this evening that at no time during the lifetime of this Government, or of any Government for whom they are responsible, will there be an increase in this tax without a commensurate increase in the rebate on national insurance contributions? If we get that commitment, I will withdraw my assertion.
  70
  However, I doubt that we will. The Government have shown through their actions on the landfill tax that they have no inhibitions about increasing such taxes and removing the day one fiscal neutrality.
  If I made you the grand offer, Dr. Clark, to engage in a fiscally neutral transaction with you in which you gave me a pint of beer and I gave you an equivalent amount of whisky, but you promised me that you would give me as much beer in all the subsequent years of your life as I demanded, without my making an equivalent promise to you in terms of whisky, you would be a mug. That is what the British public will be if they are led to believe that this is a fiscally neutral measure. It is nothing of the kind. Naturally, you would not engage in such a transaction, Dr. Clark. There is no reason for anyone to believe that this is a fiscally neutral measure; it is a platform for engaging in tax raising.
  The Government have gone to considerable public expense—I cannot recall the exact figure, but I suspect that it is about £100,000—to produce a magnificent report. The Financial Secretary referred to it—indeed, he waved it around a moment ago. This magnificent report purports to show that the figure of £1.60 a tonne—or, rather, a slightly higher figure, once we allow for some fancy manoeuvres—is justified as the tax in this case because of the optimality rule. That rule states that one must always tax at exactly the cost of the externalities—the cost of the damage done.
  This is a really splendid thesis, and it is absolutely true. However, it relies on accumulating a group of human beings who are geniuses and are sufficiently talented to find out the cost of the damage. Alas, in the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, no such geniuses were to be found by Her Majesty's Government. Instead, they employed some ordinary human beings in the form of very intelligent, highly qualified consultants. You may not believe this, Dr. Clark, because it sounds as though I am making it up, but these consultants asked a large number of people who lived somewhere near quarries in various places how much they would pay, if they were given the option, to avoid having various things near them, including quarries and the trucks associated with them.
  This is a marvellous idea. We can just imagine these earnest seekers after truth wandering around the highways and byways of the areas of outstanding natural beauty where quarries are to be found and asking Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Smith exactly, to the nearest 5p or so, how much they would be prepared to pay to avoid having a quarry 300 yd from their home. Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Smith gave them the answers; they added everything up and produced, for about £100,000, a huge report for the Financial Secretary and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which has been taken very seriously. I do not know at which point "Yes, Minister" takes over from serious government, but it took over long before the report was produced. The fact is that optimality is as much a myth as fiscal neutrality.
  We come now to the ghastly fact that this tax will be enforced by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, notwithstanding its complexity and irrationality, and notwithstanding the fact that it will not achieve any serious environmental effect because there is no rebate scheme, which would have been necessary for it to have such an effect. There is already a serious problem about the arbitrary powers that have been allocated to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. We spoke about that at

  71
  tedious length during the previous Finance Bill. The Conservative party has put forward a 10-point plan, which is just the beginning—the tip of the iceberg—of an attempt to constrain those arbitrary powers. Yet clause 16 provides a huge extension of the arbitrary powers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.
  I shall give just one example, which, again, we will not be allowed to debate. If someone appeals to the commissioners—and the system is designed so that one can appeal without having to go to court and needing lawyers—and they do not give an answer after a certain period, what does this magnificent Bill provide? One might think that the appeal would be won by the appellant if the commissioners did not reply. Not at all. Under the Bill, if the commissioners do not answer, the appeal is refused.
  Mr. Timms: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: I am sorry, but I shall not give way on this occasion, as I have one minute left. However, I would be happy to allow the Minister to reply at length if his Whip will rearrange matters so that we can have a serious amount of time in which to debate this.
  In my final half minute, I want to say simply that this tax is irrational and is being introduced in the wrong way. It has the wrong powers of enforcement and it will cost jobs. Even more than all that, though, it is an empty box. Almost everything that will bring it into effect will come in a series of regulations that the House will never seriously debate. People fought and died to establish as the principal feature of our parliamentary democracy the sovereignty of Parliament over taxation. To remit the basis of our taxation to regulation is a precedent that Members on the Government Benches will live to regret as much as we do.
  It being Seven o'clock, THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Orders [7 November and 9 April], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  The Committee divided: Ayes 286, Noes 126.

  Division No. 187]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Best, Harold

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blackman, Liz

  Allan, Richard

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Allen, Graham

  Blizzard, Bob

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Borrow, David

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Ashton, Joe

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Austin, John

  Brake, Tom

  Bailey, Adrian

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Baker, Norman

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Banks, Tony

  Browne, Desmond

  Barnes, Harry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Barron, Kevin

  Burden, Richard

  Battle, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Bayley, Hugh

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Benton, Joe

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Caplin, Ivor

  72

  Casale, Roger

  Hinchliffe, David

  Caton, Martin

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Chaytor, David

  Hope, Phil

  Chidgey, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clapham, Michael

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hurst, Alan

  Coleman, Iain

  Hutton, John

  Colman, Tony

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Connarty, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jenkins, Brian

  Corston, Jean

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Crausby, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Darvill, Keith

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lammy, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Lepper, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Leslie, Christopher

  Doran, Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Drew, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lock, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Love, Andrew

  Edwards, Huw

  McCabe, Steve

  Efford, Clive

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ennis, Jeff

  McDonnell, John

  Fearn, Ronnie

  McFall, John

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Fisher, Mark

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Flint, Caroline

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNulty, Tony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  MacShane, Denis

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McWalter, Tony

  Gapes, Mike

  McWilliam, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Goggins, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Maxton, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Miller, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mitchell, Austin

  Grogan, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hain, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hanson, David

  Moore, Michael

  Healey, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hendrick, Mark

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

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hill, Keith

  73

  Mountford, Kali

  Soley, Clive

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mudie, George

  Spellar, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pearson, Ian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pike, Peter L

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pond, Chris

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pound, Stephen

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  TemPle—Morris, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Prosser, Dawn

  Timms, Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Todd, Mark

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Trickett, Jon

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Truswell, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rogers, Allan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Tynan, Bill

  Rooney, Terry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rowlands, Ted

  Watts, David

  Roy, Frank

  White, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Willis, Phil

  Salter, Martin

  Wills, Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winnick, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woodward, Shaun

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Baldry, Tony

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Duncan, Alan

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Evans, Nigel

  Bercow, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fraser, Christopher

  Blunt, Crispin

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gibb, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brady, Graham

  Green, Damian

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John

  Breed, Colin

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Burnett, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Burns, Simon

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heald, Oliver

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  74

  Horam, John

  Randall, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Key, Robert

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ruffley, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Salmond, Alex

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Leigh, Edward

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

  Letwin, Oliver

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Streeter, Gary

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Swayne, Desmond

  Loughton, Tim

  Syms, Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  McCrea, Dr William

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Trend, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tyler, Paul

  Madel, Sir David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Malins, Humfrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Maples, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mates, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Whittingdale, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Willetts, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Paice, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pickles, Eric

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Prior, David

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Motion made, and Question put, That clauses 17 to 22 stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 287, Noes 123.

  Division No. 188]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Allan, Richard

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Allen, Graham

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Best, Harold

  Ashton, Joe

  Betts, Clive

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blackman, Liz

  Austin, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Baker, Norman

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Banks, Tony

  Borrow, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Barron, Kevin

  Battle, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brake, Tom

  75

  Breed, Colin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Grocott, Bruce

  Burden, Richard

  Grogan, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Hain, Peter

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Healey, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Hill, Keith

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hinchliffe, David

  Casale, Roger

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Caton, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Chaytor, David

  Hope, Phil

  Chidgey, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clapham, Michael

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clelland, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Coleman, Iain

  Illsley, Eric

  Colman, Tony

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jamieson, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jenkins, Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Corston, Jean

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cousins, Jim

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Darvill, Keith

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobbin, Jim

  Lammy, David

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lepper, David

  Doran, Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dowd, Jim

  Levitt, Tom

  Drew, David

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lock, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Love, Andrew

  Efford, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McCabe, Steve

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McFall, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Flint, Caroline

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McNulty, Tony

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gapes, Mike

  McWalter, Tony

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Goggins, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Maxton, John

  76

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Moore, Michael

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Spellar, John

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

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Olner, Bill

  Organ Mrs Diana

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pearson Ian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Pike Peter L

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pond, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pound, Stephen

  Todd, Mark

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice Gordon (Pendle)

  Truswell, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Tyler Paul

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Tynan, Bill

  Rendel, David

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watts, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  White, Brian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wicks, Malcom

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wills, Michael

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Roy, Frank

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Woolas, Phil

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Worthington, Tony

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Salter, Martin

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sanders, Adrian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Baldry, Tony

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bercow, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Evans, Nigel

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Fraser, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Garnier, Edward

  77

  Gibb, Nick

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gill, Christopher

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ottaway, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Paice, James

  Greenway, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Grieve, Dominic

  Pickles, Eric

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Prior, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Randall, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hayes, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Heald, Oliver

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Horam, John

  Ruffley, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Salmond, Alex

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Shepherd, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Soames, Nicholas

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Leigh, Edward

  Swayne, Desmond

  Letwin, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walfon)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Loughton, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Trend, Michael

  McCrea, Dr William

  Tyrie, Andrew

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Waterson, Nigel

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Malins, Humfrey

  Willetts, David

  Maples, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mates, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Norman, Archie

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

  WEIGHT OF AGGREGATE
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Letwin: Clause 23 is remarkable. Clause 23(1) states:
  "The Commissioners may make regulations for determining the weight of any aggregate for the purposes of aggregates levy."
  Forgive me for being personal, Dr. Clark, but if I were to propose to weigh you, I doubt whether it would be necessary for me to make regulations for determining the weight; I would instead employ some scales. The matter would be straightforward; the weighing would be objective, so why is it necessary for the commissioners to make such regulations?
  Of course, the answer is that it is not simple and objective to weigh aggregates; it is not just a matter of finding the aggregates and popping them on to some
  78
  scales. Those involved must work out what they are weighing and which bits they do not want to weigh. That is why clause 23(3) states:
  "The regulations may, in particular, … include rules about—
  (a) the method by which the weight is to be determined;
  (b) the time by reference to which the weight is to be determined;
  (c) the discounting of constituents".
  As I said during the previous debate, we must imagine the good folk of Customs and Excise posing as geological experts and, in this case, as weighing experts, and working out how to discount constituents, such as water, and how to find the right time to weigh so as not to weigh the right thing at the wrong time—as bad as weighing the wrong thing at the right time.
  All that will be determined by regulations which we have not seen, and I speculate that the Financial Secretary has not seen them either. Of course, I may be wrong, and if he would like to explain the regulations and how the Government will determine how to weigh the aggregates, I should be happy to admit at once that I am wrong to speculate that he has not the foggiest clue about the answer to that question. In the absence of such an assurance, I suggest that he imagines that someone will eventually produce some regulations for him, that the commissioners will be given those regulations and that they will send out the troops of Customs and Excise to apply them.
  The general observation that I made in the debate on clause 16 applies in this case: this is not a simple matter. As we traverse the remainder of part II at unholy and unnecessary length, given the way in which the timetable motion was constructed, we shall find that there are many such instances. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able at least to explain how he envisages the process working in practice, but I fear that it will be a long time before we see the regulations themselves. It will be even longer before someone works out in which of the many respects they are wrong and how they need to be revised ex post facto once it turns out that large parts of the industry have been driven mad by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise weighing things incorrectly. Appeals will be made, letters will be written and efforts will be made to reverse the mistakes that have been made.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: Would the hon. Gentleman like to speculate further about the regulations that are mentioned in the clause? Does he think that there will have to be regulations for each type of mineral and each type of aggregate because of their differing relationships with water? Presumably, minerals and aggregates come in different shapes and forms and contain differing proportions of water.
  Mr. Letwin: The honest answer is that I do not know how the regulations will be formulated or how specific they will be. They will obviously have to ensure that, each time something is weighed, it is a relevant substance in the normal layman's sense and that it is not a relevant substance under the terms of clause 18(3). If any of the relevant substances in that subsection have been admixed with anything that is to be weighed, the substance will not be an aggregate under the terms of the Bill and should not be subject to the levy. The weighing system will have to ensure that anhydride, ball clay, barytes, calcite, china

  79
  clay and so on are not weighed by mistake. Some fancy footwork may therefore be required to ensure that they are not.
  It will be interesting to discover whether the Financial Secretary knows the answer to these questions, but I speculate that he does not. More importantly, I speculate that, when the regulations are made, it will turn out that those who have framed them do not quite know the answers. Only later, by a process of error, will people discover what should have been in them in the first place. That illustrates the general point that this is a hugely intrusive tax.
  Mr. Timms: This is a very conventional clause that does not contain any surprises. The aggregates levy is calculated by reference to weight rather than selling price, because the levy is designed to address the external environmental costs of the extraction of the aggregate and that can be done fairly only by reference to a more constant and uniform factor. Weight is such a factor.
  As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, the clause will enable Customs to draft regulations that cover the details of how and when the aggregate is to be weighed. It is important that there be clarity on that because the levy will be £1.60 per tonne, so weighing correctly will be important. The clause will give Customs the power to make different rules to cover different circumstances; and where possible, there will be clear and widely applicable regulations for determining weight.
  The practicalities of the task and the differences in methods and equipment within the industry make it unlikely, however, that a universally applicable method can be set out in the regulations. The clause therefore provides that regulations may permit agreements to be drawn up between Customs and individual businesses regarding methods of recording by weight.
  The hon. Gentleman has referred to the alleged complexity of the measure, but in point after point, what is being introduced for the aggregates levy follows precisely the approach taken over the landfill tax which was introduced by the previous Government. Of course, the landfill tax is also based on weight, so regulations had to be made on how landfill material is weighed. The wording used in that instance is precisely the wording used in this clause. No doubt I shall have the opportunity to repeat that point later in the debate, because many of the clauses that the hon. Gentleman criticises for their complexity follow word for word the provisions enacted for the landfill tax, which was enacted by the previous Government whom he and his hon. Friends supported.
  By attacking the character of an environmental tax measure that mirrors and is based on the principal environmental tax measure that the previous Government introduced, the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question as to whether Conservative Members have changed their minds about whether it is right to take steps, as the previous Government did, to safeguard the environment. I shall certainly listen with interest to what he says on that point.
  Mr. Letwin: I apologise to the Minister for asking him a detailed question rather than allowing him to dilate further on the general principles, but will the system for
  80
  weighing be so designed that clause 18(1)(b) will be applied in such a way as to mean that the dust that results when aggregates have been produced as part of a process that is exempt will be weighed as part of the aggregate?
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman needs to wait until the detailed regulations are consulted upon, and then he will see the answer for himself. However, I reassure him that Customs will consult widely with industry at every stage in the run-up to the introduction, and in the finalisation, of the regulations. The central point is that the clause does exactly what was done for the landfill tax. That is what needs to be done to ensure the successful introduction of the levy. I have no doubt that that will be the consequence.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for giving way again with his typical courtesy, but he has restated the thesis that the levy somehow draws on the landfill tax. Where in the landfill tax legislation is there any mention of the discounting of constituent parts such as water?
  Mr. Timms: The point is that there are already regulations about weighing. The form of words used to give Customs the power to issue those regulations is the form of words that has been used in this clause.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

  THE REGISTER
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Ottaway: The clause relates to registration and is one of those clauses that appear under the heading "Administration and enforcement".
  Subsection (1) will impose a duty on the commissioners of Customs and Excise
  "to establish and maintain a register of persons who are required to be registered for the purposes of the aggregates levy."
  The clause then lists the people who are required to be registered and they include those who carry out "taxable activities". It would help if the Financial Secretary explained how Customs and Excise will organise itself to do that; I imagine that it will recruit people who are experts in minerals. People whom one would not normally expect to work for Customs and Excise will specialise in this subject; but will he explain how such expertise will be provided?
  In particular, the clause goes on to say:
  "a person carries out a taxable activity if a quantity of aggregate is subjected to commercial exploitation".
  What does "commercial exploitation" mean? I am sure the Minister is aware that many people in the industry are concerned about the ability to identify and register everyone involved. Does he expect people to come forward to register for a voluntary code? What happens when someone does not expect to be in the aggregates business, but a by-product pops up which the Minister would describe as aggregate? I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how would that business man know that he has to declare that he is producing aggregate?

  81
  I hope the Minister appreciates that many people have doubts about the register. Their concern is justified. Many non-mainstream and fringe operators might evade the aggregates tax and disadvantage responsible operators. How will he police the register and ensure that it is an accurate document that reflects the activities of the entire industry?
  We know that the Treasury is discussing the implementation of the register with the industry, and phrases such as commercial exploitation and construction use of aggregates have been clarified. However, is there a minimum level? I am not alluding to thresholds before the levy is imposed, which I raised when we discussed the previous amendment, but if a person produces a de minimis quantity, is he expected to register? Will the regulations—of which the Minister may or may not be aware—address that problem?
  I understand that secondary legislation will be introduced later this year to make the measure workable, but perhaps the Minister can give an idea of his approach, because we need the matter clarified. Although the clause heading is simply "The register", the clause itself goes to the heart of what is workable. If there is any doubt about that, will the Minister recognise the industry's concerns and consider delaying the introduction of the levy until the serious concerns on the register are addressed?
  Mr. Edward Davey: I shall be brief. As the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said, the administration of the register could give rise to costs as it is set up and rolled out. I understand that a compliance cost assessment has been made. What are the costs estimated to be? Although there is a great deal of detail about who is to registered, how they will be registered and how the commissioners should keep such information, the commissioners are not obliged to minimise the compliance costs on the industry and are given a fairly free hand in going about the registration process. How do the Minister and his Department intend to keep the administration costs that will be imposed on business to the minimum necessary to collect the levy?
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Letwin: I want to raise two specific issues. The first relates to clause 24(2), which tells us:
  "A person is required to be registered for the purposes of aggregates levy if he … carries out taxable activities".
  That takes us to the heart of the problem: who is such a person and how does he know that he is such a person? My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) referred to that issue.
  Clause 18 is relevant in determining whether someone should be registered under clause 24(2)(a). Let us take the example of a sole trader who is principally engaged in an exempt process, such as rock cutting, to produce what is described in clause 18(2)(a) as "dimension stone". If I have correctly understood the enormously intricate articulation of clauses 17 and 18, that is not, according to clause 18(2), a taxable activity. A person engaged in that activity would not be caught by clause 24(2)(a) and thus would not have to register. However, if the exempt process produces what is described in clause 18(1)(a) as
  "spoil, waste, off-cuts or other by-products",
  82
  then, according to the definition in the governing clause, 18(1), those items would be classed as aggregate and thus subject to the levy under clause 16.
  So a cutter of rock—let us call him Mr. Jones—quietly sets himself up to produce dimension stone. He merrily imagines that he is not in any sense a taxable person under the Bill, but suddenly discovers that by virtue of some of the spoil, waste, off-cut or other by-product, he has become taxable. What is to become of poor Mr. Jones? At what stage is he breaking the law? What should he have known in advance? How will Customs and Excise deal with him if it discovers ex post—as he may discover ex post—that he was in breach of clause 24(2)(a)?
  My second concern relates to value added tax legislation. Much of what we are about to consider in laborious detail is a set of standard clauses derived from such legislation. No doubt the Government will recognise that. Alas, the clauses are nastier forms of the standard, which in itself is nasty. Both governing parties must take joint responsibility, over the past half century, for that. VAT legislation is an abomination to mankind. I take no pride in being a member of a party that played its role in that. However, this Government have done nothing to remedy the problem; instead, they have made it worse.
  Clause 24(6) proposes something that is worse than most other measures in similar legislation. No doubt if the Minister reflects on it, he will agree that it is intolerable. I have just exposed the genuine doubt of Mr. Jones who does not know whether he is conducting a taxable activity. However, we learn in subsection (6) that
  "where it appears to the Commissioners"—
  note, Mrs. Heal, that it simply has to appear to them—
  "that any person is operating or using any premise"—
  I do not quibble with that—
  "or intends to operate or use any premises … for winning any aggregate",
  then, in principle, he can be caught by the tax.
  Mr. Jones has not even got to the stage of setting up his business; much less has he produced the dust that may or may not be weighable—the Minister was unable to tell us—as a spoil, waste, off-cut or other by-product captured by clause 18(1)(a). There is no dust or stone on the premises; there is only Mr. Jones on the premises. However, he made the mistake of trying to raise money for his business by issuing a prospectus to various of his friends suggesting that they join him in his venture. For all I know, and for all the Minister knows, it may appear to the commissioners that Mr. Jones intends to operate the premises for the purpose of producing a taxable substance, but that is not the purpose at all. The purpose is to produce, by an exempt process, an item that is not taxable—but the by-product is taxable because the Minister's drafting seems to make it so. I do not know whether or not it is taxable because I cannot really understand the Bill, and I do not suppose that the Minister can either. In any case, it may be that the Bill makes the dust taxable—hence it presumably appears to the commissioners to constitute Mr. Jones's intention to operate or use premises for winning aggregate.
  We have reached the limits. I understand that Customs and Excise is, thank God, run by British civil servants, who are, on the whole, reasonable people. On the whole, therefore, they will probably administer this appalling, tyrannical legislation in a rather less than appalling and

  83
  tyrannical fashion. However, that is merely probabilistic. The House should not be passing legislation that permits commissioners to determine whether a person intends to do something which he could not possibly know that he intends to do, because he would not have had the slightest reason to find out whether the legislation applied to something that he could not have been expected to expect it to apply to. That is appalling indeed.
  I do not suppose that politicians in the Treasury today have any more intention of producing such legislation than they ever did, but someone has come up with this wonderful drafting. No doubt it was drawn from some obscure part of the arcana imperii of VAT legislation or, for all I know, the legislation on the landfill tax. The Minister thinks that he can taunt me about that tax, but I intend to disillusion him on that point. I was not in Parliament to vote for the landfill tax and I would not have voted for it if I had been. The landfill tax stands as a token of only one thing—the Minister's mythology when he says that these measures are fiscally neutral. He is the representative of a Government who raised the landfill tax without raising national insurance contributions. Whatever the origins of this provision, Conservative or Labour, and whether it is intended for long-term or short-term misuse, I care not—it is wrong and indefensible and it ought not to be in the Bill.
  I turn now to clause 24(8), which is also very interesting. It tells us:
  "Where any entry in the register at any time specifies that any premises registered under a person's name as a registered site are to be taken to be the originating site of"—
  there follows a list of several things—
  "any question for the purposes of this Part as to the boundaries at that time of the originating site … shall be conclusively determined in accordance with that entry."
  Let us return to Mr. Jones. What is his situation? The prospectus issued by Mr. Jones seems to the commissioners to make him a taxable person because he intends to do something that, unknown to him, may produce a by-product that is an aggregate for the purpose of the levy, and so he has to register. The area that he registers conclusively determines the boundaries of his action. When he intends to begin his operation, his intentions may relate to a place different from the one where he will actually operate.
  I do not see how subsection (6) combines with subsection (8) to produce anything other than the most unholy and arbitrary mess. I may be wrong about that. There may be a long tradition of such statutory construction in other Finance Acts. The Financial Secretary may be able to explain to us how a definitive boundary, established on the basis of an intention as it appears to the commissioners, but which is not yet represented by an actuality of production, can nevertheless be treated by the courts as a reasonable proposition. My mind boggles at that, but it may be the case, and I look forward to hearing from the Financial Secretary how subsection (8) will interact with subsection (6).
  Mr. Timms: The clause sets out the requirement to register for the aggregates levy. It brings into effect schedule 4, which in turn gives further detail on the required procedures and conditions. A business has to register if it is responsible for the "commercial
  84
  exploitation" of aggregates in the UK. That phrase is defined in clause 19. The businesses that will be most affected are those that extract aggregates, but the clause may also affect those businesses on whose premises rock is crushed or an exempt substance, usually a mineral, is extracted from a quantity of aggregate that has been transported there from its originating site.
  Some businesses are not necessarily concerned with extracting and supplying aggregates to the construction industry, but supply other industries such as glass making or metallurgy. The Bill will assist those businesses where possible by exempting them from registration and minimising the administrative burden. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked whether that would be the case, and I can certainly give him that assurance. Those companies will need to demonstrate that they do not supply or otherwise exploit any aggregate for a purpose that is neither exempted nor relieved.
  Customs and Excise is given powers to decide the boundaries of any premises for registration purposes to safeguard against avoidance of the levy by businesses that might otherwise locate taxable activity outside previously agreed boundaries. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) asked several questions about how that will work. What is being described is very much the core, day-to-day activity of Customs; it is the sort of activity in which it excels. I agree with the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) about the quality of civil servants in the UK. There is nothing qualitatively new about what is required of Customs in the Bill. It is merely the circumstances that are different.
  The obligation is on the taxpayer to register. There is not a de minimis level, but certain activities are exempt. If there were a de minimis level, the environmental cost of extraction would not be addressed equally by all businesses and the levy could be considered unfair, as I pointed out earlier. Everything set out in the clause is workable and straightforward. It presents no novel or insuperable difficulties for Customs and Excise.
  I did not understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty with subsection (6), which states:
  "In particular, where it appears to the Commissioners that any person … intends to or operate or use any premises … they may, if they think fit, register those premises".
  That is entirely reasonable. If the commissioners read a prospectus, such as that to which he referred, that indicates that there may be some extraction of aggregates, they may, if they think fit, register those premises. I am not sure that he drew attention to any substantial difficulty.
  8 pm
  I do not think that identifying the individuals concerned will be especially difficult. A statutory declaration is already made for the requirements of the annual minerals raised inquiry. As the information is already gathered by the Government, we will have a pretty good idea of the organisations involved, so compiling the register will be relatively straightforward. The list drawn up for the purposes of the levy will be slightly different because of the exemptions, but compiling the list of who should be affected will not be difficult.
  Mr. Letwin: Will my Mr. Jones issuing his prospectus for rock cutting to produce dimension stone appear to the commissioners to constitute grounds for his being registered?
  Mr. Timms: If Mr. Jones is only producing dimension stone, no; if he intends commercially to exploit aggregate, which is a by-product of that process, yes. That is the straightforward position.
  Mr. Letwin: The Financial Secretary's use of words was interesting: he referred to the position if Mr. Jones "intends commercially to exploit" an aggregate. However, that is not what Mr. Jones does; he wants to cut rock to produce dimension stone, which is exempt. That brings us back to the core question. If he also produces
  "spoil, waste, off-cuts and other by-products",
  he is taxable. If his intention is to operate the premises to produce cut rock, may it appear to the commissioners that he falls under subsection (6), despite the fact that his prospectus contains nothing about exploiting aggregates?
  Mr. Timms: That is a matter for the commissioners. The issue is whether an individual appears in a register, not whether that individual pays tax. Does the hon. Gentleman assume that anyone thought fit to be included on the register would automatically pay tax? That is not so: the tax will be based per tonne on aggregate commercially exploited. If the individual involved commercially exploits—sells—aggregate produced as a by-product of his primary activity, that will be taxed, as it should be.
  Mr. Letwin: Is the Financial Secretary saying that in the case of Mr. Jones and similar cases it is possible that someone who will never be taxed will nevertheless be registered and, presumably, inspected? Is it possible that people who never produce anything taxable and never intended to produce anything taxable but who appeared to the commissioners to be intending to produce something taxable will be subject to intrusive inspection?
  Mr. Timms: It is certainly conceivable under the terms of subsection (6) that someone who is thought by the commissioners to be intending commercially to exploit aggregate will be included in the register but never pay tax because he does not commercially exploit aggregate.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton anticipated correctly that there would be a regulatory impact assessment. It is available for inspection—I think that it is on the web. The analysis set out in some detail therein indicates that the total set-up costs to the industry will be approximately one ha'penny per tonne extracted; and total recurring costs will be roughly equivalent to 0.3p per tonne extracted. Those are modest sums. I assure him that our aim in all the consultations with the industry as the regulations are drawn up will be to ensure that the burden imposed by compliance with the requirements is minimal.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset appears to have explicitly repudiated the landfill tax. We are witnessing a significant change in the Conservatives' position on environmental taxation. Leading figures in past Conservative Governments believed that there was a role for environmental taxation and most people believe that
  86
  the landfill tax has been a success. However, those who are in the ascendant in the internal Conservative party disputes of which we are currently hearing a great deal may well be of a different school and not believe that measures such as the landfill tax are appropriate. To the hon. Gentleman and all his hon. Friends who take a similar view, I say that people throughout the country think that there is a role for taxation in addressing environmental issues, and they strongly support measures such as the landfill tax and the aggregates levy.
  It is unusual for me to be able to quote in support of the Government's actions the Council for the Protection of Rural England, but its position is clear. It strongly supports the proposed aggregates levy and the steps that we are taking to use the tax system to promote environmental benefit. The CPRE says that the aggregates levy will help to ensure that the price of primary aggregates
  "better reflects the environmental costs of extraction"
  and that it will help to achieve the Government's goal of prudent use of natural resources. It says that the environmental damage that the aggregates levy is designed to address is occurring now and urges the Government to introduce the levy as soon as possible.
  Many people, including those who support the Conservative party, agree with that view. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be cautious about repudiating environmental tax measures introduced by the previous Government, because many feel that they were appropriate and that others, such as the aggregates levy, are needed.
  Mr. Letwin: I am astonished and delighted by the latitude that has been allowed to the Financial Secretary and me to range way beyond the scope of clause 24. It would therefore be wrong of me to dilate at length now, but I want to respond to the general points that he has just made and then return to the points that relate more narrowly to the clause.
  The principle of environmental charges—genuine charges that are not mishandled into pieces of taxation behind which lies a fiscal aim—is one thing. There is much to be said for making polluters pay through charges that are genuinely not abusable into fiscal measures. However, as the Government's actions in respect of the landfill tax clearly show, that is not the position when a Government enter power who intend to use every means of taxation at their disposal and to invent means of taxation not hitherto at their disposal. I again remind the Financial Secretary that he did not reduce national insurance contributions when he increased the landfill tax.
  However, whatever else one thinks of the landfill tax, given that it was a tax—the thing to which I object—as opposed to a charge, it was at least fairly clear and transparent. That is a major difference between the landfill tax and the legislation before us now. It is a principle of taxation that it should be simple, clear and transparent, but this measure is not simple, clear or transparent.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is shifting his ground. He told the House that he would not have voted for the landfill tax.
  Mr. Letwin: I would not have done so because it was a tax and because I knew that a Government would come along who would use it as a tax, as the current

  87
  Government have done. Had it been a charge, I would have supported it. That is a critical difference and one that the current Government have brought to light, even though they have been at pains to obscure it because they do not want to admit that in the climate change levy, the aggregates tax and a series of parallel threatened taxes, such as banking levies and the like, they intend to find new sources of revenue. That is not a reputable proceeding in terms of the environment. If the Government were serious about environmental charges or genuine environmental taxes, they would not have reversed VAT on fuel or produced the moratorium on gas-fired combustion in power stations. The fact is that they have not been an environmentally sensitive Government. On the whole, they have sought means of raising tax where they think that they can get away with doing so. That is the principle to which I object.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be possible for the Government to hypothecate all revenues from the tax to a fund or to rebates? They could make it clear in the Bill that they have no intention to raise revenue from the tax.
  Mr. Letwin: That is an ingenious suggestion, although my hon. Friends and I have not had time to reflect on it. The proposal may have occurred to the hon. Gentleman as an inspiration of the moment. It would involve a sort of Rooker-Wise amendment to environmental taxes, which would turn them by law into crypto-charges. We might be beginning to get somewhere with such a proposal, which could provide some common ground. I do not know whether it will do so, as we need to think about it, but I assure him that the Financial Secretary will not support an amendment that would introduce such a change. It would be more than his job is worth to do so. He would be out of Great George street before he could say "Jack Robinson", or, indeed, "Geoffrey Robinson".
  Mr. Tyrie: He wants the money.
  Mr. Letwin: Exactly. My hon. Friend is right: the Financial Secretary wants the money, and he wants a lot more of it later, when he wants to claim that he is doing something innocuous in relation to something for which legislation has already been introduced. In this case, it is called the aggregates levy, but there is also the climate change levy and so on. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) is lobbing a huge grenade into the Government's programme. I look forward to debating in Committee a series of amendments such as that which he proposes. In fact, if we put our minds to the proposal, we might spend most of the Committee stage debating it. I think that that would be much better than discussing most of the rest of the Bill.
  I apologise for that intrusion on your good will, Mrs. Heald. Having responded to the Financial Secretary's goading, I shall return to his remarks about the clause. I am genuinely perplexed about the register. I did not understand how perplexed I was until I heard his remarks. I do not know why the register is being introduced, and he did not tell us why, although he suggested that it was entirely innocuous. He did not say that a person's inclusion on the register has no impact on
  88
  whether he is taxed, although that was his implication. If that is genuinely the case, I suggest that the register is a bureaucratic apparatus that should be obliterated.
  However, let me deal with the more charitable hypothesis that, despite the Financial Secretary's unguarded remarks, the register has a purpose and is not being introduced merely to create an extra clause. If that is the case, we must speculate on its purpose. I do not know about that, although I take it that the point of including people on a register is to get them into the Weberian grip of bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are about information, and that is what registers provide. Once people are on the register, they are in the hands of the bureaucracy. In other words, one is a datum on the bureaucracy's data sheets. It knows about us. What is the consequence of the bureaucracy's knowing about people? It comes to visit them. It inspects and looks into them. They are part of what it regards as the possibly taxable community.
  8.15 pm
  How does Customs and Excise operate in relation to people who are part of the possibly taxable community? It presumes that those who are on its registers and who enter into its data should be taxed. If they turn out not to be paying tax, it will send out into the highways and byways experienced, powerful-minded individuals who will come to find out why they are not doing so. That is what is worrying me, as I expect the Financial Secretary knows.
  Mr. Timms: Can the hon. Gentleman give any examples of taxes for which there is no register of taxpayers?
  Mr. Letwin: As a matter of fact, I do not know whether there is a register of income tax payers. If the Financial Secretary's implication is correct, however, he is rather arguing my way. If the point of registers is to tax people, and if registers are generally attached to taxes, his accusation that I was making an elision in supposing that inclusion on the register related to paying tax is false. If he is correct that taxes are generally accompanied by registers, I am right to suggest that inclusion on a register is generally accompanied by taxation. That is the point of being on a register. The point about a person being expected to be taxed is that Customs and Excise will presume that that person should be paying tax. If a person should be paying tax, Customs and Excise will come down like a ton of bricks if he or she is not doing so.
  I shall return to Mr. Jones, who is doing his stone cutting and appears to the commissioners to be somebody who intends to do something that might be taxable, poor man, but then turns out not to produce any product that he recognises to be an aggregate. He is not doing anything that he recognises as commercially exploiting a material, but he will be visited by Customs and Excise, which will ask why no tax is being paid. Instead of cutting stone, Mr. Jones will be involved in weeks or months of intensive negotiation with various levels of Customs and Excise. Not least, he will perhaps eventually be involved with the commissioners, who do not even have to respond to him. If they do not do so, they are taken to have judged against him—a point to which we shall return later. The process will be a huge intrusion.

  89
  If none of that is true, and the Government do not intend to create circumstances in which there is a presumption of guilt—an assumption that people should be taxable once they are on the register—I do not see the need for the register. The Financial Secretary has not explained that need, unless the register is an attempt to create a presumption that somebody who is included on it should be paying the tax, so that the bureaucracy can visit, inspect and pursue. Of course, that is fine with regard to people who are genuinely liable for tax because they are carrying out the activities in question. However, introducing arrangements for somebody who merely appears to the commissioners to intend to carry out such activities seems part of a slippery slope towards an unintended tyranny.
  Mr. Timms: I must respond to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, even though they were expressed in a somewhat amusing tone.
  Of course, somebody who is included on the register can be issued with an assessment for tax, if that person is making taxable supplies. That is the purpose of the register. If the individual does not need to be registered, he can inform us of that fact. If Customs and Excise is satisfied that he is not commercially exploiting aggregates and does not intend to do so, he will be deregistered. That is extremely straightforward and conventional, and I think that the hon. Gentleman's concerns about slippery slopes to tyranny can be set to one side.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

  AGGREGATES LEVY: REGISTRATION
  Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Ottaway: I shall make only a couple of points about the schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) brilliantly exposed the flaws and weaknesses in the introduction of the register. The first few lines of the schedule, which are at the heart of the matter, state:
  "An unregistered person who … has formed the intention of carrying out the taxable activities … shall notify the Commissioners of that fact."
  My hon. Friend ruthlessly exposed the flaws in the use of the word "intention". Whose intention is required? The schedule refers to an "unregistered person", but who decides what the intention is? The Financial Secretary rightly looks puzzled, as this is a serious question. However, as any lawyer in his first year of law will know, the question concerns the difference between mens rea and actus reus—the difference between "Does he have the intent?" and "Is he deemed to have had the intent?" The Minister laughs, but I shall provide an analogy from criminal law. If a man sets out to kill someone, that is classed as mens rea, and he is charged with murder. However, if a man drives a car dangerously and accidentally kills someone, that is manslaughter, and is classed as actus reus. That is a fundamental principle of law.
  Let us relate that to the aggregates levy. The question of intention is fundamental because the schedule provides for substantial fines. Someone can be fined up to 5 per
  90
  cent. of the relevant levy. However, let us consider the other end of the spectrum. The Financial Secretary said that there was no de minimis provision—no minimum tonnage to qualify for the levy. Yet there is a minimum fine of £250. If aggregates are 12.50 a tonne, that fine applies to anyone who produces 20 tonnes of aggregates, which would probably be approximately the size of the Table before us. That is not much; as a by-product, it is insignificant.
  Someone who produces something that is not taxable, but has a by-product, may have no intention of evading the aggregates levy. There may be a little mound of some substance around the place that makes him liable for a fine. I assume that that attracts a criminal record. The amount is not great, and the Financial Secretary is right to smile. However, there is an important point about intention; its determination is important.
  My hon. Friends may wish to raise other points, but I want to discuss only one further matter, which relates to the Data Protection Act 1998. The schedule gives commissioners the power to publish specific information from the register. The interaction with the Data Protection Act is serious and could involve criminal activity. The commissioners could be guilty of that unless their actions complied with the Act. It would therefore be helpful if the Financial Secretary could give some idea of the way in which the information will be published, and deal with the serious points about criminality and intention.
  Mr. Tyrie: I want to concentrate on paragraph 7, which is entitled "Publication of information on the register". Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), it is interesting that sub-paragraph (3) states:
  "Information may be published in accordance with this paragraph notwithstanding any obligation not to disclose the information that would otherwise apply."
  I presume that that is a waiver of the Data Protection Act 1998. If not, I should like to know what it means.
  I shall comment on some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made about the reason for the register. I agree that perhaps the tax deserves a register, but I am not convinced that it needs to be published. I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary explained the reason for its publication. I understand the reason for a register of companies, and why the public should be able to consult it. I notice that the Financial Secretary feels the need for some advice, and I look forward to hearing it; I shall keep going for long enough for him to receive it. Is the VAT register publicly available as a consultable document? I do not know the answer. Clearly, there should be a VAT register, but is it publicly consultable? Does Customs and Excise have the discretionary power to publish information on it? Do clause 24 and schedule 4 thus follow precedent?
  What information should be published? Paragraph 7 states that the commissioners
  "may publish … any information which—

  (a) is derived from the register; and

  (b) falls within any of the descriptions set out below."

  In other words, the commissioners may publish only information that falls into both categories. Is that interpretation correct, or may they publish any information derived from the register, with (b) as an additional clarification? What is the limiting factor on the amount of information that may be published?

  91
  Why is the power to publish discretionary? The wording makes it clear that that is the case. Paragraph 7 states:
  "The Commissioners may publish, by such means as they think fit, any information",
  and so on. If some information is to be in the public domain, would not it be sensible to establish what information is to be placed there, provide a list and state that that will be done at a given time—perhaps once a year, or more frequently on the internet?
  I do not follow the logic of the provision. As in so many measures introduced by the Government—and, occasionally, by previous Conservative Governments—the provision is unnecessarily wide. It grants a huge amount of power to the commissioners. I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary answered my points. Why do the commissioners need to publish? Why not list the information that is to be published? Why not remove the discretion from the commissioners? Does the provision follow a precedent set by the VAT register and others?
  Mr. Timms: I do not understand the difficulty with paragraph 1, which is clear. If the individual does not intend to sell the aggregate, he is not required to register. If he intends to sell, he should register. That seems straightforward to me. I do not share the difficulty that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has with that.
  Now let me deal with some of the other points. The names and business addresses of people who exploit aggregates commercially are already in the public domain. I refer to the statutory declaration that is already required. Customs and Excise will produce a consolidated list of those people whose details are already available, which should not give rise to any alarm.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Letwin: Perhaps what the Financial Secretary has just said shows that I have entirely failed to understand the articulation of clause 19. Certainly either I have done so, or he has. Clause 19(1)(a) seems to make it clear to the ordinary reader that a quantity of aggregate is subjected to exploitation if
  "it is removed from a site falling within subsection (2)".
  Sites included in subsection (2) include
  "the originating site of the aggregate".
  There is nothing in the provision about selling the aggregate. If the concept of "removal" will do, the Financial Secretary has just given a misdescription of his own Bill and his own tax.
  Mr. Timms: The position is as set out in clause 19. Normally, commercial exploitation will involve selling. There might be occasions on which that is not the case, but normally it will be.
  Mr. Letwin: That really will not do. This is not some sort of general discussion about how to run a kindergarten. This is the law of the land, and if the Bill becomes law, it will say that a quantity of aggregate that is removed from a site is, ipso facto, commercially exploited. If it is thereby commercially exploited, it is prima facie the case
  92
  that if someone intends to cut rock to make dimension stone, with a by-product that he never expected but which, nevertheless, exists under the definition of aggregate, and he removes it from the site simply to rid himself of the stuff, he is commercially exploiting it. That is not what the Financial Secretary said, and I do not think that it is what he intends to achieve. The problem of intention here is the mismatch between the Financial Secretary's intention and the words of the Bill.
  Mr. Timms: The circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to construct, in which some unfairness would be perpetrated as a result of the measure, do not exist. Clause 19 sets out what constitutes commercial exploitation, and that is the way in which Customs and Excise will apply the requirements.
  The reason why a register is needed is that customers of those in the aggregate industry have a right to know whether the person supplying aggregate to them—and possibly increasing the price accordingly—is registered for the purposes of the levy. Even without that provision, they would be able to ask Customs and Excise whether a particular person was registered, and Customs and Excise would tell them. That is the position that currently applies with the landfill tax, which, even if it was not supported by the shadow Chief Secretary, was introduced by the previous Government.
  The time and manner of notification, and the information contained in it, will be prescribed in the regulations and will also be set out in a public notice prior to the commencement date. I say to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) that that is an entirely conventional procedure, exactly following those relating to the landfill tax. Indeed, a large part of the wording in the schedule and in the other technical parts of the measure is taken word for word from the measures that deal with the landfill tax.
  Mr. Tyrie: Perhaps some mistakes were made in the drafting of the landfill tax legislation—who knows? I do not know, because I was not around. Before the Minister finishes, will he answer the questions that I asked? Why has a discretionary power been given, rather than an order to publish the lists, if the reason given is that customers need to consult the lists to ensure that they are dealing with bona fide suppliers? Are there Data Protection Act implications, and does paragraph 3 act as a waiver to that Act? Why are we not setting out in the Bill what information is to be provided, rather than allowing the commissioners to make up their own minds what information to put into the public domain?
  Mr. Timms: As I said earlier, much of the wording in the schedule was taken from the legislation dealing with the landfill tax. I imagine that similar circumstances will almost certainly apply in this instance, although I will check that and drop the hon. Gentleman a line addressing that point and the others that he has raised.
  Let me say a little more about commercial exploitation, because some misunderstanding may be creeping in here. As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, clause 19(1) says that aggregate is subjected to exploitation if it is removed from a site. However, aggregate is commercially exploited only if the conditions in clause 19(3), too, are met. In all those circumstances a

  93
  person might be registrable, but if it is clear that no tax will be due, despite all that, Customs and Excise will not need to include the individual on the register.
  Mr. Letwin: I am afraid that that does not answer the question either. The Financial Secretary should look at clause 19(3). Incidentally, it is not clear whether paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are, as it were, exclusive, but I assume that there is, in conceptual terms, an "or" after each paragraph. There is neither an "and" nor an "or" in my text.
  Mr. Timms: In fact, there is an "and" at the end of paragraph (d).
  Mr. Letwin: Indeed there is. Perhaps this is helpful. Is the Financial Secretary telling us that commercial exploitation of something that is exploited under clause 19(1) occurs only if all the conditions in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (3) apply simultaneously?
  Mr. Timms: Yes.
  Mr. Letwin: That is genuinely helpful.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

  SECURITY FOR LEVY
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Letwin: I am sorry that we must return to some of the debate we have just had, but I am glad that we are doing so in that, following the Financial Secretary's helpful clarification, it is clear to me—after another look at clause 19(3)—that my point has not been answered.
  Clause 26 reveals the next feature of the scene. Subsection (1) tells us that a person who is registered may be required by the commissioners to give security. It is not just that my poor Mr. Jones has to appear on the register. It is not just that—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)— if he does not make the right noises, attract the attention of Customs and Excise and find himself on the register, he may pay a fine that may be 5 per cent. of what would have been his levy, or £250 if that is the lesser sum. It is not just that Customs and Excise can visit him, inspect him and presume him to be guilty—to be someone who should be paying tax, but is not. He can be required to give security: to lend Customs and Excise money, so to speak. That is the next purpose of his being on the register.
  We discover from line 14, the second line of clause 26(1), that a person does not need to be on the register to be required to give security; he can simply be "required to be registered". Whoever drafted the clause had very much in mind precisely the case of my Mr. Jones. We are talking about someone who, it appeared to the commissioners, had the intention—who had not thought himself that he had the intention, and had not asked to be on the register, but has been required to be registered and must now give security.
  94
  We return to the question of what intention this person must appear to the commissioners to have had in order to find himself in the invidious position of being presumed guilty, inspected, fined if he does not go on to the register and, under clause 26, required to give security. The answer is that he must have had the intention of exploiting commercially. The Financial Secretary thought that he had found a way out of that by explaining—very helpfully—that, under clause 19(3), to be commercially exploiting, someone who is exploiting under clause 19(1), whose definitions of exploitation include simply removing aggregate from a site, must simultaneously fulfil the conditions of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (3).
  Let us have a look at those paragraphs. Is any of them, in layman's terms, a normal measure of exploitation—or, to put it another way, selling? That is the word that the Financial Secretary used—incautiously, because it betrayed his real intention, which, unlike the clause, was perfectly rational. The answer is no.
  Let us look at subsection (3)(a). It is commercial exploitation if, as part of the phenomenon, the thing in question
  "is subjected to exploitation in the course or furtherance of a business".
  Clearly, my Mr. Jones is in the course or furtherance of a business and so will everyone else who is relevant be. Subsection (3)(b) says that it is commercial exploitation if
  "the exploitation to which"
  the thing
  "is subjected does not consist in its removal from one registered site to another".
  Mr. Jones is in no such position: he has only one site. Subsection (3)(c) states that it is commercial exploitation if the exploitation
  "does not consist in or require its removal to a registered site".
  Of course, that will not be the case because, again, he has only one site. Subsection (3)(d) states that it is commercial exploitation if the exploitation does not
  "consist in or require its removal to any premises for the purpose of having china clay or ball clay extracted"—
  that is not his business; it is not relevant. Subsection (3)(e) states that it is commercial exploitation if the exploitation is not such that
  "as a result and without its being subjected to any process involving its being mixed with any other substance or material (apart from water), it again becomes part of the land".
  Again, that is not the case with Mr. Jones and his dust.
  Therefore, Mr. Jones can, I fear, be judged by the commissioners in their wisdom to be intending to be commercially exploiting some dust. I speculate; I do not know. The Minister does not know. He cannot tell me whether dust is included, but I think that it might be—some dust that comes about when Mr. Jones is engaged in the admittedly exempt process of cutting some stone to produce some rock to produce some dimension stone. He is not selling the stuff. He is not intending to sell the stuff. The Bill does not ask him to prove that he is selling the stuff, or otherwise. It makes no reference to selling. It must be the case that he fits within subsections (1) and (3) of clause 19, taking 19(3) to mean 19(3)(a) to (e) simultaneously applied.
  My Mr. Jones could well fit in exactly that category. What does he have to do? He has to put down security under clause 26. He has to pay a fine if he does not register.

  95
  He has to permit the Inland Revenue, presumably, to inspect his premises as someone who is registered. When it does, it will undoubtedly ask why on earth he is not paying the tax.
  This is a poor situation. Again, I am more than happy to acknowledge my error if I have made one, but, as far as I could make out, the Financial Secretary genuinely thought, as a normal and intelligent person might have, that clause 19, with the various other clauses that we are discussing, including clause 26, would have the commonsensical effect of clobbering all those people in all those ways only if they were intending to sell something. However, that is not what the Bill does. It is very surprising that the Financial Secretary should come here and talk about selling when that is not what the Bill does, unless I have missed something else.
  Mr. Timms: Clause 26 allows the commissioners to request a payment from a person where they think that that might be necessary to protect the Revenue. The provision is common to other taxes and duties under the care and management of Customs and Excise. The commissioners have the power to decide how much and in what manner such a security must be paid, and may apply penalties in the event that a requirement to provide security has not been complied with.
  The security can take the form of a bank guarantee, a bond or indeed a cash deposit. It is a sensible precaution. We need the power to be able to protect the Revenue. We do not intend routinely to ask for security. The powers will be used by Customs only where they are necessary, and where there is a chance that levy that has been collected from customers will not be accounted for.
  There is the availability of the commissioners' review and the independent appeal procedures, provided for in clauses 40 and 41. Any appeal against requirement, or the amount of security can be heard without payment or deposit of the disputed amount of security, so the usual safeguards are all in place. These arrangements appear elsewhere in the tax system. I hope that the Committee will not find difficulty with them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

  AGGREGATES LEVY: RECOVERY AND INTEREST.
  Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Ottaway: Paragraph 10 of schedule 5 would impose a swingeing level of penalty interest at some 10 percentage points above the rate applicable under the Finance Act 1996 which, I imagine, is the base rate or something similar to it.
  The situation is exacerbated by paragraph 10(5), which cuts out a number of the mitigating factors that might have been taken into account in terms of a failure to pay the levy. The swingeing rate is imposed when there seem to be perfectly good reasons for not paying the levy, such
  96
  as insufficiency of funds. Paragraph 10(5)(b) deals with the question of losses, while (c) concerns whether or not the person has been acting in good faith. If someone acting in good faith fails to pay the aggregates levy and finds himself hit by the base rate plus 10 percentage points, that will be draconian. I would be grateful if the Minister could throw some light on the thinking on this point.
  Mr. Timms: The schedule contains provisions for the recovery of debts, assessments and interest as a necessary part of the arrangements. It provides that the commissioners may, in certain circumstances, make an assessment of the amount of levy due and, having so notified the person concerned, recover the amount as a debt due to the Crown.
  The schedule details the circumstances in which an assessment may be made and specifies other conditions concerning the operation of assessments, including time limits within which an assessment may be made. The power to make an assessment of levy due within the boundaries established by law is an important element of an effective control regime for any tax. It is entirely sensible that, where necessary—for example, because a registered person has failed to make any returns as required by law and thus has not paid the levy due—there should be a means by which Customs can act to recover the levy. The schedule provides an effective and reasonable means for Customs to use its best judgment to collect levy which is due but has not been declared, and it is an essential control measure to deter abuse.
  Clause 27 and schedule 5 provide for penalty interest to be imposed in certain circumstances; for example, some failures to pay the levy by the due date. Again, this is a conventional arrangement. Penalty interest is compound interest, calculated— as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) says—at the penalty rate of 10 percentage points above the ordinary rate. Generally, penalty interest is imposed on outstanding debts and is at a higher rate because it represents ordinary interest plus a penalty.
  Again, I underline the fact that all these provisions are already in force in other regimes and, to my knowledge, are not causing any difficulties within them. I do not think that there are any exceptional circumstances here which mean that different arrangements should apply.
  In all these matters, taxpayers have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal following a review by the commissioners. That is set out in clause 40. The interest is calculated daily but is added to the principal once a month. The rate of 10 percentage points to which I have referred is calculated on the rate for ordinary interest that is applicable under section 197 of the Finance Act 1996. This is a conventional arrangement and I hope that the Committee will find no difficulty with it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule 5 agreed to.
  Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

  AGGREGATES LEVY: EVASION, MISDECLARATION AND NEGLECT
  Question proposed, That this schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Ottaway: Again, I wish to probe the Minister's thinking on what seems to be a heavy hand in the drafting.

  97
  I accept his claim that schedule 5 follows past precedents. None the less, I would be surprised if that were the case with schedule 6, which creates a new series of criminal offences in relation to evasion of the aggregates levy. That appears to be a massive overkill, given that the Crown can already prosecute for conspiracy to defraud or for the common law offence of cheating.
  Paragraph 3 of part I is especially offensive, because it states that
  "A person is guilty of an offence under this paragraph if his conduct during any particular period must have involved the commission by him of one or more offences under the preceding provisions of this Schedule."
  That is tantamount to guilt by mere submission and could lead, in this case, to a prison sentence of up to seven years or an unlimited fine. The test of guilt must be much tighter, because we cannot have people subject to such penalties on the suspicion that they must have been involved in the commission of an offence.
  Mr. Timms: The schedule covers procedures for evasion, misdeclaration and neglect, and specifies several offences and the related penalties. It deals, therefore, with the criminal offences and the sentences regime for the aggregates levy. Breaches of most of the requirements stemming from the law or regulations are covered by a civil penalty regime, but criminal sanctions are still needed for serious cases of fraudulent evasion of the levy and other serious offences. Effective punishment must be available for those who break the law or who seek to evade payment of the levy.
  The schedule also provides for a civil penalty for fraudulent evasion of the levy. As is common practice in other tax areas, it allows Customs and Excise the discretion to deal under the civil penalty regime with an offence that would otherwise require prosecution as a criminal offence. That point may be of some reassurance to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). The provision is an incentive for the taxpayer to co-operate with Customs and Excise once the fraud has been discovered and also prevents needless expense being incurred by prosecuting offences involving small amounts through the criminal courts. That allows some flexibility, which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome.
  I did not entirely follow the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman has with paragraph 3(1), because it is a straightforward statement that breaches of the provisions set out earlier in the schedule constitute an offence.
  Mr. Ottaway: The Minister is going right to the point. The words are "must have": no evidence needs to be produced. There need only be suspicion, and in my judgment that is not good enough, when there are such heavy fines or a seven-year prison sentence.
  Mr. Timms: I do not think that that is what is envisaged. The normal arrangements for evidence and court process will of course apply. I see no particular cause for alarm. If I am missing something, the hon. Gentleman might drop me a line and I will be happy to pursue the matter further. Again, I think that this is an entirely conventional arrangement.
  Schedule 6 agreed to.
  Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 30

  CREDIT FOR AGGREGATES LEVY
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Letwin: I shall limit myself to a minute and a half, to enable the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to have his say.
  The mechanism in the clause is probably the right mechanism for solving part of the problem that we will debate later in relation to pre-cast concrete. I see no reason why exports, and import substitution, which we will come to later, cannot be subject to exactly the same regime, regardless of whether we are dealing with raw aggregates or the fabricated material. I hope that, when we come to that debate, we can look back at this clause and see an exact parallel that will enable us to resolve the problem of pre-cast concrete and safeguard the jobs that are at stake. I will not dwell on the subject now, as we will have plenty of opportunity to debate it later, but I wanted to ensure that we have a hook on which to hang those remarks.
  Mr. David Heath: There is the age-old question whether, in subsection (1), the "may" should be a "will". I believe that it should.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) referred to exports. There is a strong argument for using this mechanism for pre-cast concrete, which represents about 3 per cent. of UK sales, and 9 per cent. in the case of paving. There is clearly a problem.
  It is hard to understand why the processes referred to in subsection (1)(c) are not listed, even in rudimentary form, especially as in clause 18(3) relevant substances are listed exhaustively.
  Finally, under subsection (2)(c), it is hard to see why no interest is to be added if repayment is in the form of a refund, given that provision is made later in the clause for interest to be added to a credit. I ask the Minister to look at that anomaly.
  Mr. Timms: We will be looking at the main points raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) later.
  It being Nine o'clock, THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Orders [7 November and 9 April], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

  REPAYMENTS OF OVERPAID LEVY
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Ottaway: Clause 31 should, in truth, be considered with clause 32. It deals with repayments of overpaid levy. It provides that when a person has paid an amount to the commissioners by way of aggregates levy that was not levy due to them, they should he liable to repay the amount. That amount is repaid only on the making of a claim.

  99
  It would be helpful if the Minister spelled out his thinking with regard to the clause. How does he see it working, and under what circumstances are people likely to pay a levy that was not due? Will it be as a result of overcharging by Customs and Excise, in which case it would be an error on its part? Will it be repaid with interest under those circumstances?
  Under what circumstances does the Financial Secretary envisage that a claim will be made? What would happen, for example, if Customs and Excise realised that some poor chap had overpaid the levy without realising it? Is it under an obligation to repay the money? Under clause 31(2), that does not seem to be the case. Will the Minister consider what would happen in the event of an error being made of which the levee was not aware? There is a three-year time limit under clause 32, which we can perhaps deal with later, along with schedule 8. It would assist the Committee if the Minister could enlighten us with regard to these important administrative points.
  Mr. Timms: The clause provides for the repayment of overpaid levy. It enables Customs and Excise to prescribe in regulations the form and manner of claims for repayment. The measures allows for adjustments once errors of this nature are identified. It is clearly a necessary component of any fair tax and, as with so many other measures that we have been discussing, is a replication of measures that apply widely across the tax system and work well.
  It will not be difficult for people to claim repayment. The hon. Gentleman referred to clause 31(2). The procedure will be kept as simple as possible. Details will be published in a public notice prior to the commencement date so there should be no difficulty about how to do that. The system will be designed to be fair; Customs and Excise will require evidence of any overpayment that is claimed. That will be specified in regulations and in the public notice. There will, of course, be the right of appeal against an initial decision by Customs and Excise, as is conventional, in the form of a review by Customs and Excise and, if the party is still unsatisfied, by appeal to an independent tribunal. These established and familiar arrangements work well elsewhere, and I hope that the Committee accepts that they will do so in this instance.
  Mr. Ottaway: I am grateful for that, but the Minister has not dealt with my central point. What would happen when the person levied—the payer—had not made a claim because he was unaware that he had overpaid? Would Customs and Excise be under a duty to repay or to notify the person on whom the levy had been laid? The point applies in several areas. I have often wondered what happens in the Inland Revenue. If, for example, the Minister had inadvertently overpaid tax, I am sure that he would expect the Revenue to notify him if it knew about it. The same should apply here. The point is unclear, and I wonder whether the Minister might think about it and return to it on Report.
  Mr. Timms: I shall be happy to reflect on the point. I do not believe that the Bill contains anything novel by comparison with arrangements that apply elsewhere. The position on liability and responsibility is set out in
  100
  clause 31(2), which compares with what happens elsewhere in the tax system. I have no doubt that if the commissioners became aware of overpayment, they would take steps to put it right.
  It would be unusual for the commissioners to be aware that tax had been overpaid if the person who had paid the levy was not aware of it. I cannot think what circumstances might give rise to that, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise any variations on that theme, I shall be happy to think about them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

  SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS ABOUT REPAYMENTS ETC.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Ottaway: Having just about heard an "Aye" out of the less than massed ranks on the Government Benches for the previous clause, I shall raise a point already alluded to in the previous debate. Does the three-year time limit stem from the knowledge of overpayment or from overpayment itself? If a chap had overpaid but did not become aware of it for a year, would the three years begin then or would it have begun at the date of overpayment?
  My only other point relates to the terribly subjective reference to unjust enrichment in clause 32(2), which states:
  "In the case of any claim for a repayment of an amount of aggregates levy other than a claim to a repayment to which a person is entitled by virtue of tax credit regulations, it shall be a defence to that claim that the repayment of that amount would unjustly enrich the claimant."
  Why should that be a defence? What does the Minister have in mind in referring to unjust enrichment? He may be satisfied with enrichment, but not with unjust enrichment. What does he mean by unjust, and what precedents and criteria are being applied?
  One assumes that the decision would be taken by the commissioners, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that there will be a right of appeal. Perhaps that appeal should be beyond the appeal procedure set out in the Bill.
  We are well aware that the concept of unjust enrichment is set out elsewhere, but I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us to what extent it applies in this provision. Perhaps the Minister may draw some comfort from subsection (4)(b), which deals with the extent to which
  "any enrichment of the taxpayer would be unjust".
  Obviously, much thinking has gone into the nature of justness or unjustness. Perhaps the Minister could tell us which criteria would be involved.
  Mr. Timms: The clause does indeed contain further provisions about repayment of the levy. The time limit of three years is set for claiming repayment of overpaid levy; that will be three years from the overpayment occurring, I think, but I may well want to return to that point before we conclude our consideration of the clause.
  Non-payment of claims is provided for if that is considered to result in unjust enrichment. The circumstances that we have in mind are when an amount of

  101
  levy is due for repayment to the claimant, but another person has in fact borne the cost. In that situation, unjust enrichment would occur.
  The time limit is to establish reasonable control over the levy. It is similar to other time limits in Customs legislation. The three years run from the making of the claim—that is set out in 32(1). The measure allows for repayment of additional costs incurred, if they are sufficiently quantified. That relates to a point made earlier by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on interest payable by Customs when levy has been overpaid. Interest is payable by Customs as long as an error by Customs led to the overpayment.
  Mr. Ottaway: May I press the Minister on the point about the three years from the making of the claim? Once the claim has been made, what is the relevance of the three-year period? Can the claim relate back only three years, or do the commissioners have three years in which to make the payment? That would be ludicrous. The clause refers to an amount paid
  "three years before the making of the claim",
  so I repeat my question: does the three-year period start to run from the moment that the overpayment is made or in some other circumstances?
  Mr. Timms: It is the former—it relates back.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8

  AGGREGATES LEVY: REPAYMENTS AND CREDITS
  Question proposed, That this schedule be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Ottaway: Schedule 8 relates to aggregates levy repayments and credits and the reimbursement arrangements. As the schedule is detailed, long and extensive, it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could briefly set out his thinking on it.
  Mr. Timms: I do not have a great deal to add to what I have already said on the subject. My remarks on clause 32 apply equally to schedule 8. I do not apologise for repeatedly making the point that all these arrangements are wholly conventional and reproduce arrangements that work well elsewhere in the tax system. We need provisions on repayments. Such provisions are set out in the schedule. They work well elsewhere, and I have no doubt at all that they will work extremely well in this measure.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 33

  APPOINTMENT OF TAX REPRESENTATIVES
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Letwin: I should like to begin by asking the Financial Secretary to confirm that clause 33 replicates the standard VAT provisions. I wonder whether he can give us an idea of how far the clause will apply. That is relevant in the context of the debate that we shall have on the serious matter of job exports. So far as the Government are aware, what is the structure of the industry's non-resident holdings? Are there significant non-resident holding companies with significant subsidiaries that operate or—to revert to our earlier discussion—could appear to the commissioners to be intended to operate in a taxable domain in respect of the aggregates levy?
  Has the Financial Secretary discussed the European Union aspects of the clause in relation to any such non-resident holding companies and their subsidiaries? Has he received legal advice on that? Is he aware of the legal challenges to the proposal and its effects currently being contemplated and mounted by various people in the domestic industry under EU law? What advice has he had about that? It would be helpful to understand those points, which relate to clause 33, although their importance will become evident when we debate clause 48—the substantive debate that we need to have in the time remaining this evening.
  Mr. Timms: Clauses 33 and 34 are technical provisions, the purpose of which, in common with the other indirect taxes, is to provide special treatment for non-resident companies to protect the Inland Revenue. The great bulk of the provisions is based on those for the landfill tax, much of which was, in turn, drawn from the arrangements for VAT, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, the provisions are not intended to address non-resident holding companies; they are essentially intended to deal with importers who do not have a permanent base in the United Kingdom. Air passenger duty is an example of the need for such provisions.
  I do not have the information that the hon. Gentleman requests, and I have received no representations about a legal challenge. Of course, EU state aid arrangements will need to be discussed, and those discussions will take place in the usual way.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for that response. I am sorry, but I seem to have misunderstood the point that he made about the purpose of the clause. Is he saying that the purpose is to catch the importer who could otherwise avoid the import form of the levy?
  Mr. Timms indicated assent.
  Mr. Letwin: That clarification is very helpful. In that case, I shall ask a question different from the one I misguidedly asked in the first place. How will non-resident holding companies with substantial subsidiaries in this country be affected? Will the domestic subsidiary simply be treated as an ordinary domestic company for the purposes of the tax?
  Mr. Timms indicated assent.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful for that clarification. In that case, I have a further hypothetical question, because I do

  103
  not imagine that there will be many imports of pure gravel. However, when an import qualifies for the levy because it appears in the taxable form of gravel and not as prefabricated concrete, I understand that it will be subject to the levy exactly as if it had been moved from a UK quarry. Under the terms of clause 19, it will be treated as if it had been commercially exploited. If that is the case, presumably there is a clear argument for parity of treatment between the domestic and the imported product.
  I take it that no state aid issue will result from such parity, but does it not follow that an odd and negative state aid issue will arise in relation to an import that escapes the levy because it has been cloaked in the form of prefabricated concrete? If the same object is produced by a domestic subsidiary of a non-resident holding company, it would be subject to the levy because it is produced domestically. Has the Financial Secretary received any advice on that matter?
  Mr. Timms: I have been involved in several discussions with Brussels about state aid matters, and I do not envisage any concerns being raised about the point to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

  GROUPS OF COMPANIES ETC.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Letwin: The Committee will be grateful if the Financial Secretary can confirm that the clause will lead to the same treatment for groups as in other indirect taxation legislation, such as that for VAT.
  Will the Financial Secretary also say something about clause 35(2)? It states:
  "Any aggregates levy with which a body corporate is charged in respect of aggregate subjected to commercial exploitation at a time when the body is a member of a group shall be treated for the purposes of this Part as if it were the representative member for that group (instead of that body) which is charged with the levy."
  If we ignore the words "subjected to commercial exploitation" and substitute them with the word "sold"—which the Financial Secretary unguardedly used earlier and tried to apply to clause 19, even though it does not apply—clause 35(2) would be a standard provision. It would operate in the same way as any other legislation on indirect taxes, and quite rightly so. It would be a straightforward anti-evasion measure that was designed to prevent corporate reorganisations resulting in the evasion of tax.
  To return to the issue of commercial exploitation, however, I persist in not understanding, among other things, how clause 19 will work from a sheer practical point of view, even if we leave aside the particular problems that would emerge from the case of Mr. Jones, about which I speculated earlier. Clause 35(2) exposes the issue beautifully and, under it, we must ask when commercial exploitation has occurred—and "when" is the
  104
  all important issue. It is not enough to know whether commercial exploitation occurred; what matters is when it occurred.
  Let me consider the matter in the reverse order of logic. I persist in believing that after we have completed the tests in clause 19(3), which determine whether the exploitation is commercial and which have, according to the Minister, to be taken simultaneously, we still have to ask at what moment that exploitation occurred. For that, we must look to clause 19(1), which tells us nothing about when that might have been—perhaps it is not meant to. I remember lecturing about such "if, and only if" clauses at Cambridge. They are jolly good for some logical purposes, but are of no use for temporal purposes.
  It is clear that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 19(1) are followed by an implicit "or"—indeed, paragraph (c) has an actual "or" after it. If the Minister is using the method of statutory construction in which the "and" in clause 19(3)(d) implies that paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) have to be taken together, then the "or" at the end of clause 19(1)(c) must imply that aggregate is exploited if it comes under paragraphs (a) or (b) or (c) or (d).
  Clearly such activities could occur at different times. If the quantity of aggregate is subjected to exploitation when it is removed from a relevant site, that will not necessarily happen at the same moment as the aggregate
  "becomes subject to an agreement to supply it to any person",
  as set out in clause 19(1)(b). Neither of those moments is likely to happen at the same time as the aggregate is used for construction purposes, as set out in paragraph (c). That is likely to be later on in the day; for all I know, it may occur at a different time from when the aggregate
  "is mixed"—
  except in permitted circumstances, on which we need not dwell—
  "with any material or substance other than water",
  as set out in paragraph (d). So there are three or possibly four moments, any one of which would qualify as exploitation: hence—as the tests in clause 19(3) have hypothetically been simultaneously satisfied—the aggregate is deemed to have been commercially exploited.
  Clause 35 deals with groups of companies and with evasion. Subsection (2) states:
  "Any aggregates levy with which a body corporate is charged in respect of aggregate subjected to commercial exploitation at a time when the body is a member of a group".
  When is that time? Let us suppose that the body was a member of the group when the product was removed from a site falling within subsection (2), under clause 19(1)(a), but was not a member when it became subject to an agreement to supply it, or when it was used for construction, or when it was mixed other than in permitted circumstances and so on. What is the relevant time?
  There might be a clear explanation of that, and it would be nice to know what it is. We have a series of tests for exploitation, none of which has anything to do with anyone's ordinary understanding of the term. In addition, they are connected with tests of commercial exploitation which have nothing to do with the understanding not just of an ordinary person, but of an extraordinary person—namely, the Minister. He thought that the crucial test is the time of the sale, but it is not.
  We are left with a genuine question about the time. My guess is that we do not know the answer and will have to wait and see how the courts deal with the problem, which

  105
  may differ over the years. I leave that speculation on the table in the hope that I can withdraw it after the Minister has cast light on that interesting question.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Timms: These are technical provisions. Their purpose, in common with similar measures on other indirect taxes, is to provide for special treatment for groups of companies to protect their revenue and facilitate the administration of the tax.
  As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) suspected, the clause is based on the arrangements for VAT, but it is not exactly the same because under VAT provisions Customs and Excise can insist on grouping as an anti-avoidance measure. That is not needed in the case of the aggregates levy. This is an entirely voluntary and facilitative arrangement. The clause says that two or more bodies corporate are eligible to be treated as members of the same group for the purposes of the Bill. The fact that the arrangements are not the same as those for VAT may limit the force of the hon. Gentleman's questions.
  When we were discussing clause 33, I rightly repeated that the bulk of the provisions are drawn from the arrangements for the landfill tax, which were drawn from those for VAT. I ought to make it absolutely clear that clause 33 itself is based on the arrangements for air passenger duty, which was also introduced by the previous Government.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the timing of commercial exploitation. It is determined by whichever activity is the earliest of those listed in clause 19(1)(a) to (d). Clause 19(7)(a) makes it clear that, once commercial exploitation has taken place, it cannot take place again with the same aggregate.
  Mr. Letwin: The Financial Secretary is very helpful. He said that we discover in clause 19(7) the deep truth that it is the timing of the first activity that applies. I see nothing in that subsection that serves the purpose, so to give him time to consider the matter, I shall read it out:
  "For the purposes of this section a quantity of aggregate is mixed with a material or substance in permitted circumstances"—
  that appears to deal only with subsection (1)(d)—
  if … the material or substance with which it is mixed consists wholly of a quantity of taxable aggregate that has not previously been subjected to commercial exploitation … and … the mixing takes place on a site which, in a case where it falls within subsection (2) above in relation to any part of the aggregate included in the mixture, so falls in relation to every part of it."
  I see that that has the effect that mixing, which subsection (1)(d) is concerned with, does not itself constitute a basis for double taxation under the levy if the item in question has previously been taxed under the levy, that is, under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c). I cannot see how subsection (7) in any way tells us which is the relevant date if there is a conflict of dates between subsection (1), paragraphs (a), (b) or (c).
  Last Thursday morning, in a rather unpleasantly spent hour, I went back and looked through clause 19(4), (5) and (6) for an answer to that question. For a brief, glorious moment, I thought that I might have found the answer in subsection (6), which says:
  "For the purposes of this section a quantity of aggregate becomes subject to an agreement to supply it to any person"—
  106
  the reference to subsection (1)(b)—
  "except to the extent that it is not separately identifiable at the time when the agreement is entered into … and … to that extent, at the time when it is appropriated to the agreement."
  However, I then realised that that is limited to telling us about subsection (1)(b); it tells us nothing about the conflict of timing in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Secondly, it tells us nothing about timing anyway. It tells us only something about what is and what is not something subject to an agreement to supply.
  I am bound to say that I cannot see anything in clause 19(4) or (5) that resolves the problem. Clearly, there is nothing in clause 19(1), and the Minister has already told us about clause 19(3), so we are left with clause 19(2), but that tells us exclusively about sites. I am at a loss.
  Mr. Timms: I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. I apologise for having given him the wrong reference. I should have referred him to clause 17(2)(c), which covers the point he seeks.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary. I may have misunderstood. I understand that clause 17(2)(c) has an effect that relates to the point about not subjecting something to double taxation under the levy. I shall explain shortly why I do not think that it solves the problem arising in respect of clause 19(1)(a), (b) and (c)—conflicts of time in relation to clause 35—although I may be mistaken about that.
  Clause 17 states:
  "For the purposes of this Part any quantity of aggregate is, in relation to any occasion on which it is subjected to commercial exploitation, a quantity of taxable aggregate except to the extent that … it is or derives from any aggregate that has already been subjected to a charge to aggregates levy".
  That clearly states the excellent principle that something cannot be taxed twice. However, to return to 19(1)(a), (b) and (c), which are the cause of the problem in relation to clause 35, it could be that the quantity of aggregate involved in relation to the company which was, but is not, part of the group—the issue dealt with under clause 35—was at a certain time "removed from a site", at another time
  "subject to an agreement to supply",
  and at yet another time "used for construction", but at no time "subjected to a charge". It might not be subjected to a charge for some time to come, beyond any of those events.
  I do not see how clause 17(2)(c), which appears to be a general prohibition on double taxing—and is admirable as such—handles the problem of the conflict of times that arises from a problem identifying, not the moment at which the thing was subjected to a charge, but the moment at which it became eligible to be subjected to a charge, which is a different matter altogether. I may be wrong about this and I shall be delighted if the Minister can assure me that the principles of statutory construction in some way determine that clause 17(2)(c) answers the question of which of the times set out in clause 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) is relevant for the purpose of grouping or ungrouping.
  Mr. Timms: I think that it does. I was trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument about eligibility for liability for a charge. The point made in clause 19 is that

  107
  the aggregate becomes liable for levy in the circumstances set out therein, and the impact of clause 17(2)(c) is that it is the first of the "experiences" of a given quantity of aggregate that causes the liability to be incurred. That is the point at which the liability arises.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for saying that. Under Pepper v. Hart, his comments may help the courts by providing some clue of what he is trying to achieve. I cannot see how on earth the wording achieves the effect that he describes, however. I say that not as a lawyer, but as an ordinary human being who is trying to be a legislator. However, he has clearly stated his intention, so I hope that that may guide the courts and provide a perfectly sensible resolution of the issue.
  Let us assume that that is the intention—we must hope that it is also the effect—and consider what will happen if the degrouping to which the clause relates does not lead to avoidance of the tax. I think that the Financial Secretary said that the first of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) to clause 19(1) would apply before the degrouping. A degrouped company may have removed some relevant substance—in the technical terms of the Bill, it will be an aggregate—from the site, but it will have been covered by 19(1)(a) before the degrouping. Even if the company only later becomes subject to the agreement to supply—in layman's terms, the sale will therefore occur later—and the proceeds go to the degrouped organisation, will not the liability nevertheless arise in relation to the group and not the degrouped entity?
  I cannot believe that that is what the Financial Secretary intends. I think that I understand the purpose of clause 19(1)(a), which is, incidentally, jolly odd. The provision is intended to try to allow Customs and Excise to exercise the maximum leverage. Indeed, that is the spirit of the aggregates levy. One does not have to prove that the material has been sold or that it has ever been used or commercially exploited in any terms that the Financial Secretary or I would ordinarily use as ordinary human beings. One has to prove only that the stuff was taken off the site and did not appear at another registered site. That is easy to prove; it is about the most objective fact that one can get at. I think that clause 19(1)(a) was drafted to make it as easy as possible for Customs and Excise to ensure that it gets the levy.
  That intention gives rise to the oddities that I described in relation to Mr. Jones and his dimension stone cutting, but it also produces oddities in relation to grouping. The construction of the provisions shows that somebody has said, "How can I make dead sure that Customs and Excise can grab the items in question and tax them?" I do not think that that person has asked to a sufficient extent whether it is fair to add such provisions to the mix of criteria for eligibility for the tax. Nor has it been asked whether it would be reasonable to apply the test of clause 19(1)(a) in all the circumstances that may arise.
  This is very complicated terrain, and I do not think that either the Financial Secretary or I have reached the bottom of the matter. Notwithstanding his brave remarks and his splendid Pepper v. Hart explanation of his intentions regarding 17(2)(c), I think that we have probably identified a lacuna in terms of the interaction of clause 35 and clause 19(1). My fear is that there are dozens of other lacunae and that my feeble intellect has not revealed them
  108
  all in the short time that has been allowed to us. I am afraid that all sorts of similar problems will creep out of the woodwork as this horrible tax is applied. I think that the provision was constructed by somebody who was very attentive to the question of how to grab the tax, and that it was drafted far too quickly to enable a proper investigation of whether all the interactions had been identified so as to ensure fair and sensible results in all cases.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) flatters me by suggesting that courts will pore over my words in the debate for years—indeed, centuries—to come. However, we are considering obscure circumstances that the courts will not study frequently.
  The hon. Gentleman is right about the purpose of the element of clause 19 to which he referred. However, I do not believe that the problem that he fears will arise. If the party has moved the aggregate, it is commercial exploitation and tax is due unless we are dealing with an exemption. If commercial exploitation has occurred, and no tax is due, but a second, taxable commercial exploitation takes place, liability arises at that point.
  I shall reflect further on the hon. Gentleman's points. I do not believe that there is a problem, but he is right that the subject is complex. It may therefore be appropriate to reflect further and ascertain whether there is a difficulty. If there is, I shall revert to the subject. I hope and believe that there is no difficulty, but the matter is worth further thought.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clause 36

  PARTNERSHIPS AND OTHER UNINCORPORATED BODIES
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Letwin: Again, I begin by asking the Financial Secretary to confirm that the provision parallels standard clauses in previous legislation. How will that work in the case that we are considering? Representatives of the industry have told me that several people would be caught by subsection (1)(a) and (b). They include sole traders who busy themselves with a quarry; some of them carry out their business in partnership. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that subsection (1) has a wide application to the smaller end of the industry. That is not true of the great aggregates companies—the half dozen or so that comprise the great bulk of production—but of the tail, which must never be forgotten or ignored if we care about our economy. The tail includes many traders who would be caught by subsection (1).
  It is therefore unsatisfactory that we are told only:
  "The Commissioners may by regulations make provision for determining by what persons anything required to be done under this Part is to be done where, apart from those regulations, that requirement would fall on"
  people who are caught by subsection (1)(a) or (b). The position would be less unsatisfactory if the Financial Secretary could give us some idea of the contents of the

  109
  regulations. The smaller businesses have no idea of
  them or their potential effect. That is bad enough for big businesses. Indeed, the levy's effect on big business is a large part of the problem. For small business, the worst thing will be uncertainty about the regulations, and not knowing what is about to hit it. I hope that the Financial Secretary will give us a clear idea of what the regulations will look like, and of how those who are unincorporated or carrying on a partnership, or both, will be treated.
  In particular, it would be good to know what will happen in the odd cases, and how they will be dealt with. The Minister will, of course, tell us that such cases are very unlikely to occur and highly hypothetical. However, let us suppose that two people, both unincorporated, are knocking away at two parts of the same quarry. When we come to the interesting question under clause 19(1) of when the exploitation occurs or to the difficult questions about which substance we are concerned with when mixtures of substances occur in complicated ways and some materials are encased in others, how will we know which party involved is responsible for what? How will the regulations produced by the commissioners deal with such cases?
  Those are not straightforward cases. We are dealing with complex processes, in which the levy forces a disentangling of substances and times from one another that is unprecedented and that has been unnecessary for other purposes. The regulations will, therefore, have effects that similar regulations relating to most other taxes would not be expected to have. Will the Minister, therefore, give us a clear guide as to what he expects the regulations to look like? Perhaps he might care to deposit a draft of them before the House, before the end of the deliberations in Standing Committee.
  Mr. Timms: These provisions have a great deal in common with other indirect taxes, on which they are based. The wording is lifted directly from the provisions in the legislation for the landfill tax and for VAT. I do not have data about the number of businesses in this sector to which the provisions will apply. However, I do not accept—although this might be splitting hairs—that it is important to get the provisions right only if many businesses are involved. Even when only small numbers of people are affected, the provisions can have a considerable impact on them. It is therefore important to get them right, and that is the view that we take in this case.
  Just as the clause is taken directly from the arrangements for landfill tax and for VAT, so I expect the regulations to look like the regulations that apply to partnerships and other unincorporated bodies in the case of landfill tax and VAT. I would advise the hypothetical individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman referred to look at those regulations. They can be pretty confident that these provisions will look rather like them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 37 and 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

  TRANSFER OF A BUSINESS AS A GOING CONCERN
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Letwin: I do not want to detain the Committee long on clause 39. We have a major issue with clause 40, which
  110
  we want to move on to, but I want briefly to ask a question. There is a perfectly reasonable requirement in clause 39—perhaps the Financial Secretary will confirm that this is in common with much previous legislation—that if one is going to hand over one's business to someone else, one has to tell Customs and Excise about it. I should put it another way: rather unfortunately, the clause allows the commissioners to make regulations that will have that effect. Let me make a general point, and say that throughout the Bill, as in a good deal of other legislation, there is reference to far too much regulation on the part of the commissioners—but that is an overall feature of indirect taxation, for which the Financial Secretary and his colleagues should not be blamed personally.
  I am concerned about a specific matter. If the Financial Secretary will forgive me, I shall return to the hypothetical case of Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones did not think that he was in the business; he thought that he was in another business, which was exempt. The commissioners judged him to be intending to be in a business that would qualify.
  Let us move the story on a bit. Mr. Jones had to register—if he had not, he would have been fined—and he had to deposit a security. As it turns out, that was for nothing, because Mr. Jones has never produced anything taxable. He has never produced anything that, on detailed inspection, could be shown to be an aggregate for the purposes of the Bill. I think that there will be many such cases: by the time it is found that those concerned are not caught by the legislation, they will have been subjected to a huge amount of intrusion.
  Does clause 39 constitute the next intrusion? Let us suppose that poor Mr. Jones, having at last—or so he thinks—reached the end of all that unnecessary and unjustified intrusion by Customs and Excise, wants to sell the business because he is so fed up, or for some other reason. Will he then—because he has been registered under the regulations for which clause 39 provides—have to inform Customs and Excise that he has sold the business, so that the next person along the line may be subject to exactly the same unnecessary harassment, or will the regulations at least prevent that from happening if the person in question, although registered, has never had to pay any of this wretched tax?
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is right again. Clause 39 is a technical provision, securing continuity when a business is transferred from one person to another as a going concern. This is common practice in the case of other indirect taxes.
  I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, but perhaps I can drop him a line.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

  REVIEW OF COMMISSIONERS' DECISIONS
  Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 33, line 33, leave out "confirmed" and insert "revoked".
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 23, in clause 41, page 34, line 2, leave out from "above" to end of line 3.
  Mr. Ottaway: Clause 40 applies to
  "any decision of the Commissioners",
  and to powers to review any of those decisions and to appeal. Subsection (1) lists a number of matters relating to the commissioners' powers, while subsection (2) states:
  "Any person who is or will be affected by any decision to which this section applies may by notice in writing to the Commissioners require them to review the decision."
  The commissioners make a decision, but, under certain circumstances, a person who feels affected or aggrieved has a right of appeal and the commissioners look at the decision again—so far, so good.
  10 pm
  Under subsection (3), the appeal is allowed if the notice requiring the review is given before the end of the period of 45 days—again, so far, so good. The grounds for appeal are set out in subsection (5). The facts to be considered by the commissioners have to be new facts. The ground cannot be gone over again—again, so far, so good.
  At that point, having considered the new facts, the commissioners can withdraw, vary or confirm the decision that has been reviewed. This is where the clause comes unstuck. When they have reviewed their decision, they may decide to withdraw, vary or confirm it. If they do not, within the period of 45 days beginning with the day on which the review was required, give notice to the person requiring it of their determination,
  "they shall be deemed to have confirmed the decision."
  Therefore, a chap appeals, he produces new facts and if, after 45 days, nothing is said, that is it. He is not informed. He is not told whether there has been an error or whether something has been missed out. If no one tells him anything, the original decision is confirmed.
  It is clear what has gone on. The Minister has a busy life. He has an extensive Bill. I think that he has done pretty well tonight in dealing with all the points that have been raised, but he may have missed this point. The provision is designed to cover some official who perhaps fails to notify the person of the decision of the commissioners that the original decision stands. It does not deal with the point that there may be an error, that the commissioners may decide to vary their original decision and that, if someone forgot to tell the chap, that effect would be negatived because they would be deemed to have confirmed the original decision. The amendment changes the word "confirmed" to "revoked" to deal with that situation.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the front cover of the Bill, which says,
  "European Convention On Human Rights
  Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
  In my view the provisions of the Finance Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."
  The Chancellor is a busy chap. I suspect that he has not spotted that particular line because, if ever there was a blatant breach of the European convention on human rights, this is it.
  112
  If I, any of my colleagues or Labour Members were to raise a point of order with you, Sir Alan, they would expect you to respond. They would not expect you just to sit there, thinking that, if you said nothing, it should be assumed that your original decision stood. They would want a response. Anyone who has an appeal wants to hear what the outcome of the review is.
  This is a flagrant breach of natural justice. It involves not only the European convention on human rights, but principles of natural justice going back to the origins of the British legal system. People are entitled to an explanation of the reasons given by the commissioners.
  Mr. Michael Jack: Will my hon. Friend comment on clause 40(4), which states:
  "it shall be the duty of the Commissioners to give written notification of any decision to which this section applies to any person"?
  Does my hon. Friend think that that in any way contradicts the argument that is being advanced?
  Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. Friend has picked up an important point. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander; if there is written notification in subsection (4), why can we not have it in subsection (8)? That is the inconsistency, and I am pretty sure that there has been an error.
  There are two strands of thinking. The first is whether this is a breach of the European convention on human rights; the second is whether it is a breach of a long line of judicial review cases that oblige authorities to give reasons. It is right that I should explore both avenues.
  Article 6 of the European convention provides anybody with the right to a fair trial. The convention refers to a criminal case, whereas what we are discussing does not, although someone who does not pay the right levy will be a criminal. None the less, article 6(1), which refers to civil rights—it is not just a question of criminal cases—states:
  "everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly".
  That article, which has been incorporated by the Government into English jurisdiction, sets out in some detail the circumstances in which that should happen.
  The Financial Secretary has to say why everybody else is entitled to have a public judgment but, under the aggregates levy, there is no right to public judgment. The learned work "Human rights Law and Practices", edited by Lord Lester and David Pannick—two distinguished authors—sets out the criteria for a reasoned judgment, stating:
  "It is a requirement of a fair trial in both civil and criminal matters that a court should give reasons for its judgment.
  For recent consideration of the duty to give reasons both at common law and under the Convention see Stefan v. General Medical Council … where the Privy Council referred to 'the possible reappraisal of the whole position (in relation to the duty to give reasons) which the passing of the Human Rights Act 1988 may bring about', and commented that the provisions of article 6 'will require closer attention to be paid to the duty to give reasons, at least in relation to those cases where a person's civil rights and obligations are being determined'."
  I do not think that we could have a clearer exposition of what is the law and why the proposal is in breach of it.

  113
  The book states:
  "The extent of the duty to give reasons may vary according to the nature of the decision"
  and sets out a number of cases, such as Ruiz Torija v. Spain and Georgiadis v. Greece. This concerned a
  "violation where court found applicant guilty of 'gross negligence' without particularising matters said to constitute such negligence."
  The book also refers to a series of cases that set out the need for a reasoned judgment.
  That is not the only work that supports my argument. "A Practitioner's Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights" by Karen Reid states:
  "Article 6, paragraph 1 has been interpreted as obliging courts to give reasons for their decisions though this does not require a detailed answer to every question."
  So the courts do not have to go into great detail, but an answer is required. The guide continues:
  "The Convention organs' resistance to constituting a fourth instance leaves in practice little scope for attacking the adequacy of the reasons given in judgments. There has been no development under Article 6 as in the context of Article 8, 9 and 10 that decisions must necessarily be supported by relevant and sufficient reasons."
  No mention is made of the argument that there is no need to give reasons, although the commissioners could note that there is no requirement for the reasons given to be sufficient.
  The guide continues:
  "Lack of reasons in a decision was taken as an aspect of procedural safeguards … In that case, the Bar Council's procedure was open to criticism in two respects: lack of public hearing and the lack of precision in rules or case law as to the meaning of the 'exceptional circumstances' condition required for reinstatement to the Bar."
  It went on to criticise the Bar Council for not giving its reasons.
  I hope that the Committee takes my point that the case law on the issue is well established. On the issue of reasoned judgment, the work "Human Rights and the Courts: Bringing Justice Home", which has a foreword by Lord Irvine of Lairg, the Lord Chancellor no less, states:
  "Article 6(1) provides a general obligation on courts to give reasons for their judgements. This is so that, in the spirit of a fair trial, both the defendant and the public at large may know the basis of the decision."
  There is a clear body of case law and authorities that suggest that the commissioners are obliged to give their reasons and that their judgment should be pronounced publicly.
  The reason for such requirements is to curb the power of the state. It is not acceptable for commissioners to be able to hear an appeal and say not a word. They are obliged to say something of their reasons and must not act with impunity or indiscriminately. Individuals' rights must be clear. If the Government cannot accept the amendment, I hope that they will give it serious consideration. Today, we have discussed many issues of varying importance, but this issue is important and the Minister should give it due consideration—as he usually does.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I rise briefly to support the amendments. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) made a powerful speech, including long and detailed references to human rights legislation and commentators thereon. My point supports the substance
  114
  of his argument more prosaically, because clause 40 reveals—yet again—how the Government always try to tilt the balance of tax legislation in favour of the state and against the taxpayer.
  In clause 40(3), for example, the taxpayer has only 45 days to request a review. If a taxpayer misses that date, the right of appeal is gone. However, if the commissioners miss the 45-day deadline, it does not matter, and their original decision is deemed to have been upheld. The imbalance is obvious: a requirement is placed on the taxpayer, but no such requirement is placed on the commissioners. That is unjustified. It gives the commissioners an incentive for lethargy, but they ought to be required by legislation to act competently.
  10.15 pm
  Let us reflect on the fact that this is a new and complicated tax. We do not yet know how complicated, because even Ministers and civil servants do not know yet exactly what the status and shape of the new regulations will be. It is asking a lot of the industry to get to grips with such complicated legislation—and ever-changing regulations, no doubt. This will be virgin territory even for tax advisers. Surely the balance should be the other way, giving the taxpayer a better chance of getting to grips with the legislation.
  Mr. Bercow: We are all enthused by the hon. Gentleman's position on the subject, as well as by the juridical exegesis by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). I do not in any way cavil at the perfectly sound points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but what assessment has he made of the limited scope of the commissioners' discretion in modifying financial liability under subsection (9)? Is it too limited, not limited enough, or about right?
  Mr. Davey: From my detailed study of the subsection, my instinctive reaction would be that it is not limited enough. That is the problem: there are not enough limits on the commissioners, who are given the benefit of the doubt, while the taxpayer is not. I would be surprised if the taxpayers charter, which is much talked about but less kept to, would allow such legislation if it were properly applied to the clause. That is why the amendments have some validity.
  The Government could think of other ways of dealing with the problem. Perhaps they could decide that the 45-day period given to the taxpayer to request a review should be lengthened, allowing fuller consideration of whether such a review would be worth while. That might be a sensible compromise. I am not sure whether-Conservative Members would agree, but the Liberal Democrats would consider that a good alternative.
  The Government have said in justification of the levy that it is not a revenue-raising measure. We question whether that is the case, but to stay faithful to that view, they should not put such a limitation on the taxpayer. They should say that there is no need for restrictive anti-avoidance measures and give the taxpayer the benefit of the doubt, extending the period and allowing some flexibility.

  115
  I wish that the Government would both accept the amendment and extend the period for the taxpayer. That would prevent the tax from becoming even more burdensome than it will already be.
  Mr. Jack: I seek clarification from the Financial Secretary. Subsection (4) says that when the commissioners first encounter an appeal, there is to be written notification of any decision that they reach—but if I have understood the matter correctly, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South was right to say that if someone challenges that first set of decisions, they simply get a decision without reasons. That is an inconsistency.
  This is important, as the Financial Secretary will appreciate, because decisions do not necessarily stop with the commissioners. In subsection (1) are listed the areas that can be the subject of challenge. Some of those refer to the way in which other parts of the tax will operate. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) rightly drew our attention to the fact that this is a new and untested tax. Subsequent court proceedings could follow from this secondary area of challenge, in which there is no need for a written description of a decision. Yet in the first instance there is a requirement for a written decision.
  In these days of transparency and openness, I worry greatly about not having such information available for public scrutiny. For example, there is a case of a judge-made decision that affects every Member of the House, yet the reasoning behind it does not appear in the public domain. I refer to the case of Lord Levy, whose tax affairs appeared in the public prints. When that was challenged, the judge was supposed to have said that anybody in public office was fair game when it came to publishing such details. However, no reasons were given as to why that decision was reached. We have no idea, individually or collectively, how vulnerable we are to private information entering the public domain.
  People may wish to challenge for a second time the various ways in which the tax operates, yet any decision that may arise concerning this novel form of taxation is without explanation. That is dangerous, particularly if someone subsequently takes the matter on through the courts, and, possibly, to the House of Lords.
  Mr. Timms: I think that I can give some reassurance on these points, particularly to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). The provisions have been designed to meet in full the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was therefore able to sign the statement on the front of the Bill with complete confidence.
  These are important provisions. We have referred to them a number of times already because they are mentioned at various points in the Bill. Under different parts of the legislation, the opportunity of review, and then appeal, is available.
  The key point, which the hon. Member for Croydon, South missed—or at least, did not refer to—is that there are two stages to the process. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) picked that up. There is the review, dealt with in clause 40, and there are the appeals against reviewed decisions, dealt with in clause 41, to which amendment No. 23 refers. I do not think that that
  116
  amendment has been mentioned in the debate, but it is grouped with amendment No. 22. There may have been a misunderstanding about how those two elements relate to each other.
  I make the point again, as I have done frequently throughout the debate, that these provisions are in keeping with those relating to other taxes such as the landfill tax, introduced by the previous Government. In practice, Customs and Excise will respond to all requests for review. However, the provision that failure to reply will be taken as confirmation of the original decision is, in reality, a safeguard. If that provision were not in place, it would be possible for Customs and Excise to delay giving an answer to a review—although I am sure that it would not do so—thereby delaying the appeal, which is the next stage in the process to which taxpayers have access.
  Under the Bill, if Customs and Excise did not respond within the 45-day period, there would be a full appeal to a tribunal, as set out in clause 41(1)(a), which is in the interests of the taxpayer.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary. Perhaps he was merely being witty, but surely he recognises that our amendment would provide a safeguard, and that, unlike his safeguard, ours would be a real one. It would ensure that the commissioners had to produce an answer or end up revoking their original decision. There would then be no need for a tribunal, with all the expense to which that would put the taxpayer.
  Mr. Timms: The amendment is pretty meaningless. An assessment will be made and a review requested, normally on the grounds that the amount of money required should be reduced. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the decision would then be revoked, but what does that mean? Would the taxpayer have no liability? "Revoked" is not an appropriate word in this context, as it does not give a satisfactory outcome to the process. I do not agree that the amendment is helpful or in the interests of the taxpayer.
  Mr. Davey: In the process described by the Minister, the tribunal could go ahead with no indication from the commissioners as to why they took their original decision. The process is therefore flawed, because we need a cut-off point by which the commissioners should give their justification so that the tribunal can go ahead on the basis of that reasoning.
  Mr. Timms: It will be in the interests of Customs and Excise to give its reasons so that the tribunal can consider them. That is why Customs and Excise will, in practice, respond within 45 days. The measure as drafted clearly protects the interests of the taxpayer by ensuring that there is no delay in proceeding to the appeal, at which the tribunal can consider the matter. That is completely consistent with the Human Rights Act.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) queried the appropriateness of the 45-day period within which a request for a review must be made. A balance must be struck, but the Bill gets it about right, and reflects arrangements elsewhere in the tax system. The period of 45 days—a bit more than six weeks—is enough to enable research to be undertaken, but not long enough for people to become complacent or dilatory. A person need not necessarily deposit all the grounds for

  117
  review within the 45 days in every case. If a case were complex, Customs could take a sympathetic view, while still guarding against the frivolous attempts to delay proper administration of the tax that occur from time to time.
  Mr. Jack: Will the Minister address my point? Subsection (4) deems it necessary for it a written decision to be given in the first instance. Subsection (5) reminds us that new information may be considered in a second or subsequent challenge to the first decision. In spite of that, however, when a decision is reached at the later stage, nothing is required in writing. Why is there that difference?
  Mr. Timms: In practice, there would be written notification of the decision. My reading is that written notification would, in fact, be required. I shall reflect on the point, and if I am mistaken, I shall come back to it—but I think that written notification would be given in practice, as it should be.
  I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that this measure is in the interests of taxpayers and protects their position. It is wholly consistent with the Human Rights Act, and I hope that the Opposition will not press it to a vote.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Letwin: I do not know whether my hon. Friends were persuaded by the Financial Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He certainly did not persuade me. In response to my intervention a few moments ago, he said that the whole idea of maintaining the principle that if the commissioners delay, their decision is revoked, was "meaningless", because one would not know what to do with a provision that forced one to revoke a decision.
  Let us consider the decisions in question—those specified under subsection (1), paragraphs (a) to (1). It is clear what is going on. In paragraph (a), we are told that the decision might concern
  "whether or not a person is charged in any case with an amount of aggregates levy".
  That means that the commissioners would have decided that a person is to be charged with a certain amount of aggregates levy.
  A provision specifying that if after a certain number of days the commissioners had said nothing, that would effectively confirm their decision, would mean that the person would be charged with the amount. He would then have to hire some lawyers to go to a tribunal and engage in great expense to take on the august machinery of government. However, if the amendment were accepted—so that if the commissioners said nothing, they would implicitly have revoked their decision—the meaning is equally clear: the person would not be charged with an amount of aggregates levy in that case. That is perfectly clear.
  Subsection (1)(b) relates to a decision on
  "the amount of aggregates levy charged in any case and the time when the charge is to be taken as having arisen".
  If the commissioners had made a decision about the amount of aggregates levy charged in any case, and that decision was revoked, the person would obviously have no liability. That is a strong incentive for the
  118
  commissioners not to allow the matter to lie fallow for 45 days—otherwise they would effectively quash the decision to raise a certain tax.
  The effect of the amendment is clear, as is the effect of the drafting of the current provision: again, the commissioners could say nothing and rely on the fact that the poor old company or individual would have to hire lawyers and go to a tribunal. It would be tedious to go through paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (l), but if the Minister wants me to do so, I am prepared to continue.
  Mr. Timms: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not want to go beyond paragraph (b), because at that point his argument collapses. It would be wholly inappropriate for a notice along the lines of that paragraph—the amount of aggregates levy to be charged in a particular case—to be revoked. Where would that leave everybody? How much money would be outstanding? Nobody knows. Under the clauses that we have dealt with already, the liability to the levy stands; only the decision would be revoked. The meaning of that would be unclear. The amendment would give rise to a wholly unsatisfactory situation that is without precedent in the tax system; it makes no sense at all.
  Mr. Letwin: I shall go on past paragraph (b), if only to disprove what the Financial Secretary says—but as he referred to paragraph (b), I shall return to that first. What he says is clearly wrong. It is clear what would happen if the decision were revoked. Customs and Excise would be precisely nowhere; there would be no levy. The commissioners would have to start all over again. It is perfectly possible for them to do that. The Financial Secretary is right when he says that the law would still apply, so any liability duly arising would still duly arise; it would be for Customs and Excise to start again and recalculate it. That is an incentive for the commissioners not to sit on their hands and wait for the 45 days to pass. That is perfectly reasonable.
  The Financial Secretary thinks that problems will arise for me beyond paragraph (b), so let us consider paragraph (c), which deals with decisions on registration. We had an extremely long discussion about registration a few hours ago. It is clear that the commissioners have to make certain decisions—for example, whether it appears to them that an individual has an intention to produce something that qualifies as an aggregate for the purposes of the levy. Under amendment No. 22, if such a decision had been made, someone had sought a review, and the commissioners had not made a decision in 45 days, the decision to force a registration would be null and void and the commissioners would have to tell Customs and Excise to start all over again, or else desist.
  Again, that would be a perfectly workable arrangement under amendment No. 22. Under the Bill, the difference is that the luckless individual would have to take his case to a tribunal, which would involve him in costs. There is no need to go through paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (l), but I say again that I am more than willing to do so if necessary. It is perfectly clear that there is a difference.
  The Financial Secretary has said one thing that is absolutely true: unfortunately, similar provisions have repeatedly appeared in legislation. However, I am

  119
  astonished that a person of his integrity and intelligence rests behind the cloak of that dreadful argument. The fact that we have got something wrong for many years does not mean that we are justified in getting it wrong again.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Financial Secretary's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) seemed positively Wodehousian? Was he not implying that in practice, notification would be given, and that it was very important that it should be given? Indeed, so important was it that notification should be given, that apparently the clause should not require it to be given.
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is entirely right, as he so often is. The Financial Secretary offered a case of what one can only call PG Tips, and he has been doing so consistently this evening. The general structure of his argument has repeatedly been that he is trying to create a perfectly sensible outcome; he thinks that he is dealing with a tax that will be levied when the stuff is sold—but actually, he is not. That is not what the Bill states, but that does not worry him, because he is sure that sooner or later, someone will do something reasonable. He used that argument again in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), saying that the fact that the tax would be reasonably administered was a good reason why we did not need to worry about whether the Bill ensured that it would be reasonably administered.
  It is clear that with subsections (7) and (8)—which, in essence, represent the provisions that amendment No. 22 would change—we are dealing with a problem that has persisted in our legislation, and the time has come to put a stop to it. There is no basis at all for commissioners to be able to decide not to bother to produce a review, in the certain knowledge that only those who are very rich and powerful will be able to challenge that decision at a tribunal. That is the wrong way to structure our tax law, and now we have a good opportunity to change it, especially with a tax that is likely to be subject to greater review than almost any other, because it is so complex, so arbitrary and so difficult to enforce.
  Mr. Tyrie: I can only reinforce what has just been said by asking the Financial Secretary a couple of questions. First, if a decision is deemed to have been confirmed under subsection (7), but it is appealable under clause 41(1), as he said in his defence, why are not the commissioners at least required to explain that decision? Why should they simply be able to go ahead when the decision has been deemed to be confirmed without having to give any reason at all? I can find no justification for that, and the Financial Secretary certainly has not given any this evening.
  The second question is pertinent to what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has just said. Does not the Financial Secretary realise that the current proposals leave the man who has the liability with a huge hill to climb if he wants to challenge the assessment? Either he accepts the decision, or he has to pay all the expense of fighting the case at the tribunal, and he must do so without knowing what those on the other side feel is their case. He has no idea whether, unbeknown to him, the commissioners have a good point.
  120
  They may be right but will not have bothered to explain their case, so perhaps that man should not go to appeal and waste all that money in a tribunal. However, he will have no way of knowing whether his judgment is correct because the commissioners will not supply him with the necessary information.
  It is eminently sensible that explanations should be provided. They will not be provided under the Bill as it stands but I hope that, after a moment's reflection, the Financial Secretary might say that it is possible that he has not got the clause absolutely right and that he will return with a minor amendment to improve it.
  The Financial Secretary may be right to say that amendment No. 22, which would replace the word "confirmed" with "revoked" in subsection (8), is not perfect. However, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to include a sentence that would force the commissioners to supply an explanation for their decision within a given time.
  Mr. Timms: I certainly did not intend to sound Wodehousian in my remarks: I think that I have made the case very fully. If the concept of revocation were to be adopted, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, things would return to square one. Another assessment would be raised and the process would start all over again and that would cause further delay and uncertainty for taxpayers. That is certainly not in their interest.
  The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) rightly said that the word "revoked" is not perfect. Although I would go further than that, I can agree with him on that point. The current wording is certainly preferable.
  In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, it is clearly in the commissioners' interests that the decision should be made and communicated, and that is what will happen in practice. It is in the interests of taxpayers that there should not be any unnecessary delay before matters move to appeal. That should take place expeditiously, and arrangements in the Bill will allow that to happen.
  Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friends have made a perfectly genuine and feasible case, but the Financial Secretary has failed to address their good arguments. However, we have only an hour and a quarter of the debate left and many clauses and amendments remain to be considered. We feel strongly about this issue and we hope that the Financial Secretary will reconsider our arguments. However, under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

  APPEALS AGAINST REVIEWED DECISIONS
  Question proposed That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Letwin: I do not intend to detain the Committee long on this point but, following the previous debate, the Financial Secretary should tell us whether the Government are willing to consider how smaller operators in the industry will be attacked by the tax. They will go through the processes outlined in these clauses, will not

  121
  receive the courtesy of an answer from the commissioners and will have to go to tribunal. How will their costs be dealt with?
  10.45 pm
  We are dealing with a serious problem of justice involving people who, by the definition of the case, have not had an answer. As my hon. Friends explained, those people will not know the grounds on which they have not received an answer. They will be put to expense and, presumably, might have to bear the expense of others. What defence does the Minister envisage they will have against the possibly disastrous effects of those costs on their business?
  Mr. Timms: I make the point again that the arrangements are precisely those that apply elsewhere in the tax system—in most instances under provisions introduced by the previous Government—and they work well. I see no reason why they should not do so in this case. They have been structured in a similar way to those that apply to other indirect taxes.
  It is part of the normal relationship between the taxpayer and tax collector to engage in meetings and correspondence to resolve disputes. It is incumbent on the taxpayer to resolve disputes and satisfy the relevant authorities that revenue is secure, accounts and records are accurate and proper duty of care is exercised. That formal review stage exists to resolve disputes. It is not intended to be burdensome or to impose additional costs on the taxpayer. The arrangements work well elsewhere and will work well in these circumstances.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

  ADJUSTMENTS OF CONTRACTS
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Ottaway: I have a small point to make. I am grateful to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for highlighting a concern that has no doubt been drawn to the Minister's attention. The clause deals with contracts that are in existence at the commencement date. On subsection (2), the institution states:
  "While we appreciate that this provision must be read with the wide definition of 'agreement' set out in clause 48(1), we remain concerned that certain arrangements reached before the commencement date may not be covered by the clause."
  The implication is that there is a hangover after commencement date. It continues:
  "The kind of arrangements which we have in mind are: options to extend either the leased area or the term/duration of a mineral working lease … options or conditional contracts to acquire interests in mineral working land, conditional on the grant of planning permission … way-leave agreements in respect of haulage of minerals extracted from third party land'.
  I hope the Minister gets the message that several agreements relating to leases, land and long-running mineral rights might overlap the commencement date. The RICS believes:
  "All of these arrangements fall within normal commercial dealings",
  122
  the implication being that they are quite common. In its opinion, they should
  "be brought within the scope of the provision."
  I am not making a political point. The Conservative party does not want more people to be covered by the tax, but it seems that a loophole exists. How does the Minister intend to deal with that?
  Mr. Timms: The clause provides for the adjustment of contracts in two types of case to take account of agreements made prior to the commencement date of the levy, and to allow for the levy to be accounted for after the commencement date, where that is appropriate. Where an agreement is made to supply aggregate before the commencement date, any levy due after that date will be payable not by the supplier of the aggregate, but by the recipient. Where an agreement regarding the use of land is made before the commencement date, the cost of the aggregates levy may be ignored in calculating the turnover or the price of the land.
  We are aware of the point that has been raised by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Our initial view is that there is not a problem, and that the clause can deal with concerns that will arise. As the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) raised the matter, I will reflect on it further. If we conclude that we need to take action to tackle it, we will do so at a later stage.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

  DESTINATION OF RECEIPTS
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Tyrie: I want to raise a brief point that caught my eye as I was reading the clause. I cannot work out why on earth
  "All money and securities for money collected or received for or on account of aggregates levy shall … if collected in Great Britain, be placed in the general account of the Commissioners kept at the Bank of England",
  but,
  "if collected or received in Northern Ireland, be paid into the Consolidated Fund".
  That is incomprehensible. I have no doubt that the Minister will say, as he has in response to every other point made this evening, that the practice has been used in all legislation for the past 200 years, but I do not recall seeing a similar provision in other legislation.
  While I am giving the Minister a moment to think about that, I point out that it would be extremely helpful if he could explain to us the so-called explanatory notes. The note for the clause says:
  "This clause provides for the destination of all monies collected or received for or on account of aggregates levy in Great Britain, and in Northern Ireland."
  Just a paragraph of explanation would have saved us the time that we are taking up in the Committee.
  Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has aroused my interest in the clause, because I am intrigued by the fact that money collected or received in Northern Ireland shall
  "be paid into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in such manner as the Treasury may direct."
  The mind boggles at the prospect of Treasury Ministers daily pondering imaginative ways in which the money collected in Northern Ireland might be paid into the Consolidated Fund. I am sure that there is a completely rational, logical explanation for the wording, and I would be grateful if the Financial Secretary explained what is likely to be the normal way in which the money should be paid, why it is necessary to have the variation on a theme that Ministers may direct alternatives to the norm and what they might be.
  Mr. Timms: My answer to the points made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) is precisely as he anticipated. In common with all the other provisions that we have been discussing, the clause is entirely in line with—and, in this case, lifted word for word from—provisions for other indirect taxes. I was rather hoping that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), drawing on his experiences as a Treasury Minister, might shed some light on the matter, but sadly he did not. The money will be placed in the Bank of England or, in the case of Northern Ireland, the Consolidated Fund. That is in keeping with the treatment of moneys received from other taxes and duties.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister, who is always very courteous, for giving way, but I am afraid that his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the Committee simply will not do. My right hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the quizzical attitude, at least among Conservative Members, about the expression, "in such manner". Seeking to justify his position on the basis of past legislative precedent, is the Minister arguing that that apparently permissive element of the clause, allowing different mechanisms to be deployed, has, to adapt Bagehot, in the past been only a dignified rather than an efficient part of those earlier statutes, or is he arguing that differential application has applied? If so, will he give us chapter and verse on that point?
  Mr. Timms: My point is that the arrangements have worked perfectly well at many points throughout the tax system. If the hon. Gentleman can draw the House's attention to instances of problems arising from the arrangements, he should do so.
  Mr. William Ross: I do not know how far back the provision dates, although I suspect that its genesis can be found in 1920. However, we have come a long way from the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and since that time, several attempts have been made to set up devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, and devolved institutions have successfully been set up in Wales and Scotland. If the provision has for a long time applied to Northern Ireland, why does it not now also apply to Scotland and Wales? If it does not apply to Scotland and Wales, there can be no good reason for its continuing to apply to Northern Ireland. Given that we now have uniform systems in the three devolved regions, is it not time that all parts of the kingdom were treated exactly the same in terms of the collection of taxes?
  Mr. Tyrie: This is probably—almost certainly—a minor matter, but we are not absolutely sure. The Minister does not know and nor do I. Will he undertake to drop me a line giving an explanation?
  Mr. Timms: I shall be delighted to drop the hon. Gentleman a line.
  Mr. Letwin: I hope that it will not be regarded as churlish if I follow up a point that is necessarily retrospective. This year's Finance Bill, like last year's, contains many clauses—other than those that deal with the aggregates levy—in respect of which the notes on clauses are genuinely helpful and explanatory. However, it is symptomatic of the way in which the aggregates levy has been presented that, in addition to the drafting of the provision being—perhaps necessarily—dense, the notes on clauses are a masterpiece of the gnomic. There is nothing that explain, anything that cannot be seen on the face of the Bill—indeed, I venture to say that they are a genuine waste of paper.
  I imagine that that regrettable situation is rooted in the same cause as the provisions as a whole—namely, that the measure has been produced on the trot and as a result of some late decision taken, much to the industry's surprise, suddenly to implement the aggregates levy. Presumably, there was stuff sitting on a shelf somewhere ready for production after the announcements made in previous Budgets, and when someone suddenly said that the provision was to be introduced, it was taken down at high speed. That is the charitable explanation for the fact that the notes on the clauses dealing with the levy, unlike those on many of the other clauses, tell us nothing. It might also be the charitable explanation for the fact that, even though it was the only new tax that he was introducing, the Chancellor did not mention it in this year's Budget statement.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 45 and 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 10 agreed to.
  Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

  INTERPRETATION OF PART
  11 pm
  Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 38, line 25, at end insert—
  'except that, when any tangible moveable property which would not be regarded as aggregate for the purposes of this Part is imported, it shall be aggregate to the extent determined in regulations by the Commissioners.'.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 24, in page 39, line 35, at end insert—
  '"United Kingdom" means the United Kingdom except Northern Ireland.'.
  Mr. Ottaway: The amendments go to the heart of the consequences of the aggregates tax, which will lead to the exportation of jobs overseas.

  125
  Amendment No. 24 would exempt Northern Ireland from the tax. I have no doubt that my Friend the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will have something to say about that. Aggregate is taxed in its basic form when it is used for commercial exploitation in this country. It is also taxed in its pure form when it comes into this country to be used for that purpose. However, it is not taxed when it is imported in products such as pre-cast concrete. We are concerned that pre-cast concrete will be made in the Republic of Ireland and then imported easily into Northern Ireland without liability in respect of the aggregates levy.
  Pre-cast concrete is only in small part cement, but it contains a large proportion of aggregate, so the House should be under no illusion but that a substantial amount of aggregate is involved. The same applies to ready-mixed concrete, which has a life of about an hour and a half, so its range of movement is about 20 miles by road. One can therefore assume that the entire 20-mile strip along the Northern Ireland border will become an aggregate-free zone, as pre-cast and ready-mixed concrete is imported from the Republic.
  Amendment No. 26 seeks to draw attention—I confess that it does so fairly deviously—to the importation of asphalt from Normandy. As I said, ready-mixed concrete has a shelf life of about an hour and a half. Asphalt has a life of about 36 hours, and is rather like ready-mixed and pre-cast concrete, as it comprises a small amount of bitumen that glues together a large amount of concrete. It is used for making roads. We are advised that it is perfectly feasible for asphalt to be made in northern France and shipped into this country with substantial savings. Indeed, we are told that that already occurs.
  The Financial Secretary said earlier that the transport costs would offset the impact of the levy, but that will certainly not be the case in Northern Ireland. He hinted that he would say something about Northern Ireland, and I hope that he will do so. We are also advised that if sufficient quantities of asphalt are imported from northern France, it will be far more economical to use such materials than to pay the tax in this country.
  Mr. David Heath: Although the amendment rightly deals with imports to the United Kingdom, does the hon. Gentleman accept that exactly the same arguments apply to exports of concrete products? There is a double effect in relation to such products, as not only the levy but the transport costs to which he referred must be paid. That causes a distinct competitive disadvantage.
  Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If I remember correctly, the matter to which he refers was dealt with in an amendment that will not be considered because of this stupid guillotine business to which we have been subject. There is no credit when aggregate is exported in pre-cast concrete products.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will have much to say about these matters, and I hope that the hon. Member for East Londonderry will also make some comments. As time is short, I shall sit down and make way for others to speak.
  Mr. Letwin: I begin by clarifying in slightly more detail than my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) the reason for the construction of
  126
  the amendments and by elucidating their drafting. We were bound to table them in their current form because of the absurdities of today's timetable. The issues that they cover could not be debated before 7 pm; we did not have time to debate important issues that relate to clause 17. We therefore had to find a method of debating them at the end of the proceedings and thus benefit from the excessive amount of time that had been allowed for boilerplate clauses. Consequently, as my hon. Friend put it, slightly oddly, amendment No. 26 would amend an interpretation.
  The amendment refers to the definition of aggregate. It states that aggregates should be construed in accordance with clauses 17(1) and 18,
  "except that, when any tangible moveable property which would not be regarded as aggregate for the purposes of this Part is imported, it shall be aggregate to the extent determined in regulations by the Commissioners."
  "Tangible moveable property" refers to items such as those to which my hon. Friend referred. They include pre-cast concrete and asphalt. We do not want the commissioners to determine the matter, as the amendment would provide.
  It was almost impossible to include our intentions in an amendment to an interpretation. That is a ridiculous way in which to proceed with such an important matter. We would have liked to debate a new clause which set out our intentions properly. However, the Government decided to timetable the proceedings, and we have therefore had to use the device in the amendment. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not stoop to claiming that a problem arises from the odd casting of the amendment. That is his responsibility, not ours. We do not stand by the amendment's words; if he wants to take away the point and include it in another provision, that is fine. We are trying to protect many jobs, and I shall discuss that shortly.
  The same points apply to amendment No. 24. It is obviously bizarre to define the United Kingdom as
  "the United Kingdom except Northern Ireland."
  I hope that my Friend the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will not interpret it to mean that the Conservative party has taken leave of its senses and supposes that Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom. At this stage of our proceedings, as opposed to the stage when we should have debated the point, during our consideration of clauses 16, 17 and 18 or of a new clause, there is no way of introducing an exemption for Northern Ireland. My hon. Friends would support such an exemption. Again, I hope that the Minister will not quibble with the method of solving the problem, because his timetable motion created the need for it.
  I want to explain the reasons for the problem. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly pointed out that we are dealing with a symmetrical problem of export and import. We are also tackling the problem of competing with imports—import substitution—and the ability of our exports to compete with home-produced items elsewhere in the word—export substitution.
  The amendments deal with only half the problem, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South acknowledged. It is clearly our intention, and it ought to be the Government's intention, to deal with the whole problem.

  127
  The problem is acute, but I get the impression from the responses that we have received from the Financial Secretary throughout the evening that he does not think that that is the case. He is not given to the practice, to which some Ministers and other hon. Members are occasionally given, of making things sound as though they are all right when he does not think that they are. I have, therefore, a real worry that he is being completely honest when he says that he does not think that there is a problem. I think that he is wrong, and if he is convinced that there is no problem, it is unlikely that he will change the text, however wrong it is.
  I hope that I can begin to open the Financial Secretary's mind sufficiently, so that the discussions with the industry to which he referred will be treated by the Government not in the spirit of an annoying delegation that needs to be batted away, but a genuine inquiry to discover whether the industry passionately believes, as I do, that there will be a real problem, and whether the industry is probably right because it has done its sums.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about exports could be dealt with if the Government extended the list of relevant substances. They could add to the list the requirement that aggregates used in manufactured products should become a prescribed industrial process. The Government could, therefore, find a way of getting round the problem by providing a new regulation, as they are empowered to do in the Bill. I still think, however, that, in relation to the hon. Gentleman's amendment, the problem would not be addressed through that prescribing process.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman may be right, and there may also be other means of achieving the desired effect within the scope of the Bill. While we are at it, there may be other means of achieving what we are trying to achieve more elegantly, as I have mentioned. I hope that the Government will see that my remarks are aimed at the essence of the measure, rather than at mere accidents of phrasing.
  Why is Northern Ireland a particular problem? First, there are lots of small quarries in a highly competitive marketplace. As I understand it, the average sale price of concrete in Northern Ireland is such that the effective sale price of the aggregate is only about £3 a tonne, which is rather less than twice the proposed tax. The tax will, therefore, impose a huge mark-up on the aggregate component cost of concrete in Northern Ireland.
  The second reason Northern Ireland is particularly exposed is that it is very close to southern Ireland. There is, no doubt, already a problem due to exchange rates. I do not want to engage in hyperbole, and I do not claim that the entire Northern Ireland concrete industry will suddenly relocate to southern Ireland overnight—that is not so. However, on a rather longer time scale than overnight, such relocations might persistently occur. Northern Ireland is not a part of the United Kingdom that has had particularly good luck with employment. According to estimates provided by the industry, about 4,000 jobs could be affected. The Province can ill afford to lose those jobs.
  128
  Nothing that the Financial Secretary has said so far suggests that the transport cost argument—which has been his main argument to counter assertions that there is a real problem here—would apply in Northern Ireland. I shall come to the case of mainland Europe in a moment. However, in the case of Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, there will be opportunities for the relocation of production to places only slightly further away from the scene of their deployment than is already the case in Northern Ireland. In many cases, merely moving south of the border will involve a very small distance, and we see no reason to doubt the assertion that it will be possible to wipe out large parts of the Northern Ireland industry.
  11.15 pm
  In the context of mainland Europe, the Financial Secretary, as I have said, relied on transport cost arguments. We understand that there are considerable opportunities for coastal quarry exports from, for example, Norway. There is no reason why such coastal quarries—in Norway or, indeed, Holland, Belgium or France—cannot be used to meet UK, particularly southern UK, pre-cast concrete requirements. Shipping is a perfectly feasible means of transport and, especially when demand for the product is close to our coast, we may see a significant switch.
  If the Financial Secretary is saying that the industry has not provided him with an adequate cost breakdown showing the economics of such an exporting of jobs, it would be helpful if he stated that in terms. I am sure we can arrange for the industry to present him with costed examples showing that there is a real problem. As I said earlier, I think that the Government already accept the logic of protecting against the exporting of jobs. That is why they have provided for raw aggregates, when imported, to be subject to the levy. There cannot be an objection in principle.
  There is a possibility that the Financial Secretary is right, and a possibility that the industry is right. Let us suppose that the Financial Secretary applies the levy to the import of pre-cast concrete and other fabricated substances, and disapplies it to the exporting of those substances. If he is right, it will make no difference: nothing will be lost, and nothing gained. If the industry is right, he will have saved between 4,000 and 10,000 British jobs. Why take the risk? What possible reason is there for neglecting to make some slight drafting changes to the Bill, if the possibility is either that no damage will be done or that great good will be done, with no downside risk? I cannot for the life of me understand why the Financial Secretary should resist that argument.
  We are not talking just about the problem of pre-cast concrete, or, indeed, that of asphalt. I am sorry to harp on about dimension stone, to which I referred at length when giving the example of Mr. Jones. The fact is, however, that dimension stone itself will be exempt, but all the waste and secondary aggregates will not. As I said earlier, we do not really know what will count as not being exempt, but clearly a lot of stuff that comes out when the rock is cut to make the dimension stone will not be exempt.
  United Kingdom dimension stone will be competing with dimension stone from other European Union countries that do not suffer from the same disadvantage. The production of dimension stone in those countries

  129
  is presumably accompanied by roughly the same by-products, which can be sold without the disadvantage of the aggregate levy—or in the case of France, if I remember rightly, a levy of about 5p rather than £1.60 a tonne. Our dimension stone industry, which is not a big part of the industry as a whole, is headed for the rocks—if I may use an infelicitous metapho.
  The UK limestone industry will be crippled. I understand that it can take up to six tonnes of feed material to produce one tonne of industrial-grade limestone. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, scalping must remove all the weak and impure stone as part of the process. All those scalpings will be subject to the tax. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech on the initial amendment hours and hours and hours ago, if that scalping is taxed, a place for it will have to be found. If it is left in the quarries, the limestone extraction from those quarries will become uneconomic and virtually technically impossible, so it will have to be moved. If it is moved, it will be taxed and that will render the economics decidedly disadvantageous.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned that simply as a disadvantage for the industry and it is, but it is not just that, because there is cross-elasticity: there will also be a severe competitive disadvantage for our industry—the imported variety will not face the tax. In addition, exporters of the material will be at a severe competitive disadvantage.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have been listening to my hon. Friend's case with much sympathy. Can he explain why the Government want to increase the cost of construction, to put jobs at risk in an industry in which I worked for many years, and to make this country less competitive than those countries that are close to us and part of the economic community? It seems nonsense that the Government emphasise the importance of competitiveness and then reduce the competitive nature of the UK construction industry.
  Mr. Letwin: I think that the only honest answer to my hon. Friend in relation to the question about competition is that this is, as we said at an earlier stage in the proceedings, a comedy of errors. I do not think that the Government intend that result, or the sequence of results that we have been describing. I think that they have simply produced these provisions at too great a rate without full and proper consultation with the industry and have missed a major set of points, o, at best, so to speak, they have missed the danger that these circumstances will arise. Therefore, there is not a reason, there is only a cause for the problem—and the cause of the problem is negligence. However, there is an opportunity, as my hon. Friend will surely agree, for the Government to make up for that. They just need to correct these serious lacunae. That will not make the tax perfect. It will still leave a tax that we would far rather were not on the statute book, but at least it would resolve a problem of between 4,000 and 10,000 jobs potentially leaving this country. The Government have the opportunity to solve that problem.
  Speciality aggregates have not been mentioned so far in our debates. The Government may be resting under the misapprehension that they have solved the problem in relation to speciality aggregates. They may think that, because the export is exempt from the tax, all is well, but the lesser-quality secondary aggregates that are produced
  130
  at the same time as the speciality aggregates—we face the same problems here as in many other cases—will not be exempt. The average cost of the production of speciality aggregate will again be greater than the cost encountered by international competitors.
  We see that pattern over and over again. It is either that the substance itself, in the case of pre-cast concrete or asphalt, is not being properly exempted when it is imported or exported; or it is that something is being exempted, but some other things that are produced when the thing that is exempt is produced are not being exempted and are raising the average cost of the production of the so-called exempt item. Therefore, across a wide range of products, and hence a wide part of the industry as a whole, UK jobs, completely needlessly, are being put at risk.
  I go back to the question to the Financial Secretary: why take that risk? If I am wrong, nothing will be lost by making the changes to exempt those items. The fiscal effect on the Financial Secretary's own logic will be zero because he will not reduce NICs by a slightly smaller amount. In the first year—unlike all subsequent years—I agree that there will be a neutral effect. Meanwhile, he may be protecting British jobs. If I am right, he will be. This is a bet that he can make with sublime confidence, and he ought to be making it now. Otherwise, if we come back in a year or two and discover that large parts of the British industry have been wiped out needlessly, he will not be forgiven.
  Mr. William Ross: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and his hon. Friends for tabling amendment No. 24 which—albeit not very elegantly—intends to disapply the tax to Northern Ireland, for the very good reason that Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that faces competition across a land frontier.
  We all know that the one outstanding feature of aggregates is that they are heavy stuff; we are looking at one tonne per cubic yard. They are also not of very high value. If there is a tax and the material has to be carted around the country for any great length of time, the price rapidly goes up. In terms of direct competition with producers in the Irish Republic—some of whom already operate across the frontier—we will tip the balance decisively in their favour.
  The Financial Secretary said that the distance that a lorry can travel economically into Northern Ireland is about 15 miles. The industry in Northern Ireland thinks it is considerably further, and I agree. The one thing that the Government have left out of their calculations is the vast difference in the cost of fuel between Northern Ireland and the Republic, which means that someone can pick up a load in the Irish Republic and travel a long way with it—much further than the Government believe.
  There are large deposits of sand and gravel in the Province and in the Republic, many of which are exploited. Some firms own gravel pits on both sides of the frontier and operate, as commercial advantages dictate, across it. In some cases, the stuff is taken a long way: for example, from the Limavady district to Belfast, which is 60 miles.
  The situation will get a great deal worse, because the people concerned are experienced in the field on both sides of the frontier. They know exactly where the

  131
  financial advantage will lie. They can close their operation in Northern Ireland down to a low level, produce the vast majority of the material in the Republic, take it across to Northern Ireland and sell it there. They will still make their money and will have no problem with tax.
  The Financial Secretary will try to tell me that if the material is imported, the tax can be charged. There is a slight difficulty with that. He will recall that, earlier this year, I asked him:
  "how much aggregate, broken down by type, was (a) imported to and (b) exported from the United Kingdom by (i) land transport and (ii) sea transport, indicating his estimates of the value of such materials, in the current year and each of the previous three years.
  The Minister replied:
  "Data on exports and imports of aggregate are published annually in the British Geological Survey's United Kingdom Minerals Yearbook. It is not possible to break this down between land transport and sea transport."—[Official Report, 26 February 2001; Vol. 364, c. 516W.]
  In plain terms, that answer means, "I don't know how much aggregate is crossing the frontier into and out of Northern Ireland." If aggregate is put on a ship, one has some idea of how much is involved, but if it is put on a lorry, it cannot be traced in these days of open frontiers across Europe; so we face a decided disadvantage.
  11.30 pm
  If the Financial Secretary does not know the figures—and he cannot in this case because the records are non-existent—he will be proceeding blindly, but the industry in Northern Ireland knows what the inevitable consequences of the tax will be for the industry in the Province. I shall spell those consequences out to the Financial Secretary.
  For a start, only a certain amount of primary production will take place in Northern Ireland. The sand and gravel will be produced there, it will cross the frontier where it will be manufactured into a concrete product, and then it will come back again. The jobs in the concrete industry will migrate from the Province to the Republic. The industry will need to move only 100 yards across the frontier, set up its equipment to manufacture pipes and concrete beams, and 4,000 jobs in Northern Ireland will disappear in a short time. Once they are gone, and even if the tax is removed in two or three years' time, it will be too late and the damage will be done. Once folk have built up their operations in the Republic, they will have no good reason to bring them back to Northern Ireland.
  When I raised the matter with the Financial Secretary earlier, he said that other countries in the European Union were introducing the tax. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) mentioned France; if several EU countries introduce the tax, it will have to be the same to maintain a level playing field. Dublin certainly has no intention of introducing any tax because it is to its commercial advantage to capture as many jobs as possible, and devil take the hindmost—in this case, Northern Ireland.
  This is a serious issue that could have a tremendous effect on the cost of building a house. A normal-sized house takes 80 tonnes of building sand. Those of us who are not involved in the industry might think that that is a heck of a lot of sand, but all the walls need plastering and
  132
  the mortar contains sand. Added to that is the hard fill, and 200 or 300 tonnes could be needed per house, depending on the site. Aggregate is also needed for the concrete bricks or blocks. People complain about the price of houses, but this hidden tax will shove up the price by £2,000 or £3,000 because everybody will work on a percentage all the way down the supply chain.
  This is a mad tax that will do no good to the country at large, and if applied to Northern Ireland it will do much damage. Of course, aggregates can be replaced in some cases. Bricks can be made out of clay, and that is done in Northern Ireland. Clay tiles can be used for roofs. Most of the tiles used in Northern Ireland are imported from Great Britain, and they are no cheaper for being put on a boat and taken across the Irish sea. In fact, they are much pricier than concrete tiles. Many people prefer a slate roof, but few can afford such roofs nowadays. Asbestos is cheaper but carries environmental concerns. We surely have environmental concerns about asbestos nowadays.
  Pipes used to be made of clay. Now the smaller diameters are made of plastic, but beyond a certain size the only materials with the necessary structural strength are concrete or steel. We make a lot of concrete pipes in Northern Ireland, and certainly some very large ones. Concrete is a useful and effective material, and we are cutting the feet from under people who make it. That is completely wrong.
  We make large concrete beams for bridges. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) has a firm in the constituency where he lives—the owner is my constituent—that exports very large concrete beams. It can do so only because of the low cost of the material in Northern Ireland. The only alternative material is steel, and I am not sure that that is considered all that environmentally friendly these days.
  There are at least seven relatively large firms making concrete products in my constituency, and there are several one, two, three or five-man operations giving employment in the area. They will all be forced out of business if the tax goes ahead. I fear that the Government intend to plunge ahead with this tax throughout the United Kingdom. They will not only do a great disservice to Great Britain but create a disaster in Northern Ireland. That is why, although I would normally be horrified by such amendments, I see good reasons for this one.
  I hope that the Minister will listen. He told me earlier that the tax was neutral and would be redistributed, but it will not necessarily be redistributed to the areas from which it is levied—it will be distributed far wider than that. The areas where many of the relevant activities take place tend to be isolated, with relatively few employment opportunities. Such activities provide employment, as well as a vital material for the whole construction industry.
  However we look at it, all we are going to do is increase the cost of constructing buildings, roads and bridges. What on earth is the benefit supposed to be? The Government went down this road without thinking it through. The more people examine the proposals, the more concerned they become. I hope that that increasing concern will be felt by Treasury Ministers, even if they

  133
  are not prepared to say it now. Perhaps they will carefully consider the peculiar and difficult circumstances that the tax will create for the producers of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. David Heath: I strongly agree with the points made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). The amendment is very convoluted, as he readily admitted, but its intentions are good.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) touched on the commercial effect of substitution in the domestic market and the consequent lack of competitiveness for companies competing against imports. That will be a significant factor in the pre-cast concrete industry, as other fabrics will be used, without any clear environmental benefit.
  The Government are guilty of muddled thinking. They have exempted some industries that require aggregates in their production processes, for no reason except that they were the ones that they first thought of. They appear not to have considered the position of the pre-cast concrete industry at all. They are prepared to accept that there may be substitution with steel and with clay, particularly for roofing products and paving materials. What is the environmental advantage of stopping aggregates being dug and increasing the digging of clay? I say that there is none.
  Profitable companies will be seriously compromised by this measure without further thought from the Government. I urge them, even at this late stage, to think very carefully about what they propose.
  Mr. Timms: Let me first respond to the points of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) about timetabling. It has been made clean to him, and it should also be made clear to the House, that if the usual channels on his side had last week sought a change to the order of the discussions this evening, we would willingly have made that change.
  Mr. Letwin: I have checked with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) as to the exact order of events. We requested that we debate clause 16 alone among the aggregates tax items, followed by clause 79 and some new clauses. That was rejected, despite this request having been communicated by the usual channels, at the highest level, and despite a subsequent conversation between the Financial Secretary and me.
  When that request was rejected, this timetable motion was brought forward. In our anxiety, we did not at that stage notice that our original proposition had been rejected. However, the effect of the timetabling, with time slots up to 7 pm, 9 pm and midnight, was to shove all the important parts of the aggregates tax discussion into the first three hours. There is no reason on earth for the Government to have done that, except by mistake. I take the Financial Secretary's honest word for it that it was not intentional, but it was clearly an error. I admit that we were in error in not spotting that it should have been corrected, but the fact is that this was done not by us but by the Government.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman rightly and generously accepts that the responsibility for the matter lies on his side, and that it could have been put right if the usual channels had taken steps to do that.
  Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: No, I will not give way again on this. It is important that the House recognise the reason for the difficulty that the hon. Member for West Dorset and his right hon. and hon. Friends have faced tonight.
  Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: No, time is getting on, and I need to address a number of points.
  The hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for West Dorset suggested that there had been some haste about the process. I assure the House that that is not the case. The draft clauses were first published two years ago, in April 1999. Following extensive discussion and consultation, a second set of draft clauses was published in June last year—these clauses have not been put together in haste. The whole process has been one of careful consideration, consultation and modification, and this is a well designed measure as a result.
  We could have some fun with the wording of amendment No. 26. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) disowned the wording. He said that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends had tabled a new clause on the subject. Presumably we can expect to debate that at a later stage in our proceedings. However, the wording of amendment No. 26, which allows the commissioners to deem anything, effectively, as aggregates for the purposes of the levy, would not command wide support.
  11.45 pm
  To help to maintain a level playing field for UK aggregates companies, any import of aggregate that would be taxable if it had originated in the UK will be subject to the levy on first sale or use in the UK. Under European Union law, we are bound not to tax imported products to a greater extent than domestic ones. That means that any aggregate that would normally be taxable in the UK will be taxed on first sale or use in the UK after importation from another country. Similarly, any imported material that would not normally be taxable if it had originated in the UK will not be subject to the levy.
  Concern has been expressed that the levy applies to imports of aggregate in aggregate form. There is concern that the UK's pre-cast concrete sector will be damaged by the importation of tax-free processed products. We have considered that issue in detail. Officials have met the British Precast Concrete Federation, and I shall meet representatives of the federation next week. As a result of a great deal of reflection, we have concluded that we do not expect a significant impact on that sector because international trade in its products is limited by weight and transport costs.
  Imports currently represent only 1 per cent. of total pre-cast concrete industry sales because of the substantial cost of shipping pre-cast concrete.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: Given the lateness of the hour, I shall not.

  135
  There are substantial barriers to international trade because of the costs of shipping pre-cast concrete from Norway, France and elsewhere. Such imports as exist are largely in high-value products, the proportionate prices of which would be affected only slightly by the addition of the levy. Our considered view is that there will be no problem.
  We are prepared to continue to examine the issue in the run-up to the levy's introduction, and I shall hear the industry's concerns next week. No figures given in the debate have made me question the conclusion that we have drawn so far, but I shall listen carefully to what the industry has to say.
  The suggestion made in the debate that 4,000 to 10,000 jobs might be at stake is simply absurd. The pre-cast concrete industry should have the same incentives for efficiency and increased use of recycled aggregates as others will experience as a result of the levy. The aggregates sold for that purpose should contribute to the sustainability fund that will be available to help communities to address the problems arising from quarrying.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset told the Committee that he would not have voted for the landfill tax introduced by the previous Government. Even now, some members of his party want the Government to take steps to protect the environment, as we are doing. His party does itself no favours in its current troubled circumstances by lurching to the right in the way that he has done tonight, by repudiating an environmental tax measure introduced by the previous Government.
  Amendment No. 24 addresses issues in Northern Ireland, and the hon. Member for East Londonderry made several important points. We have listened carefully to arguments about the implications of the aggregates levy for Northern Ireland. The industry there will be generally protected because imports of aggregate will be subject to the levy and exports will be relieved. Opportunities to smuggle aggregates into Northern Ireland will be pretty limited because of the bulky nature of the products involved and their low value. Customs operational staff have much experience of dealing with such matters. I am confident that, combined with the legitimate quarrying industry, Customs will combat the potential for smuggling across the Northern Ireland land border.
  The main concerns expressed relate to the impact on the pre-cast concrete sector. That merits careful consideration. I point out to the hon. Member for East Londonderry and to the Committee that, at this stage, I have seen no convincing evidence—facts and figures—to suggest that there will be a significant impact on Northern Ireland firms; international trade in those products is limited by weight and by transport costs.
  We are nevertheless prepared to continue to assess with the Northern Ireland Executive the implications of the levy. The Executive have raised concerns about that and have done some work. We shall be happy to continue that assessment during the run-up to the introduction of the levy, and to consider evidence submitted by the industry on the issue. There may be an issue that we need to address, but at present there is no convincing evidence of it. I ask the Committee to resist the amendment.
  136
  The measure is important and will bring significant environmental benefits in its wake—by ensuring that the price of aggregates reflects the environmental costs incurred in obtaining them; by increasing the price advantage for recycled aggregates; and by contributing to a sustainability fund that can be used to address the problems caused by quarrying in affected communities. I urge the Committee to resist the amendments.
  Mr. Ottaway: The Minister's response to the arguments was wholly unsatisfactory. Powerful arguments have been made about the damage that will be caused to the British economy and to the British aggregates sector. In those circumstances, we shall divide the Committee.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 137, Noes 255.

  Division No. 189

  [11.52 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hayes, John

  Allan, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Amess, David

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Horam, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Baker, Norman

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Baldry, Tony

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Key, Robert

  Blunt, Crispin

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Leigh, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Letwin, Oliver

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Lidington, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Livsey, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Burstow, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Cash, William

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Chidgey, David

  McCrea, Dr William

  Clappison, James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cotter, Brian

  Maples, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Mates, Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan, Alan

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Paice, James

  Flight, Howard

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Fraser, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Prior, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Randall, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Rendel, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Damian

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Greenway, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Ruffley, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hawkins, Nick

  St Aubyn, Nick

  137

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tredinnick, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Trend, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Tyler, Paul

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Tyrie, Andrew

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

  Viggers, Peter

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Soames, Nicholas

  Webb, Steve

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Streeter, Gary

  Whittingdale, John

  Willetts, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Syms, Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mr. Owen Paterson.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Crausby, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Darvill, Keith

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Austin, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Banks, Tony

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Barnes, Harry

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Barron, Kevin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Battle, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Doran, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Benton, Joe

  Dowd, Jim

  Best, Harold

  Drew, David

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Edwards, Huw

  Blizzard, Bob

  Efford, Clive

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Borrow, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Field, Fit Hon Frank

  Fisher, Mark

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Burden, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Cann, Jamie

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Goggins, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caton, Martin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clelland, David

  Hanson, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Colman, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  Connarty, Michael

  Hepbum, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corston, Jean

  Hill, Keith

  138

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mudie, George

  Hoey, Kate

  Mullin, Chris

  Hood, Jimmy

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hope, Phil

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Pike, Peter L

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pond, Chris

  Hurst, Alan

  Pope, Greg

  Hutton, John

  Pound, Stephen

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jamieson, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jenkins, Brian

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Roy, Frank

  Joyce, Eric

  Ruddock, Joan

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Salter, Martin

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kidney, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lammy, David

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Lepper, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Levitt, Tom

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Spellar, John

  Lock, David

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Love, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McCabe, Steve

  Stevenson, George

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McDonnell, John

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  McFall, John

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McNulty, Tony

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  McWalter, Tony

  Timms, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Todd, Mark

  Mallaber, Judy

  Trickett, Jon

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Truswell, Paul

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Martlew, Eric

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Maxton, John

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Tynan, Bill

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Watts, David

  Miller, Andrew

  White, Brian

  Mitchell, Austin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Moffatt, Laura

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

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

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  139

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  Overseas Nurses
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  12.8 am
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the recruitment of overseas nurses to the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that we need to recruit nurses and midwives from overseas. Indeed, the demographic time bomb planted by the previous, Conservative Government means that there is a serious shortage of home-grown nurses and midwives. With something like one in four nurses on the register of the United Kingdom Central Council of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting aged over 50 and the average retirement age at about 55, the shortage of nurses is likely to get much worse before it gets better. Over the next four years, it is estimated that the shortfall of nurses will range between 20,000 and 60,000. It could be even more, depending on how the independent sector develops in the next few years and what implications the new standards for care homes and other institutions will have for additional staffing requirements.
  Last year, 10,000 overseas nurses were recruited to this country and registered with the UKCC. I want to make it clear from the outset that I very much welcome the contribution that those nurses and midwives make to this country's health care system, whether in the independent sector or the NHS. Nursing is an international profession, and nurses should have the right to broaden their experience by working in other health care systems.
  My purpose in this debate is to highlight two concerns and to try to offer solutions. First, there is growing evidence that for some overseas nurses who come to this country to do a job and provide support and care in our health service, particularly in the independent sector, their experience is one of exploitation. Secondly, despite clear requests from a number of developing countries not to recruit their nurses, the UKCC's figures reveal an accelerating rate of registration of nurses from those countries.
  I shall deal first with the exploitation of overseas nurses. There is growing evidence from Unison and the Royal College of Nursing of appallingly poor employment practices in this country. I stress that the problem appears to be concentrated largely in the independent sector and, on the evidence that I have seen, particularly in care homes. Unison tells me that even before arriving in the UK, nurses from the Philippines and other countries find that the recruitment agency that they use to find jobs in this country charges them to be recruited. On top of that, if the recruitment is ultimately to an NHS trust, the trust is asked to pay the agency as much as £1,500 per nurse. The nurses themselves can pay nearly double that, and may be asked to sell their homes, land and other property to finance their move to the UK.
  In some cases, agencies charge nurses for UKCC registration guidance, which is free. That is appalling exploitation, and it clearly breaches the Department of Health's guidelines. In some horrific cases, employers go even further, holding on to passports, work permits and UKCC registration cards. They offer misleading and even intimidating immigration advice, such as saying that nurses cannot change employer and will be deported if

  141
  they do. In addition to those practices, overseas nurses suffer restrictive contract terms and conditions that are less favourable that those of their UK counterparts. They are paid less than UK nurses in the same institutions.
  Worse still are misleading contracts. The RCN has examples of cases in which nurses have been sent contracts for prestigious specialist acute hospitals in London, but when they arrive they are carted off to work in an elderly persons' care home. They do not necessarily have the experience of providing geriatric care that is needed for that job. That is a cause for concern. It exploits not only the nurses but those who are receiving care. Both parties lose out. Finally, it takes some overseas nurses an unacceptably long time to secure their registration. They find themselves stuck in limbo, working without registration, particularly in the independent sector, and as a result there is even more pressure on them and they are further exploited.
  My second concern is the criticism by the World Health Organisation and several Governments of developing countries that the UK is damaging their health care systems through its recruitment of health care staff. Last year, almost one in five new overseas registrations were from South Africa and the West Indies. The Minister will know that there are serious shortages of nurses and midwives around the world. That was the subject of a seminar organised by the World Health Organisation last November that examined the problem of nurse shortages not only in the UK but throughout the world, in developed and developing countries.
  One of the factors identified as driving the problem is the demographic time bomb ticking away in many developed countries' nursing systems—not only our own, but those of countries such as Canada, the United States of America and Australia. In a statement about the shortages, WHO says:
  "Skills drain, where nurses are recruited into developed countries from developing countries, exacerbates the situation. For example, the number of overseas nurses coming to the UK has risen by 48 per cent. in 12 months."
  In a report on the globalisation White Paper published last month, the Select Committee on International Development states:
  "At the same time, the Secretary of State for Health has also acknowledged that the Department of Health is not responsible for the actions of private recruitment agencies".
  It quotes the Secretary of State telling the Committee: "Sadly, I do not run the nursing agencies that are responsible for such conduct".
  The Committee added:
  "However, we do not believe that we should rob developing nations of the medical and clinical staff that they desperately need … Throughout the NHS, Trusts, desperate to fill vacancies, turn regularly to private agencies to supply. We recommend that the Government, in its response, provide the Committee with details of how guidelines can be extended to cover the activities of private recruitment agencies."
  In her evidence to the Committee's inquiry, the Secretary of State for International Development confirmed that private nursing agencies cannot be prevented from recruiting overseas nurses from developing countries that are experiencing acute shortages. However, she said:
  "It would be immoral, would it not, if all the nurses and all the doctors were recruited by the National Health Service, leaving none of those skills in countries like Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and so on."
  142
  Those comments were made despite nursing recruitment from the West Indies almost doubling in one year.
  Given the high rates of registration from developing countries, the NHS self-denying ordinance not to recruit actively from such countries is clearly not sufficient. It leaves a loophole through which nursing agencies can drive a coach and horses. The UK is the only country that has a director of international nurse recruitment. That role has the potential to be very positive and I welcome the establishment of the post. It could and should be used to stamp out poor practice and ensure ethical standards of recruitment, but that would require a more ambitious approach on the part of the Government. I shall propose some potential solutions that I hope that the Minister will consider. I believe that we need an ethical recruitment policy that covers not only where we recruit nurses, but how we recruit them.
  First, I join Unison in calling for action to tackle the exploitation of overseas nurses by establishing some sort of taskforce comprising representatives from the Department of Health, the Department of Trade and Industry—which has a clear interest in terms of the registration of employment agencies generally—the Home Office, the Overseas Labour Service, the UKCC, the RCN, Unison and independent sector organisations, and others. The taskforce should work to ensure that consistent practice is adopted throughout the entire UK health care system—not only in the NHS, but across the piece. That is not least because of the fact that in our care homes, more than 53 per cent. of all placements are state funded. Public money is being used to pay for the nurses who come to work in those homes and who, all too often, are exploited. It is appropriate that the state is involved in ensuring that good practice and standards are applied.
  Secondly, the Department of Health should issue clear instructions to trusts that no agency that charges the individual nurse who seeks to be recruited to work in the NHS should be used. It is one thing to charge the NHS for the use of its service, but quite another to charge the individual nurse for it as well.
  Thirdly, the Department should implement a kitemark scheme for nurse agencies, so that the NHS is in no doubt that agencies are in compliance with NHS guidance on recruitment. Those measures would go some way toward addressing the International Development Committee's proposals that guidance should be made broader to include the independent and private sectors.
  In conclusion, overseas nurses make a valuable contribution to our health care system. However, there is undoubtedly growing concern not only about the exploitation of nurses, but about the way in which this country is doing harm to developing countries, which have told us clearly that we should not actively recruit from their health care systems because of the damage that that is causing. Recruitment of overseas nurses is not a new phenomenon; what is new is the sheer scale of the recruitment that is taking place and the dramatic increases in the numbers that are being recruited. Given the worldwide shortage of health care professionals, overseas recruitment cannot be a long-term solution to the UK's nursing shortage. At best, it is a sticking plaster and a stop-gap measure while we establish the extra training places and grow our own nurses so that we can fill the vacancies in the NHS. I hope that Ministers will not

  143
  lightly dismiss the Government's responsibility to ensure ethical recruitment practices and zero tolerance of exploitation of health care workers in this country.
  12.21 am
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on obtaining this debate on the recruitment of nurses from overseas. It gives me an opportunity to set out the Government's position on the expansion of the nursing work force in the NHS and the role that international recruitment can play in that process. I want to speak about the Government's plan for investing in NHS staff, and to describe the contribution that international nursing recruitment has made and will continue to make to the delivery of high quality clinical services to patients. I hope that in doing so, I can deal satisfactorily with the hon. Gentleman's major points.
  NHS staff are a precious resource. They are what makes the health service tick. The biggest constraint that the NHS currently faces is no longer a shortage of financial resources, but a shortage of human resources. It is doctors, nurses, therapists and other health professionals who, together with support staff, keep the service going day in, day out. The massive improvements set out in the NHS plan will, over time, bring an end to years of underfunding and the consequent low morale among key health care professionals.
  It is important to understand that the decisions made in the early 1990s, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, are one of the reasons for the shortfall in the number of nurses. Those decisions drastically reduced the number of student nurses in training. Overall, the number of available training places fell by 28 per cent. When we were elected, it was clear that too few nurses had qualified, and would qualify, as fully trained registered nurses in the next few years. There had been serious damage to the overall nursing work force, which in turn posed a considerable threat to the standards and safety of care afforded to patients.
  In addition to saying that such cuts must never happen again, we have established plans to expand the number of health care professionals. They include plans for 20,000 more nurses, as set out in the NHS plan. The recruitment and retention strategy that has been developed to achieve that target will include improved retention of staff, return-to-practice programmes, more training places, and international recruitment.
  We have already made progress. Between 1997 and 2000, the number of qualified nurses in the NHS increased by more than 17,000. From September 1999 to September 2000 alone, there was an increase of 6,300 nurses. We will build on that, and increase the number of nurses by 20,000 by 2004. In addition, we expect that by 2004, as a result of the increased number of training places, more than 45,000 new nurses and midwives will come out of training, alongside 13,000 therapists and other health professionals.
  So there is an increase in the number of nurses coming into the NHS, and it will continue in future. That is backed by an expansion of nurse training places. By 2004, 5,500 more nurses, midwives and health visitors will be trained each year than are being trained today. In itself,
  144
  that is an improvement on the position when we were elected, but it takes three years to train a nurse, and a further two years to achieve an experienced and qualified intensive care nurse. That is one of the reasons why we want to attract returners to the profession. Almost 7,000 qualified nurses have returned to the NHS since February 1999, and another 2,000 are preparing to return.
  While we await the benefits from the increased number of student nurses, and attract returners to the NHS, international recruitment will provide an invaluable resource, bridging the gap during the years of training, education and gaining clinical expertise.
  The NHS has a long history of recruiting from abroad, and there are already many networks throughout the world for good co-operation and exchange of health care personnel. International recruitment by NHS organisations has been especially useful in areas where recruitment has proved difficult or where new developments require new or extra staff.
  It is essential to ensure that effective and appropriate international recruitment is perceived as a direct benefit not only to NHS patients but to the employing organisation, the individual nurse, colleagues in the rest of the team and the recruit's home country.
  Let me give a couple of examples that are relevant to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. They show that we acknowledge some of the problems that he raised. The Epsom and St. He lier NHS trust has undertaken international recruitment, mainly by recruiting nurses from the Philippines and Finland. In October 2000, the trust asked three commercial international recruitment organisations to advise on the number of nurses who could be appointed to the trust on short-term contracts of between six months and two years. The purpose was to ensure that the trust could provide 102 extra beds in preparation for the winter. The trust selected the recruitment organisation BUPA, which provided nurses from the West Indies and South Africa. In response to concerns raised by the trust about recruiting from those areas, BUPA reassured it that the nurses had already been selected and were "on its books" before the publication of the Department of Health's guidance for international nursing recruitment in November 1999.
  The nurses arrived at the end of 2000, and I understand that they provide high standards of care to patients. The regional recruitment and retention co-ordinator has subsequently worked directly with the trust to ensure that international recruitment is managed according to the guidance. The trust has also appointed a senior nurse for recruitment and retension. Although international recruitment allowed considerable expansion of services to patients throughout the winter, nurse recruitment now focuses on the local labour market.
  St. George's Hospital NHS trust, which is also in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, discovered that a Filipino nurse was asked to pay a £1,000 fee directly to a commercial recruitment organisation in the Philippines. St. George's, in my view rightly, decided that it would not use that organisation again.
  Mr. Burstow: The Minister is right that St. George's was correct to cease using that agency. However, would it not be better for the Department to issue clear instructions to trusts to do likewise in all cases?
  Mr. Denham: I want to speak about the policies that are already in place and the further policies that we will

  145
  introduce to deal with the problem. I shall briefly explain the current system, whereby nurses come to work in the United Kingdom. First, they must register with the United Kingdom Central Council for nurses, midwives and health visitors. During the year that ended in March 2000, there were more than 17,000 applications to the UKCC, of which 1,416 were admitted to the professional register from the European Community, and just under 6,000 from countries outside Europe. In the previous year, there were fewer applications.
  It is important to stress that the successful applications to join the UKCC register do not necessarily represent nurses in employment in the UK. They include people who have never taken up employment here—those who take up temporary work, for example, in the working holiday arrangements, as well as those who take up full-time employment in the NHS and the independent and voluntary sectors.
  As the NHS has expanded the number of nursing posts in line with developing service for patients, the opportunities for international recruitment have increased. That development formed the basis for the publication of the guidance on international nursing recruitment in the NHS in 1999. It made it clear that international recruitment should be cost-effective, based on good practice, and undertaken only on an ethical basis. The guidance specifically states that NHS employers should not actively recruit from developing countries that are experiencing nursing shortages. The only exceptions to that policy are nurses who seek an opportunity for development as part of a recognised programme approved by the relevant Government authorities in the country concerned, and employers who consider an unsolicited application directly from an individual potential recruit.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about applications to the UKCC since 1999. When the guidance was published in 1999, some NHS employers would already have had international recruitment campaign commitments and established contracts with commercial recruitment organisations. Inevitably, there was a time lag between the publication of the guidance and its impact on the international recruitment policies of individual local NHS employers, and I gave the hon. Gentleman an example of that. This meant that nurses may have taken up their job offers in the UK up to a year after being appointed.
  As the hon. Gentleman recognised, in January the Department of Health appointed a director of international recruitment to oversee the application of the guidance. The job of the director will be to co-ordinate the international recruitment efforts throughout England's eight regions, ensuring consistent standards and cost-effective best practice in employment. She will also develop agreements between Governments, ensuring international co-operation and the recruitment and exchange of health care professionals. Finally, an extremely important part of her remit is to ensure that developing countries are protected from targeted recruitment, and that the NHS does not actively recruit from, for example, the Republic of South Africa or the West Indies.
  The director of international recruitment is working with the leaders of the professions and with other Departments to ensure that international recruitment in the NHS not only meets the Department's guidance but tackles service priorities and complies with NHS quality standards. The Department's guidance is intended to
  146
  ensure that international recruitment fulfils its proper role in staffing the NHS, and that it is done on a proper, ethical basis.
  There is cause for serious concern that some commercial agencies have targeted developing countries for international recruitment. The Department has been working with NHS employers and reputable commercial recruitment organisations to produce a code of practice that reinforces the requirement that international recruitment must never be carried out against the interests of host countries. A wide consultation involving NHS employers, professional bodies, trade unions and, specifically, commercial recruitment organisations is nearing completion. The Government will expect all recruitment organisations to adhere to the code of practice. In addition, I believe that the independent and voluntary sectors will wish to join forces with the NHS to ensure that agencies who engage in unscrupulous or poor practice are forced out of the market.
  The code will require NHS employers to have proper plans in place to decide which countries they may recruit from, and which they must not target. The code will also state strict rules for commercial recruitment organisations that have contracts with the NHS. That means that in future, NHS employers will not contract with agencies that actively recruit from developing countries such as South Africa and the West Indies. It is worth pointing out that we are, I believe, the only developed country—indeed, the only country in the world—that has a policy on international recruitment that reflects ethical considerations, as well as those based on value for money and good practice. That is a significant achievement for Britain.
  We must not forget that health care professionals have always been a highly mobile and marketable work force. Many professionals, including nurses, travel abroad of their own volition, some coming to England and many to other parts of the world. The NHS needs to respond appropriately to applications from such individuals. The Royal College of Nursing has expressed its concern about policies that infringe nurses' freedom to work where they like. The RCN has recommended that guidance should not stop individual nurses from coming to work in the UK should they wish to do so. Our guidance endorses that approach.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned exploitation in the private sector, and I have already said that we believe that the development of the code of practice in conjunction with the reputable organisations in the field will do much to raise standards right across the spectrum of international recruitment, whether to the NHS or to the independent sector, and to put a considerable degree of pressure on the independent sector to abide by similar standards.
  I would need to look in detail at the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and he may wish to write to me. Several of the instances that he mentioned certainly sounded, at first hearing, like clear legal breaches and not just poor conduct. They sounded, to me at least, like abuses of some of the work permit regulations, and I would be happy to consider whether what is needed is simply more effective enforcement, or whether wider measures need to be addressed. Clearly, we do not wish to see exploitation of nurses coming to work here from overseas. I too acknowledge the valuable role played in

  147
  the NHS by those who have come here in recent years. We wish to ensure that theirs is a positive and valuable experience.
  I want to mention the success of our Government-to-Government agreement within Europe—the Anglo-Spanish programme. The pilot programme in the north-west of England followed an agreement reached with the Spanish Government, enabling the NHS to employ some of Spain's surplus nurses and doctors. Currently 87 nurses from Spain are working in the NHS, and about 35 more are working in the private sector. The programme is being rolled out to London and the south-east, and we hope to recruit a further 500 nurses from Spain as soon as is practicable.
  Many NHS employers have established mutually beneficial links with countries that are developing their health care systems. We are keen to encourage schemes
  148
  enabling staff from many countries to benefit from spending two or three years in the NHS. The contribution that such staff make is often outstanding, and goes a long way to promote personal development, as well as the nursing profession as a whole.
  I hope that I have described adequately the effective measures that we have in train to tackle the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, and made clear the important role that international recruitment will play in ensuring that the NHS and its patients have the staff that they need. I hope that I have also made clear the Government's commitment to expanding the training and supply of nurses, so that we shall no longer be in the position that we have been in during the past few years as a result of the cuts in nurse training made under the previous Government.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to One o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  A/F Protein Inc.
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if(a) he and (b) officials met representatives of A/F Protein Inc. of Waltham, Massachussets, USA; [157756]

  (2) what representations (a) he and (b) officials have received from representatives of A/F Protein Inc. of Waltham, Massachussets; and what his response was. [157794]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  So far as I am aware, no meetings have taken place and no representations have been received.

  Departmental Policies (Eccles)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [158062]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Department does not maintain statistical information at constituency level.

  My hon. Friend's constituents, like many others throughout Greater Manchester, have benefited from my Department's Employment Rights policies which include national minimum wage, working time directive, part time working regulations and improved maternity leave.

  In addition, Eccles is eligible for Enterprise Grant Scheme funding.

  In the North West region, my Department'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.

  Departmental Policies (Cannock Chase)
  Tony Wright
  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 Cannock Chase constituency, the effects on Cannock Chase of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158064]

  Mr. Caborn
  In the period in question, the following offers of assistance have been made to businesses in the Cannock Chase local authority district.

  (1) Six offers of Regional Selective Assistance totalling £244,000. These offers have brought forward fixed capital investment of £2.48 million for projects which will create 80 jobs.

  (2) Three offers of Enterprise Grant have been made since the scheme was introduced on 1 March 2000. These offers involve grant of £124,000 and fixed capital investment of £889,500.

  2W

  (3) An offer of £45,000 assistance under the Smart (innovation grant) scheme towards a feasibility project involving total costs of £87,453.

  (4) 919 businesses have been assisted by Business Link Staffordshire—75 having received advice from the International Trade Team, of these over 30 have commissioned reports via British Embassies and Consulates in order to obtain tailored information to assist in the development of overseas business. Eight companies have benefited from direct financial support under the Export Voucher Scheme which provides them with a contribution towards using professional outside support in aspects of overseas trade. In addition 20 companies regularly use the Export Documentation Service from the Chamber of Commerce.

  The DTI-funded West Midlands Regional Supply Office (RSO) has assisted 128 companies in the Cannock Chase area since 1997. The RSO is now incorporated into the RDA, Advantage West Midlands.

  The Inward Investment Directorate of Advantage West Midlands reports the following:
  since 1997 there have been 14 investments into the Cannock Chase local authority area, creating 306 new jobs and safeguarding a further 2,359;
  there have been two inward investments this year safeguarding 294 jobs;
  in total there are 25 overseas owned companies in Cannock Chase employing 2,886.

  Special Advisers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [158554]

  Mr. Byers
  None.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take action under Article 20 of the World Trade Organisation in respect of the use of trade constraints to protect the environment following the decision of the United States Administration to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. [158428]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government do not believe that trade sanctions would be a helpful way of tackling the United States on its approach to climate change. We are keen to maintain a constructive dialogue with the US since it is important that they remain engaged in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) Crown post offices and (b) sub-post offices (i) closed and (ii) opened in each year from 1979 to the last year for which figures are available. [158303]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The information requested is set out in the table. Separate figures for openings and closures are not available, but the table shows closure figures net of openings for each year.
  3W

  Year Ending

  Crown Offices

  Sub Post Offices

  Total

  Closures in Year

  31 March 1978

  1,579

  21,342

  22,921

  —

  31 March 1979

  1,580

  21,213

  22,793

  128

  31 March 1980

  1,583

  21,056

  22,639

  154

  31 March 1981

  1,581

  20,894

  22,475

  164

  31 March 1982

  1,573

  20,832

  22,405

  70

  31 March 1983

  1,567

  20,734

  22,301

  104

  31 March 1984

  1,559

  20,499

  22,058

  243

  31 March 1985

  1,553

  20,110

  21,663

  395

  31 March 1986

  1,509

  19,796

  21,305

  358

  31 March 1987

  1,503

  19,708

  21,211

  94

  31 March 1988

  1,499

  19,572

  21,071

  140

  31 March 1989

  1,493

  19,537

  21,030

  41

  31 March 1990

  1,339

  19,532

  20,871

  159

  31 March 1991

  1,167

  19,471

  20,638

  233

  31 March 1992

  1,019

  19,141

  20,160

  478

  31 March 1993

  917

  19,041

  19,958

  202

  31 March 1994

  800

  18,982

  19,782

  176

  31 March 1995

  699

  18,908

  19,607

  175

  31 March 1996

  653

  18,761

  19,414

  193

  31 March 1997

  606

  18,645

  19,251

  163

  31 March 1998

  601

  18,407

  19,008

  243

  31 March 1999

  600

  18,175

  18,775

  233

  31 March 2000

  598

  17,795

  18,393

  382

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices closed between 1 April 2000 and 31 March. [158341]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Full year figures for the year 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 are not yet available from the Post Office Network.

  North West Development Agency
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many major companies have located their sites in the North West Region since the formation of the North West Development Agency; and if he will make a statement. [158401]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department does not collect information about companies locating in particular regions. An answer to your specific question would therefore be purely anecdotal and inevitably unrepresentative of the true picture.

  However, the North West Development Agency records investments made by overseas owned companies. Since the Agency's formation, there have been 52 investments in the North West region which have each created or safeguarded 100 or more jobs.

  Cheltenham Gold Cup
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the loss to the economy of Gloucestershire of the postponement and cancellation of the Cheltenham Gold Cup Festival. [158345]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are aware that the cancellation of high profile events, such as the Cheltenham Gold Cup in the south west which generate millions of pound in revenue in normal years, is contributing to the financial difficulties of businesses affected by Foot and Mouth disease (FMD).
  4W
  The Government are constantly monitoring the financial impact of FMD in the country, and has already announced a range of measures to assist businesses through immediate financial difficulties. These measures including rate relief, deferment of taxes, and extensions to the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme.

  Departmental Performance Targets
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the attainment of the performance targets set for his Department in the Comprehensive Spending Review published in December 1998. [158533]

  Mr. Byers
  Information on the Department's progress against the Public Service Agreement Targets set as part of the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review has recently been published in the Department's annual Expenditure Plans Report for 2001–02, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House. (Cm 5112, March 2001).

  Competitiveness Council
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the report of the Competitiveness Council. [158532]

  Mr. Byers
  The terms of reference for the Competitiveness Council were to advise the Secretary of State. This it has done without producing a report.

  Departmental Policies (Plymouth)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency and (c) South-West Devon constituency, the effects on the Plymouth unitary authority area of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158027]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has provided the following support for businesses in(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency and (c) the part of South-West Devon constituency in the Plymouth unitary authority area, since May 1997.

  Regional Selective Assistance (RSA)
  RSA is a capital investment grant linked to the creation or safeguarding of jobs in designated areas of need (the Assisted Areas). The following RSA grant offers have been made to businesses in the Plymouth unitary authority area:

  (a) Seven offers totalling £2.01 million made to businesses in the Plymouth, Sutton constituency, to support projects with total capital expenditure of £19.8 million, and to create and safeguard a total of 1,211 jobs.

  (b) Twenty offers totalling £10.16 million have been made to businesses in the Devonport constituency, to support projects with total capital expenditure of £83.2 million, and to create and safeguard a total of 3,183 jobs.

  5W

  (c) One RSA grant offer of £0.24 million has been made to a business in the Plymouth unitary authority area of South-West Devon constituency, to support a project with capital expenditure of £1.3 million, and to create 55 new jobs.

  Enterprise Grants

  The Enterprise Grants scheme is a simplified scheme that was introduced in April 2000 to help small firms undertake fixed capital investment projects. Two offers totalling £42,000 have been made to firms in the Plymouth, Devonport constituency.

  Smart

  Smart awards are designed to help small firms with the introduction of new products and processes. Seven Smart awards totalling £343,437 have been made to firms in the Plymouth, Devonport constituency.

  Business Link

  PROSPER Business Link has provided services to small businesses in the Truro and St. Austell constituency since 1997. These include general and specialised advice to help businesses grow, export development counselling, ICT advice, and a full range of specialist information. From April 2001 these services will be provided by the Small Business Service operating through a franchise awarded to a PROSPER led partnership. This new service will be more customer focused ensuring that services are driven by local need.

  Ilisu Dam
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to be able to publish the Environmental Impact Assessment report on the Ilisu hydro-electric project in Turkey. [158780]

  Mr. Byers
  We have not yet received a copy of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report. When we do, I intend to make the report public.

  Property Market
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will assess the effect of the operation of the property market on small independent retailers; and if he will make a statement. [157242]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the position of small businesses competing for premises with larger, more established businesses. While direct intervention could create difficulties for the retail markets, we are concerned about the quality of information and advice that is available to occupiers of small business premises. We are currently working with the Small Business Service to ensure that better information is available.

  The issue of advice for small businesses arose in the course of our review of the property industry's Code of Practice on Commercial Property Leases, along with more general issues about the degree of choice and flexibility in the commercial property market. Representatives of landlords, occupiers and the professional bodies undertook to address these concerns, but have failed to reach consensus on the key issues. We are disappointed
  6W
  at this lack of agreement, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is now considering future options.

  Civil Aircraft Projects
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Government aid has been granted by his Department, and its predecessor, in support of civil aircraft projects since 1971, excluding Airbus projects; and if he will set out the amounts(a) granted in respect of each project and (b) recovered by way of sales and licensing levies. [157377]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [pursuant to reply, 6 April 2001, c. 306W]Unfortunately two of the figures given in the original answer are incorrect. These should read:

  £ million

  (a)

  (b)

  To Rolls-Royce for the Trent 600/900 in 2001

  250

  1—

  To Rolls-Royce for the Trent aeroengine in 1997

  200

  7.7

  1Not yet due

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in his Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. [158127]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government are committed to equality of opportunity and to increasing the diversity of those appointed to public bodies. There are no such limits in this Department.

  Police Ombudsman
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding has been made available to the Police Ombudsman's Office for education and publicity purposes; and if he will make a statement. [157798]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ombudsman's budget for this financial year currently stands at £4.7 million; to what, and how that budget is allocated is a matter for the Ombudsman to decide.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date he was informed of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council statement on the comparative injury potential of the L547 baton round with the L21A1 baton round issued on 21 August; and what steps he took to bring this to the attention of each of the bodies engaged in finding an alternative to the plastic baton round. [158052]

  Mr. Ingram
  The development of the new baton round (the L21A1) was the result of extensive research and included a report by the Defence Scientific Advisory Council on the comparative injury potential of the L547 baton round and the L21A1 baton round. Ministers became aware of the report shortly after it was completed
  7W
  and, confirming as it does the greater safety of the new round over the old one, it was a key factor in the decision to introduce the new round for operational use from 1 June.

  Each of the organisations currently represented on the "Alternatives to Baton Rounds" project was either represented on the Baton Rounds Steering Group or were briefed at an early stage.

  Police Officers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate for each rank for each of the police sub-divisions of(a) Coleraine and (b) Limavady the number of officers in post on (i) 1 January 2000, (ii) 1 January 2001 and (iii) 1 April 2001. [157834]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table provides the information requested. It should be noted that manpower figures for 1 January 2000 are not readily available therefore the nearest possible date of 17 February has been used.

  17 February 2000

  2 January 2001

  2 April 2001

  Coleraine

  C/SUPT

  —

  —

  1

  SUPT

  1

  1

  —

  C/INSP

  1

  1

  —

  INSP

  4

  3

  6

  SGT

  20

  18

  23

  CON

  100

  97

  104

  Table A: Actual strength breakdown by rank

  CC

  DCC

  ACC

  Ch Supt

  Supt

  Ch Insp

  Insp

  Sergt

  Con

  Total

  R Con FT

  R Con PT

  31 December 1998

  1

  1

  8

  39

  120

  169

  482

  1,399

  6,237

  8,456

  2,936

  1,238

  31 January 1999

  1

  1

  8

  39

  121

  168

  486

  1,392

  6,315

  8,531

  2,884

  1,230

  28 February 1999

  1

  1

  8

  39

  122

  168

  490

  1,401

  6,290

  8,520

  2,874

  1,226

  31 March 1999

  1

  1

  8

  39

  121

  168

  489

  1,398

  6,271

  8,496

  2,862

  1,217

  30 April 1999

  1

  1

  8

  39

  121

  167

  489

  1,398

  6,247

  8,471

  2,858

  1,212

  31 May 1999

  1

  1

  8

  39

  121

  167

  487

  1,397

  6,234

  8,455

  2,850

  1,209

  30 June 1999

  1

  1

  8

  40

  121

  167

  491

  1,407

  6,254

  8,490

  2,823

  1,204

  31 July 1999

  1

  1

  8

  40

  121

  168

  490

  1,408

  6,242

  8,479

  2,813

  1,200

  31 August 1999

  1

  1

  8

  39

  121

  168

  489

  1,405

  6,282

  8,514

  2,775

  1,194

  30 September 1999

  1

  1

  8

  39

  120

  171

  495

  1,398

  6,268

  8,501

  2,762

  1,188

  31 October 1999

  1

  1

  8

  39

  120

  169

  499

  1,406

  6,245

  8,488

  2,753

  1,181

  30 November 1999

  1

  1

  8

  39

  119

  168

  499

  1,395

  6,225

  8,455

  2,727

  1,176

  31 December 1999

  1

  1

  8

  40

  119

  167

  499

  1,396

  6,214

  8,445

  2,719

  1,174

  31 January 2000

  1

  1

  8

  39

  120

  168

  496

  1,395

  6,195

  8,423

  2,708

  1,169

  29 February 2000

  1

  1

  8

  39

  121

  172

  495

  1,394

  6,182

  8,413

  2,698

  1,157

  31 March 2000

  1

  1

  8

  39

  123

  170

  498

  1,390

  6,163

  8,393

  2,688

  1,152

  30 April 2000

  1

  1

  8

  39

  123

  171

  499

  1,396

  6,177

  8,415

  2,668

  1,145

  31 May 2000

  1

  1

  8

  39

  123

  170

  498

  1,394

  6,159

  8,393

  2,654

  1,140

  30 June 2000

  1

  1

  8

  39

  123

  169

  498

  1,397

  6,138

  8,374

  2,643

  1,137

  31 July 2000

  1

  1

  8

  39

  122

  168

  498

  1,400

  6,115

  8,352

  2,623

  1,131

  31 August 2000

  1

  1

  8

  39

  121

  168

  498

  1,397

  6,104

  8,337

  2,606

  1,121

  30 September 2000

  1

  1

  8

  40

  122

  168

  494

  1,394

  6,090

  8,318

  2,593

  1,118

  31 October 2000

  1

  1

  8

  40

  122

  168

  496

  1,389

  6,078

  8,303

  2,579

  1,112

  30 November 2000

  1

  1

  7

  40

  121

  168

  492

  1,378

  6,037

  8,245

  2,567

  1,106

  31 December 2000

  1

  1

  7

  40

  122

  169

  493

  1,382

  6,053

  8,268

  2,555

  1,097

  31 January 2001

  1

  1

  6

  33

  107

  162

  456

  1,334

  5,938

  8,038

  2,530

  1,089

  28 February 2001

  1

  1

  6

  36

  93

  157

  442

  1,299

  5,878

  7,913

  2,514

  1,083

  31 March 2001

  1

  1

  4

  33

  91

  150

  433

  1,278

  5,819

  7,810

  2,496

  1,073

  30 April 2001

  1

  1

  3

  39

  72

  135

  412

  1,211

  5,632

  7,506

  2,461

  1,071

  30 May 2001

  1

  1

  3

  38

  68

  130

  400

  1,187

  5,586

  7,414

  2,434

  1,071

  30 June 2001

  1

  1

  3

  37

  67

  130

  397

  1,174

  5,553

  7,363

  2,427

  1,071

  Note:

  Actual strength does not include police personnel on secondment.
  8W

  17 February 2000

  2 January 2001

  2 April 2001

  TOTAL

  126

  120

  134

  FTR

  49

  45

  44

  PTR

  36

  36

  36

  Limavady

  C/SUPT

  —

  —

  —

  SUPT

  1

  1

  1

  C/INSP

  1

  1

  —

  INSP

  4

  4

  4

  SGT

  14

  15

  14

  CON

  49

  52

  49

  TOTAL

  69

  73

  68

  FTR

  37

  32

  31

  PTR

  8

  8

  7

  RUC
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate for each month since 1 January 1999(a) the number of RUC officers in post at each rank, (b) the number who retired at each rank in each month and (c) his projection of (a) and (b) until the end of June. [157885]

  Mr. Ingram
  The tables show(a) the number of RUC officers in post at each rank for each month since 1 January 1999 and projected figures until the end of June 2001 and (b) the number of RUC officers who retired at each rank in each month since 1 January 1999 and projected figures until the end of June 2001.
  9W

  Table B: Number of leavers in each rank by month

  Year/date

  Acc

  Ch Supt

  Supt

  Ch Insp

  Insp

  Sergt

  Con

  S/T Aux/Con

  R Con FT

  R Con PT

  Grand total

  1999

  January

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  9

  1

  52

  6

  74

  February

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  7

  —

  10

  4

  24

  March

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  3

  17

  —

  12

  10

  46

  April

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  5

  12

  —

  4

  4

  27

  May

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  4

  9

  —

  11

  4

  30

  June

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  16

  1

  26

  5

  52

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  9

  —

  10

  3

  24

  August

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  13

  —

  38

  7

  64

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  10

  —

  12

  6

  33

  October

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  9

  —

  9

  8

  27

  November

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  10

  —

  27

  4

  46

  December

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  12

  —

  9

  6

  32

  2000

  January

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  12

  —

  11

  6

  33

  February

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  7

  —

  9

  5

  24

  March

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  18

  —

  15

  10

  46

  April

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  14

  1

  20

  9

  47

  May

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  6

  14

  1

  12

  1

  37

  June

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  11

  1

  12

  5

  36

  July

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  18

  —

  20

  7

  47

  August

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  15

  —

  15

  7

  40

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  11

  —

  15

  2

  33

  October

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  —

  12

  7

  28

  November

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  17

  —

  13

  7

  43

  December

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  10

  —

  15

  12

  40

  2001

  January

  —

  7

  16

  9

  35

  58

  105

  —

  22

  9

  261

  February

  —

  5

  7

  8

  19

  28

  56

  1

  16

  4

  144

  March

  2

  6

  4

  3

  10

  19

  56

  2

  20

  5

  127

  April

  1

  5

  12

  11

  22

  72

  178

  —

  35

  2

  338

  May

  —

  1

  4

  5

  15

  27

  65

  —

  27

  —

  144

  June

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  13

  33

  —

  7

  —

  59

  Note:

  Leavers include all cessation reasons eg medical retirement, voluntary early retirement, resigned etc., however the figures for April, May and June 2001 are projections based on known severance figures and do not take account of normal and medical wastage not yet notified.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show how many (a) inquiries were made about joining the RUC and (b) applications were received for each intake to the RUC broken down by gender; and what was the (i) gender and (ii) religious breakdown of each intake in each of the last five years. [156585]

  Applications/acceptances to RUC from 1996–98 by gender and community background—Regulars

  CB1

  CB2

  CB3

  Year

  M

  F

  T

  M

  F

  T

  M

  F

  T

  Total

  Applications

  Comp E 1996

  983

  588

  1,571

  236

  133

  369

  129

  26

  155

  2,095

  Comp F 1996

  1,312

  742

  2,054

  261

  145

  406

  242

  27

  269

  2,729

  Comp G 1997

  1,368

  804

  2,172

  253

  159

  412

  188

  25

  213

  2,797

  Comp H 1998

  1,332

  802

  2,134

  270

  161

  431

  228

  32

  260

  2,825

  Comp 1 1998

  1,414

  898

  2,312

  470

  280

  750

  246

  51

  297

  3,359

  Acceptances

  Comp E 1996

  103

  22

  125

  10

  3

  13

  5

  0

  5

  143

  Comp F 1996

  75

  19

  94

  13

  1

  14

  14

  0

  14

  122

  Comp G 1997

  79

  17

  96

  13

  2

  15

  9

  0

  9

  120

  Comp H 1998

  80

  45

  125

  9

  3

  12

  7

  0

  7

  144

  Comp I 1998

  72

  38

  110

  9

  9

  18

  4

  1

  5

  133

  10W
  Mr. Ingram
  The tables show the breakdown of applications for recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary from 1996 to the last recruitment campaign in December 1998 and the corresponding number of successful applicants. The total number of inquiries received for each campaign are not available.
  11W

  Full-time reserves

  CB1

  CB2

  CB3

  Year

  M

  F

  T

  M

  F

  T

  M

  F

  T

  Total

  Applications

  Comp C 1996

  654

  421

  1,075

  154

  101

  255

  90

  11

  101

  1,431

  Comp D 1997

  753

  402

  1,155

  109

  75

  184

  113

  22

  135

  1,474

  Comp E 1997

  376

  236

  612

  60

  46

  106

  43

  12

  55

  773

  Comp F 1997

  709

  423

  1,132

  119

  78

  197

  104

  24

  128

  1,457

  Acceptances

  Comp C 1996

  66

  63

  129

  14

  10

  24

  7

  1

  8

  161

  Comp D 1997

  19

  5

  24

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  5

  29

  Comp E 1997

  25

  4

  29

  2

  1

  3

  3

  0

  3

  35

  Comp F 1997

  31

  19

  50

  3

  2

  5

  3

  0

  3

  58

  Notes:

  CB1—Perceived Protestant

  CB2—Perceived Roman Catholic

  CB3—Others

  Coleraine Police Station
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the building of the new police station in Coleraine; when he estimates the remaining contracts will be let; and when the new station will be completed. [157893]

  Mr. Ingram
  All remaining contracts and tenders relating to the new Royal Ulster Constabulary station at Coleraine have now been awarded. Building works are expected to start by early May 2001 with a contract period of 27 months.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the RUC contract for accommodation at the Ministry of Defence buildings at Laurel Hill, Coleraine expires; and what steps have been taken to extend that contract until the new police station in Coleraine is ready for occupation. [157883]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary operational and support personnel located at Laurel Hill MOD base are currently being relocated back to Coleraine Royal Ulster Constabulary station and this is expected to be completed by the end of April 2001 at which time the leasing arrangements with the MOD will be terminated.

  Foot and Mouth (Police Patrols)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many extra police officers, in each rank and in total, have been deployed to control the traffic at the disinfection points of vehicles entering and leaving Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic, since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease began. [157884]

  Mr. Ingram
  No police officers have been specifically deployed to control traffic at disinfection points. However, the Royal Ulster Constabulary liaises daily with and responds to requests from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and other Government officials to attend where required. Attendance has varied as has been deemed necessary.

  Fixed and rolling vehicle checkpoints have been set up throughout the province and, as part of normal duties, police patrols have been operating vehicle checkpoints with instructions to stop/check any persons or vehicles appearing to be involved with the transport of animals or animal products.

  Terrorism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 135W, on terrorism, what his estimate is of (a) the cost of creating statistics on numbers of individuals who have been notified they are at risk as a result of personal files or information discovered in the possession of paramilitaries and (b) the cost of counting the files maintained at RUC headquarters. [154638]

  Mr. Ingram
  The manual records used by the Royal Ulster Constabulary are held on an individual basis so as to ensure that appropriate action is taken in respect of each person who comes under threat. To date there has not been a statistical need to collate this information in a single database. The information requested is therefore not readily available and to undertake a specific scoping study to evaluate the need and cost of setting up such a database would incur a disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many ministerial meetings with hon. Members have been cancelled by Ministers since 1 January. [155242]

  Dr. Reid
  Two meetings between NIO Ministers and hon. Members have been cancelled since 1 January, these meetings were rescheduled and have subsequently taken place.

  Economy
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Minister for Enterprise in the Northern Ireland Assembly about the number of(a) business start ups and (b) amount of inward investment in each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Belfast Agreement; and if he will make a statement. [151046]

  Dr. Reid
  Since taking up office as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I have had a number of discussions with Sir Reg Empey about economic matters. Those discussions covered a number of issues, including how the Government can assist companies in Northern Ireland
  13W
  and how we can work together to develop the Northern Ireland economy. I expect to have further discussions with Sir Reg Empey in the coming months.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Policies (Don Valley)
  Caroline Flint
  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 Don Valley constituency, the effects on Doncaster of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153519]

  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 and which 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 60s 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.
  14W
  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 Don Valley.

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

  Don Valley

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 66 national lottery awards to Don Valley totalling £741,678.

  Seventeen Millennium Award winners have been identified from Don Valley and between them they have received grants totalling £29,306.

  Doncaster is part of the South Yorkshire Sports Partnership and, additionally, sits within the South Yorkshire Coalfield Sports Action Zone (SAZ). South Yorkshire Sports Partnership has a Partnership Manager, SAZ Manager and Active Sports Manager.

  Grants offered by English Heritage (EH) in the Doncaster area
  Carstairs Countryside Trust—offered £84,000 for acquisition of Sutton Common Enclosures, a scheduled ancient monument.
  Conservation Area Partnership Scheme—Doncaster High Street—£30,000 p.a. for financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  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 4,600 people aged 75 or over living in the Don Valley constituency.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the area which may have an effect on the Don Valley constituency. These are:
  Yorkshire Arts received £9,288,000 in 2000–2001 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–2002 this will increase to £10,315,832 or by 11 per cent.
  Doncaster Community Arts received an award of £9,020 from the National Foundation for Youth Music for a Music Maker Project.

  15W
  In addition, the Millennium Commission has contributed £34 million to date towards the development and running costs of the Earth Centre.

  Departmental Policies (Gorton)
  Mr. Kaufman
  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 Manchester, Gorton constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 21 November 2000. [154504]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since November 2000 my Department has continued to develop a variety of initiatives which will impact on my right hon. Friend's constituency and which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have built on our strategies to take this forward in Tomorrow's Tourism and A Sporting Future for All, which was followed in March 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 PATIO published in February.

  A significant increase in funding for the cultural and sporting infrastructure has continued to have a huge influence since November. 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 are 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, from April this was extended to cover the over 60's at the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry. 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.

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been four national lottery awards to Manchester Gorton since November, totalling £108,648. We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The New Opportunities Fund 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.
  16W
  The North West Regional Cultural Consortium is working hard to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism throughout the region. Their regional cultural strategy is currently in draft format and is on course to be published in July.

  In March, we 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. Since November the Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75. 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 Manchester, Gorton constituency.

  In the wider context of the region 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.

  Rugby
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much(a) lottery and (b) Sports Council money has been used to assess players in switching codes from Rugby League to Rugby Union. [157696]

  Kate Hoey
  I have been assured by Sport England and UK Sport that no lottery or Exchequer funding has been used for this purpose.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the latest date is for the opening of the new Wembley stadium. [157314]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]The date for the opening of the new Wembley Stadium is a matter for the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. to determine.

  Digital Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport (1) what action his Department is taking to enable television viewers in the Verwood area of Dorset to obtain access to the full range of digital terrestrial television; [158473]
  17W
  (2) what changes are proposed to the power output of the Rowridge and Salisbury transmitters to enable television viewers in the Verwood area of Dorset to obtain the full range of digital terrestrial television. [158467]

  Janet Anderson
  I understand from the Independent Television Commission (ITC) that the Rowridge transmitter received an upgrade in January as part of the ongoing work to equalise the coverage of digital terrestrial television of all six multiplexes. The Government are working with the ITC, the BBC and the broadcasting industry on how to extend digital services further to achieve the best possible coverage throughout the country.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 9 April 2001 to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn)Official Report, column 415W, on concessionary television licences, for what reason the proposed amendment is limited to accommodation provided or managed by a local authority, housing association or development corporation. [158679]

  Janet Anderson
  The reason is that the anomaly we are seeking to address applies only to sheltered housing provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation, because only sheltered housing provided or managed in this way qualifies for the Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) concessionary television licence scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 9 April 2001 to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn),Official Report, column 415W, on concessionary television licences, what the estimated cost to public funds in a full year is of the proposed amendment to the regulations; and how many individuals will benefit. [158678]

  Janet Anderson
  I am unable to provide the information requested. As indicated by my right hon. Friend on 9 April, we are currently consulting with the BBC on the formulation of the proposed amendments to the regulations governing the Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) concessionary scheme. The number of people who will benefit, and the resulting cost, will depend on the precise structure of the new provisions and on the number of housing managers who, in future, make the relevant changes to previously qualifying accommodation. The cost of the ARC scheme is not met from public funds but represents a reduction in television licence fee revenue collected.

  Premier Christian Radio
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when a decision will be announced on the renewal of the licence of Premier Christian Radio. [158410]

  Janet Anderson
  The Radio Authority must ensure that licences are re-advertised adequately ahead of the expiry dates to minimise the risk of any gap in the service to listeners. It announced in October last year that it will advertise at the same time those London-wide services on AM which will not receive automatic renewal as a consequence of their commitment to provide digital radio services on relevant multiplexes. That will either mean 18W
  advertisement in September 2001 with an award made in the Spring of 2002, or advertisement in March 2002 with an award that autumn, depending on the outcome of applications for a digital multiplex licence which are currently before the Authority. I will let my hon. Friend know which timetable will apply, once this contingent licence award is decided, probably in June of this year.

  Listed Places of Worship
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will extend his grant scheme for listed places of worship beyond March 2003. [158223]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This Government will be pressing the European Commission for the inclusion of a lower rate of VAT for repairs to buildings that are used as listed places of worship when the reduced VAT rates come up for review in 2003. Depending on the outcome of that review, the situation will be considered again then.

  Discounted TV Licences
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to introduce a discount on television licences for people who are registered deaf. [158400]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government have no such plans. We believe the interests of deaf people are better served by improving their access to television services rather than by the provision of licence fee concessions. This was the view of the independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC, in its report of July 1999. The Government accepted the report's recommendation that there should be substantial increases in the BBC's targets for subtitling on its new digital services, and the BBC is working towards 100 per cent. subtitling on its digital channels by the tenth anniversary of their launch. The Corporation also aims to increase the amount of subtitling on BBC1 and BBC2 from its present level of 67 per cent. to 80 per cent. by 2003–04.

  The Government recently announced their intention to increase the target for the provision of subtitling on ITC licensed digital terrestrial television (DTT) services from 50 per cent. of programmes by the tenth anniversary of the start of the service to 80 per cent., and to extend the requirements for subtitling, signing and audio description, which currently apply only to DTT, to digital cable and satellite services when legislation permits.

WALES

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency, the effects on Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997; [154947]

  (2) if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ceredigion constituency, the effects on Ceredigion of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997; [154945]
  19W
  (3) if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ynys Môn constituency, the effects on Ynys Môn of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997; [154941]

  (4) if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Caernarfon constituency, the effects on Caernarfon of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154946]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As these questions were originally addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my response relates to the effects of Government policies and actions on industry and the economy. Such effects are not normally measured by reference to constituencies so it is not practicable to give information in the form requested. However, prior to the transfer of functions to the National Assembly on 1 July 1999, a range of all-Wales policy initiatives and other actions taken by my Department will have impacted on these four constituencies. Details are set out in the Welsh Office Departmental Reports for 1998 (Cm 3915) and 1999 (Cm 4216), copies of which are in the Library.

  Caernarfon, Ceredigion, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and Ynys Môn are included in the area for which the Government secured Objective 1 status at the Berlin European Council in 1999. Subsequently, in the July 2000 spending review, we made available additional funding, outside the Barnett Formula, for the Welsh Structural Funds Programme. So far in Wales, 201 projects with a total value of £148,960,863 have been approved under the Objective 1 programme. To break down the figures to constituency level would involve disproportionate cost. However, a full list of approved projects is available on the Wales European Funding Office website at http://www/wefo.wales.gov.uk. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Our new Assisted Areas map for the UK, which was formally approved by the European Commission in July 2000, also includes Tier 1 coverage for Caernarfon, Ceredigion, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and Ynys Môn. I have also today made available via the Library copies of the Objective 1 Approved Projects.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  High Sheriffs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Council if she will ensure fair political balance in appointment of High Sheriffs; and what safeguards are in place to check the appointment system is open and fair and not subject to political abuse. [158384]

  Mrs. Beckett
  High Sheriffs have no political role, their functions are largely ceremonial, and they neither disburse nor receive any public funds, other than strictly defined (and modest) expenses for a limited number of formal court attendances. Political affiliation has not therefore been regarded as a relevant consideration in their appointment. Sheriffs are, however, asked to refrain from all active participation in local and national politics during their term of office.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in her Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. [158105]

  Clare Short
  No age restriction is applied to appointments to public bodies in my Department.

PRIME MINISTER

  Worcestershire Visit
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 5 April 2001,Official Report, column 251W, if he will list the representatives of farming and tourism interests he met on his recent visit to Worcestershire. [158209]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the normal practice of Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Constituency Visits
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to invite hon. Members representing rural constituencies to meet him when making visits outside London to discuss foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [158186]

  The Prime Minister
  Future visits will continue to be in accordance with the guidance set out in paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code.

  Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister what powers he has to replace a lord lieutenant. [158361]

  The Prime Minister
  The normal age of retirement for lord lieutenants is 75 although lords lieutenant may retire before that. I believe that, under the Royal Prerogative, it would be possible for the appointment of a lord lieutenant to be ended before retirement, but I am not aware that this has ever been done in recent times.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria are used to ensure that appointments of lords lieutenant are not political. [158364]

  The Prime Minister
  Lords lieutenant are appointed under current legislation by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of the day, following consultations locally and, where appropriate, with the relevant Secretary of State or First Minister. In four Scottish cities each Lord Provost becomes lord lieutenant by virtue of office. Those appointed as lords lieutenant are people of standing in their local communities, most frequently on account of their record of voluntary activity for the good of the community.

  Lords lieutenant are specifically advised that, as Her Majesty's representatives, they should stand aloof from politics in their respective counties or areas and should not, therefore, take part in political activities or hold office

  21W
  in political party organisations in their counties or areas. Lords lieutenant are also advised that participation in national political activity may risk their position of impartiality locally.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Malcolm Reddican
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will take steps to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service provides full disclosure of all the information and evidence concerning the death of Malcolm Reddican to Mr. Reddican's family. [157964]

  The Solicitor-General
  Disclosure of the evidence and all documentation in relation to the case has been requested by, and on behalf of, Mr. Reddican's family. The Crown Prosecution Service has always indicated a willingness to meet with the family and their legal representatives to discuss the case.

  However, leading counsel for the Crown was asked to consider the question of disclosure, in particular the Human Rights implications of disclosing all the case papers. He advised that, while the family are entitled to a full debriefing and to reassurance that the murder of Malcolm Reddican was fully investigated and properly prosecuted, the rights of others must nevertheless be balanced against the rights of the family.

  Indeed national policy of the Crown Prosecution Service is generally to withhold details of decisions in individual cases, since not to do so would breach confidentiality and might adversely affect the interests and reputations of the parties involved—witnesses, the victim and the suspect. To discuss publicly a decision not to prosecute could amount to a trial of a suspect without the safeguards which criminal proceedings are designed to provide.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Solicitor-General (1) if he will make it his policy to require the Crown Prosecution Service to include in its annual report statistics relating to the number of cases processed, categorised by specific offence, in respect of cases where(a) proceedings are stopped, (b) proceedings continue with the original charges and (c) proceedings continue with amended charges; [157817]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to require the Crown Prosecution Service to include in its annual report statistics relating to the time scales in respect of (a) cases in which a decision is taken to stop proceedings and (b) cases which proceed to a conclusion. [157818]

  The Solicitor-General
  Some of the information sought by my hon. Friend is already available in supplementary volumes of the annual Home Office publication Criminal Statistics England and Wales, which includes a breakdown of case outcomes by offence type.

  In the past, the Crown Prosecution Service has held no records in respect of particular offences, and has been able to publish only aggregate figures on case outcomes. This was because the Service lacked the technical infrastructure required to hold and analyse the vast
  22W
  quantity of data that such records would involve, and because the administrative burden of maintaining manual records was prohibitive. However, there are now two important initiatives within the CPS which promise more detailed and informative case outcomes records for the future.

  Firstly, the CPS is conducting a detailed review to ascertain exactly what information on case outcomes is required to manage properly the prosecution process and to account to parliament and to the public for the standard of its work. This review will consider, and make recommendations on, their requirement for detail on the outcome of particular offences and offence types.

  Secondly, the Service has a new electronic case management under development, named Compass. This will provide the CPS with the modern technology it needs both to support its core business of reviewing and prosecuting criminal cases, and to make available the management information identified by the review mentioned above.

  Of course, no information system can ever be comprehensive. Even with the most sophisticated computer support, a balance must be struck between the data we would like, and the costs of collecting and recording those data.

  Wider developments in information management throughout the criminal justice system must also be taken into account. The various criminal justice agencies are working together to develop common systems of data collecting using agreed definitions, with the aim of providing a fully consistent picture of criminal proceedings from the commencement of the case to its conclusion. This project should specify criminal justice information needs for the foreseeable future, and manage the transition to fully automated data collection.

  Departmental Policies (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ribble Valley constituency, the effects on Ribble Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157849]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Ribble Valley constituency falls largely within the geographical area covered by the Crown Prosecution Service office at Burnley. A Trials Unit has very recently been established there to deal with Crown court casework arising in north-east Lancashire. This will enable greater emphasis to be placed on the conduct of more serious cases and is part of an ongoing reorganisation within CPS Lancashire, in line with recommendations of the Glidewell Review.

  At Preston police station, a Criminal Justice Unit, staffed jointly by the police and CPS is being piloted. Criminal Justice Units enable the police and prosecutors to work together more effectively.

  At the beginning of November 1999, in line with national policy, and in liaison with police and Lancashire Magistrates Courts Service, the Crown Prosecution Service implemented the Narey recommendations throughout Lancashire, following a pilot in north-east Lancashire. All

  23W
  defendants charged with a criminal offence now make their first appearance before magistrates courts in the area within 48 hours.

  The Crown Prosecution Service, together with other agencies, has also helped to draw up an action plan and associated procedures to speed up youth justice, particularly in relation to persistent young offenders. The latest published figures show that Lancashire was one of four areas in the country which achieved the Government's target of 71 days or less between arrest and sentence during the year 2000 as a whole.

  Both the Narey changes and the steps on persistent young offenders demonstrate that the Government have successfully speeded up the criminal justice system.

  Actions and policies of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office do not directly affect the Ribble Valley constituency.

  Departmental Policies (Tiverton and Honiton)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, the effects on Tiverton and Honiton of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157805]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Tiverton and Honiton constituency falls within the geographical area covered by the Devon and Cornwall area of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In November 1999, in line with national policy, CPS Devon and Cornwall, in liaison with the police and the central Devon magistrates court, introduced procedures based on the Narey proposals. All adult defendants charged with a criminal offence in central Devon should make their first appearance before Exeter, Tiverton or Honiton magistrates courts within eight days. Due to the imminent court rationalisation, Tiverton court is due for closure.

  A CPS Crown court unit, based in Exeter, deals with serious crime at Exeter Crown court and Barnstaple Crown court. The CPS has set as a goal the better handling of serious cases in the interests of justice and of victims. From 15 January 2001, a fast-track procedure was adopted which will ensure that offences which must be heard in the Crown court normally come before a judge within eight clear days of their first hearing in the magistrates court.

  The CPS, together with other agencies, has been working to speed up youth justice, particularly cases involving persistent young offenders. The time taken for Persistent Youth cases has fallen in the CPS Devon and Cornwall area from 141 days in 1997 to 60 days in 2000. This places Devon and Cornwall at the top of the national league.

  All these changes illustrate the Government's successful policy of speeding up the criminal justice system.

  On 30 November 2000, the Exeter office of CPS Devon and Cornwall altered its structure so as to fall in line with proposals in the Glidewell Review. This represents a policy of more effective working between the police and prosecutors and will enable the CPS to place greater emphasis on the more serious criminal cases.
  24W
  Actions and policies of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office do not directly affect the Tiverton and Honiton constituency.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Departmental Policies (Clwyd, South)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Clwyd, South constituency, the effects on Clwyd, South of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [151909]

  Ms Quin
  As most of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or Wales basis, but no disaggregated further. However farmers in the UK have benefited from this Government's policies to the tune of £1.35 billion since 2 May 1997 in addition to the figure of approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments.

  Within this total, the value of agrimonetary compensation amounts to some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively. Hill farmers in Wales will also benefit from the funding which Government are putting into Tir Mynydd, the new support scheme for farmers in less favoured areas.

  Farmers in the Clwyd, South constituency will also have available to them all of the schemes available under the Rural Development Programme for Wales, which is backed by funding of around £0.5 billion over the period 2000–06.

  Departmental Policies (Stroud)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Stroud constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152398]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. Information on land use, crop areas, livestock numbers, and labour on holdings in England by Parliamentary constituency has been produced from 1 June 1999 Annual Agricultural and Horticultural Census. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Information from the 1 June 2000 census will be available shortly and also placed in the House Library.

  As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis. Farmers in the UK

  25W
  receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports

  Average subsidies received by full time farm businesses England 1999–2000

  £000

  Crop subsidies

  Livestock subsidies

  Agri-environment

  Other1

  Total direct subsidies

  Cereals

  34.2

  2.3

  1.0

  0.1

  37.8

  General cropping

  28.8

  2.4

  0.6

  0.0

  31.8

  Horticulture

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  Pigs and poultry

  2.2

  1.4

  0.1

  0.0

  3.6

  Dairy

  2.8

  4.9

  0.8

  0.0

  8.5

  LFA cattle and sheep

  0.4

  25.4

  3.3

  0.0

  29.3

  Lowland cattle and sheep

  1.7

  10.6

  1.8

  0.2

  14.1

  Mixed

  21.4

  10.7

  1.7

  0.0

  33.8

  All types

  14.8

  6.4

  1.2

  0.1

  22.5

  1Includes capital grants and any other miscellaneous grants. These reflect a combination of nationally funded and partly match funded schemes.

  Notes:

  1. HLCA payments to hill farmers are included under livestock subsidies.

  2. The figures show direct subsidy payments; they do not include allowance for the financial benefit of prices supported above world market levels under CAP.

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  In addition to CAP direct payments, farmers in the UK are benefiting from £1.35 billion in short term financial relief since 2 May 1997.

  This includes £785 million in agrimonetary compensation worth some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Since May 1997 the Government have more than doubled expenditure on agri-environment schemes in England. We now have more than twice as much land covered by Countryside Stewardship agreements and we have increased the funding of organic conversion from £571,000 in 1997–98 to £12 million in 2000–01 and £18 million in 2001–02. Full time hill farmers in England will be in receipt of some £6,360 on average following the introduction of the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme this year. This compares with £4,048 under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance in 1996–97.

  Farmers in Stroud can benefit from schemes available under the England Rural Development Programme, which is backed by funding of £1.6 billion over the period 2000–06. Three of the schemes within this programme—RURAL Enterprise, Processing and Marketing, and Vocational Training—have a budget of around £190 million and are being operated on a regional basis; each region has its own allocation. These allocations are set out in the England Rural Development Programme.

  Consumers in Stroud will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.
  26W
  which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices. The value of direct CAP payments to the average farmer is set out in the table.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the level of Government funding is for the application of(a) genomics and (b) genetic modification to the needs of British agriculture. [153371]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Funding by MAFF in 2000–01 for genomics research and development is £11 million and for genetic modification research and development, including risks to the agricultural environment from genetic modification, is £3.4 million.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he received a report from the Canadian authorities on the causes of the Advanta seed contamination last year. [153229]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 8 March 2001,Official Report, columns 345–46W.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the report his Department has completed on the review of separation distances for GM field trials. [153224]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 8 March 2001,Official Report, column 345W.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government advise the removal of flower heads from current winter and imminent spring trials as a precautionary measure. [153233]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 5 March 2001,Official Report, columns 56–57W.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the GM sugarbeet trials scheduled for this year involve expense on the part of the Government. [153230]
  27W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 1 March 2001,Official Report, column 724W.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has been briefed on the report "Elements of Precaution" from the Royal Society of Canada into genetically modified crops; and if he will make a statement. [153239]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The report covers various aspects of the regulation of food biotechnology and was written specifically for the Canadian authorities. The recommendations in the report therefore reflect the existing regulatory system in that country. The European Union has a very stringent control regime for GM crops and food, one which gives a clear priority to safeguarding public health and the environment.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with reference to the GM oilseed rape trials being held in the UK for Aventis, what proportion of the seeds produced by each of the trials of a Fl hybrid oilseed rape will be sterile; in which of the trials the barnase gene and barstar gene will be present in the oil seed rape to be grown; if the barnase and barstar genes involve terminator technology; and which of the trials involve seeds which are sterile. [157261]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]GM oilseed rape hybrids produced by Aventis are currently being trialled under the Farm Scale Evaluation programme and for National List and other research purposes. The hybridity system is the same in each case. Each plan carries separate genes that encode for male sterility (barnase) and fertility restoration (barstar) respectively. The seed produced by these plants is viable and therefore terminator technology is not involved. Detailed technical background on this type of oilseed rape is given in a paper by the Advisory Committee on Releases on the Environment entitled "Environmental Risks of Herbicide-Tolerant Oilseed Rape—A Review of the PGS Hybrid Oilseed Rape." This is available at www.environment.detr.gov.uk/acre.

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the Senior Civil Service, was in his Department for 2000–01. [152800]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 14 March 20011 Since 1996 MAFF has had delegated authority for negotiating pay settlements. For the 2000 pay round, the core MAFF settlement included Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

  MAFF applied performance related awards in 2000–01 which linked pay awards to job performance on an individual basis. It is therefore not possible to provide a single average percentage increase. Pay awards to satisfactory performers were within the range of 3.2 per cent. and 11.75 per cent. The higher awards also included changes to the pay structure and additional payments to the best performers. Unsatisfactory performers received no performance pay award.
  28W
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is also responsible for other Executive Agencies with their own negotiating remits. I have asked Chief Executives to respond direct with information on their pay settlements.

  Letter from Steve Edwards to Dr. David Clark, dated March 2001:
  The Minister has asked me to respond to your question on the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the Senior Civil Service, in his Department for 2000–01.
  Since 1996 VLA has had delegated authority for negotiating pay settlements for staff in the Agency excluding members of the Senior Civil Service.
  In 2000 the headline pay settlement was 2.5% of the pay bill. Together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff received performance related increases with an average cost of 4.3%. The increases were not staged. Information on the 2001 payment settlement is not yet available because negotiations are still ongoing.

  Letter from Professor P. I. Stanley to Dr. David Clark, dated March 2001:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory. to your question concerning the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior Civil Service, for 2000–01.
  The headline pay settlement was 2.7% on the pay bill and, together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance related increases averaging 4.76%.

  Letter from Peter Greig-Smith to Dr. David Clark, dated March 2001:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question regarding the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial Civil Servants, excluding members of the Senior Civil Service, for 2000–01. I am replying on behalf of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).
  The headline pay settlement for CEFAS was 2.82% on the pay bill and, together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance-related increases averaging 4.03%.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is introducing to remove dead badger carcases from holdings. [154032]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 March 20011 The survey of badger carcases for bovine TB, announced on 7 November 2000, included provision for the collection of badger carcases from farms in badger culling trial areas in Cornwall, Devon, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire. These arrangements have been temporarily suspended following the redirection of State Veterinary Service resources to foot and mouth disease control. In its response to the report of the independent Husbandry Panel the Government recognised the need for more practical guidance for farmers on how to dispose of badger carcases. They are considering how this may be met.

  Movement Licences
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if distance of travel is a relevant criterion in assessing the case for granting movement licences to slaughter; and where such movements cover local authority boundaries whether all relevant authorities are consulted by the issuing authority. [154079]
  29W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: The legislation put in place to allow livestock movements direct to slaughter does not specify a maximum period or distance, but only allows movement under licence as long as it does not require a scheduled stop.

  Where these journeys cross local authority boundaries, the issuing authority is not required to consult other relevant authorities.

  Departmental Policies (Newbury and West Berkshire)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [154568]

  Average subsidies received by full time farm businesses, England 1999–2000

  £000

  Crop subsidies

  Livestock subsidies

  Agri-environment

  Other1

  Total direct subsidies

  Cereals

  34.2

  2.3

  1.0

  0.1

  37.8

  General cropping

  28.8

  2.4

  0.6

  0.0

  31.8

  Horticulture

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  Pigs and poultry

  2.2

  1.4

  0.1

  0.0

  3.6

  Dairy

  2.8

  4.9

  0.8

  0.0

  8.5

  LFA cattle and sheep

  0.4

  25.4

  3.3

  0.2

  29.3

  Lowland cattle and sheep

  1.7

  10.6

  1.8

  0.0

  14.1

  Mixed

  21.4

  10.7

  1.7

  0.0

  33.8

  All types

  14.8

  6.4

  1.2

  0.1

  22.5

  1Includes capital grants and any other miscellaneous grants. These reflect a combination of nationally funded and partly match funded schemes.

  Notes:

  1. HLCA payments to hill farms are included under livestock subsidies.

  2. The figures show direct subsidy payments; they do not include allowance for the financial benefit of prices supported above world market levels under the CAP.

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  In addition to CAP direct payments, farmers in the UK are benefiting from £1.35 billion in short term financial relief since 2 May 1997.

  This includes £785 million in agrimonetary compensation worth some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Since May 1997 the Government have more than doubled expenditure on agri-environmental schemes in England. We now have more than twice as much land covered by Countryside Stewardship agreements and we have increased the funding of organic conversion from £571,000 in 1997–98 to £12 million in 2000–01 and £18 million in 2001–02. Full time hill farmers in England will be in receipt of some £6,360 on average following the introduction of the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme this year. This compares with £4,048 under the Hillstock Livestock Compensatory Allowance in 1996–97.
  30W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. Information on land use, crop areas, livestock numbers, and labour on holdings in England by parliamentary constituency has been produced from 1 June 1999 Annual Agricultural and Horticultural Census. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Information from the 1 June 2000 census will be available shortly and also placed in the House Library.

  As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis. Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices. The value of direct CAP payments to the average farmer is set out in the table.

  Farmers in Newbury can benefit from schemes available under the England Rural Development Programme, which is backed by funding of £1.6 billion over the period 2000–06. Three of the schemes within this programme—RURAL Enterprise, Processing and Marketing, and Vocational Training—Have a budget of around £190 million and are being operated on a regional basis; each region has its own allocation. These allocations are set out in the England Rural Development Programme.

  Consumers in Newbury will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  Departmental Policies (Lancaster and Wyre)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [154688]
  31W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 March 2001]: MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. Information on land use, crop areas, livestock numbers, and labour on holdings in England by parliamentary constituency has been produced from 1 June 1999 Annual Agricultural and Horticultural Census. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Information from the 1 June 2000 census will be available shortly and also placed in the House Library.

  Average subsidies received by full-time farm businesses, England 1999–2000

  £000

  Of which:

  Total direct subsidies

  Crop subsidies

  Livestock subsidies

  Agri-environment

  Other1

  Cereals

  37.8

  34.2

  2.3

  1.0

  0.1

  General Cropping

  31.8

  28.8

  2.4

  0.6

  0.0

  Horticulture

  0.4

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  Pigs and Poultry

  3.6

  2.2

  1.4

  0.1

  0.0

  Dairy

  8.5

  2.8

  4.9

  0.8

  0.0

  LFA Cattle and Sheep

  29.3

  0.4

  25.4

  3.3

  0.2

  Lowland Cattle and Sheep

  14.1

  1.7

  10.6

  1.8

  0.0

  Mixed

  33.8

  21.4

  10.7

  1.7

  0.0

  All Types

  22.5

  14.8

  6.4

  1.2

  0.1

  1Includes capital grants and any other miscellaneous grants. These reflect a combination of rationally funded and partly match funded schemes.

  Notes:

  HLCA payments to hill farms are included under livestock subsidies.

  The figures show direct subsidy payments; they do not include allowance for the financial benefit of prices supported above world market levels under the CAP.

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  In addition to CAP direct payments, farmers in the UK are benefiting from £1.35 billion in short-term financial relief since 2 May 1997.

  This includes £785 million in agrimonetary compensation worth some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Since May 1997 the Government have more than doubled expenditure on agri-environment schemes in England. We now have more than twice as much land covered by Countryside Stewardship agreements and we have increased the funding of organic conversion from £571,000 in 1997–98 to £12 million in 2000–01 and £18 million in 2001–02. Full-time hill farmers in England will be in receipt of some £6,360 on average following the introduction of the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme this year. This compares with £4,048 under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance in 1996–97.

  Farmers in Lancaster and Wyre can benefit from schemes available under the England Rural Development Programme, which is backed by funding of £1.6 billion over the period 2000–06. Three of the schemes within this programme—Rural Enterprise, Processing and Marketing, and Vocational Training—have a budget of around £190 million and are being operated on a regional basis; each region has its own allocation. These allocations are set out in the England Rural Development Programme.
  32W
  As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis. Farmers in the UK received approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices. The value of direct CAP payments to the average farmer is set out in the table.

  Consumers in Lancaster and Wyre will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  Departmental Policies (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency, the effects on Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154987]

  Ms Quin
  As most of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or Wales basis, but not disaggregated further. However farmers in the UK have benefited from this Government's policies to the tune of £1.35 billion since 2 May 1997 in addition to the figure of approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. Within this total, the value of agrimonetary compensation amounts to some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Hill farmers in Wales will also benefit from the funding which Government are putting into Tir Mynydd, the new support scheme for farmers in less favoured areas.
  33W
  Farmers in the Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency will also have available to them all of the schemes available under the Rural Development Programme for Wales, which is backed by funding of around £0.5 billion over the period 2000–06.

  Departmental Policies (Ynys Môn)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ynys Môn constituency, the effects on Ynys Môn of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May
  1997. [154983]

  Ms Quin
  As most of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or Wales basis, but not disaggregated further. However farmers in the UK have benefited from this Government's policies to the tune of £1.35 billion since 2 May 1997 in addition to the figure of approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments.

  Within this total, the value of agrimonetary compensation amounts to some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Hill farmers in Wales will also benefit from the funding which Government are putting into Tir Mynydd, the new support scheme for farmers in less favoured areas. Farmers in the Ynys Môn constituency will also have available to them all of the schemes available under the Rural Development Programme for Wales, which is backed by funding of around £0.5 billion over the period 2000–06.

  Departmental Policies (Ceredigion)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ceredigion constituency, the effects on Ceredigion of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May
  1997. [154984]

  Ms Quin
  As most of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or Wales basis, but not disaggregated further. However farmers in the UK have benefited from this Government's policies to the tune of £1.35 billion since 2 May 1997 in addition to the figure of approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. Within this total, the value of agrimonetary compensation amounts to some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Hill farmers in Wales will also benefit from the funding which Government are putting into Tir Mynydd, the new support scheme for farmers in less favoured areas. Farmers in the Ceredigion constituency will also have
  34W
  available to them all of the schemes available under the Rural Development Programme for Wales, which is backed by funding of around £0.5 billion over the period 2000–06.

  Departmental Policies (Caernarfon)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Caernarfon constituency, the effects on Caernarfon of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May
  1997. [154982]

  Ms Quin
  As most of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or Wales basis, but not disaggregated further. However, farmers in the UK have benefited from this Government's policies to the tune of £1.35 billion since 2 May 1997 in addition to the figure of approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. Within this total, the value of agrimonetary compensation amounts to some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Hill farmers in Wales will also benefit from the funding which Government are putting into Tir Mynydd, the new support scheme for farmers in less favoured areas. Farmers in the Caernarfon constituency will also have available to them all of the schemes available under the Rural Development Programme for Wales, which is backed by funding of around £0.5 billion over the period 2000–06.

  Departmental Policies (Chichester)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [155282]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. Information on land use, crop areas, livestock numbers, and labour on holdings in England by parliamentary constituency has been produced from 1 June 1999 Annual Agricultural and Horticultural Census. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Information from the 1 June 2000 census will be available shortly and also placed in the House Library.

  As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis. Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices. The value of direct CAP payments to the average farmer is set out in the table.
  35W

  Average subsidies received by full-time farm businesses, England 1999–2000

  £000

  Crop subsidies

  Livestock subsidies

  Agri-environment

  Other1

  Total direct subsidies

  Cereals

  34.2

  2.3

  1.0

  0.1

  37.8

  General Cropping

  28.8

  2.4

  0.6

  0.0

  31.8

  Horticulture

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  Pigs and Poultry

  2.2

  1.4

  0.1

  0.0

  3.6

  Dairy

  2.8

  4.9

  0.8

  0.0

  8.5

  LFA Cattle and Sheep

  0.4

  25.4

  3.3

  0.2

  29.3

  Lowland Cattle and Sheep

  1.7

  10.6

  1.8

  0.0

  14.1

  Mixed

  21.4

  10.7

  1.7

  0.0

  33.8

  All types

  14.8

  6.4

  1.2

  0.1

  22.5

  1Includes capital grants and any other miscellaneous grants. These reflect a combination of nationally funded and partly match funded schemes.

  Notes:

  HLCA payments to hill farms are included under livestock subsidies.

  The figures show direct subsidy payments; they do not include allowance for the financial benefit of price supported above world market levels under the CAP.

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  In addition to CAP direct payments, farmers in the UK are benefiting from £1.35 billion in short term financial relief since 2 May 1997.

  This includes £785 million in agrimonetary compensation worth some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Since May 1997 the Government have more than doubled expenditure on agri-environment schemes in England. We now have more than twice as much land covered by Countryside Stewardship agreements and we have increased the funding of organic conversion from £571,000 in 1997–98 to £12 million in 2000–01 and £18 million in 2001–02. Full time hill farmers in England will be in receipt of some £6,360 on average following the introduction of the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme this year. This compares to £4,048 under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance in 1996–97.

  Farmers in Chichester can benefit from schemes available under the England Rural Development Programme, which is backed by funding of £1.6 billion over the period 2000–06. Three of the schemes within this programme—Rural Enterprise, Processing and Marketing, and Vocational Training—have a budget of around £190 million and are being operated on a regional basis; each region has its own allocation. These allocations are set out in the England Rural Development Programme.

  Average Subsidies received by full time farm businesses, England 1999–2000

  £000

  Crop subsidies

  Livestock subsidies

  Agri-environment

  Other1

  Total direct subsidies

  Cereals

  34.2

  2.3

  1.0

  0.1

  37.8

  General cropping

  28.8

  2.4

  0.6

  0.0

  31.8

  Horticulture

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  Pigs and poultry

  2.2

  1.4

  0.1

  0.0

  3.6

  Dairy

  2.8

  4.9

  0.8

  0.0

  8.5

  LFA cattle and sheep

  0.4

  25.4

  3.3

  0.2

  29.3

  36W
  Consumers in Chichester will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  Departmental Policies (North Devon)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [155899]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. Information on land use, crop areas, livestock numbers, and labour on holdings in England by parliamentary constituency has been produced from 1 June 1999 Annual Agricultural and Horticultural Census. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Information from the 1 June 2000 census will be available shortly and also placed in the House Library.

  As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis. Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices. The value of direct CAP payments to the average farmer is set out in the table.
  37W

  Average Subsidies received by full time farm businesses, England 1999–2000

  £000

  Crop subsidies

  Livestock subsidies

  Agri-environment

  Other1

  Total direct subsidies

  Lowland cattle and sheep

  1.7

  10.6

  1.8

  0.0

  14.1

  Mixed

  21.4

  10.7

  1.7

  0.0

  33.8

  All types

  14.8

  6.4

  1.2

  0.1

  22.5

  1Includes capital grants and any other miscellaneous grants. These reflect a combination of nationally funded and partly match funded schemes.

  Notes:

  1. HLCA payments to hill farms are induced under livestock subsidies.

  2. The figures show direct subsidy payments; they do not include allowance for the financial benefit of prices supported above world market levels under the CAP.

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey.

  In addition to CAP direct payments, farmers in the UK are benefiting from £1.35 billion in short term financial relief since 2 May 1997.

  This includes £785 million in agrimonetary compensation worth some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Since May 1997 the Government have more than doubled expenditure on agri-environment schemes in England. We now have more than twice as much land covered by Countryside Stewardship agreements and we have increased the funding of organic conversion from £571,000 in 1997–98 to £12 million in 2000–01 and £18 million in 2001–02. Full time hill farmers in England will be in receipt of some £6,360 on average following the introduction of the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme this year. This compares to £4,048 under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance in 1996–97.

  Farmers in North Devon can benefit from schemes available under the England Rural Development Programme, which is backed by funding of £1.6 billion over the period 2000–06. Three of the schemes within this programme—Rural Enterprise, Processing and Marketing, and Vocational Training—have a budget of around £190 million and are being operated on a regional basis; each region has its own allocation. These allocations are set out in the England Rural Development Programme.

  Consumers in North Devon will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  Pet Carcases
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that disposal of pet carcases by cremation should be exempt from the Animal Waste Directive; and if he will make a statement. [156554]

  Ms Quin
  Animal carcase incinerators, including those operated by pet crematoria, were exempted from the provisions of the Waste Incineration Directive on the proviso that controls providing for high environmental 38W
  standards are included in the EU Animal By-Products Regulation. This Regulation will replace the Animal Waste Directive.

  It is the intention of the UK to negotiate controls on animal carcase incinerators that are proportionate to the health and environmental risks, while safeguarding their continued use.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will match for the British industry the operating support given to the fishing industries of other EU countries. [156460]

  Mr. Morley
  I announced on 2 April a package of measures designed to meet the needs of the English fishing industry. Measures have similarly been announced by the devolved administrations.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with(a) the fishing industry and (b) fish processors about the financial state of the industry and their need for public support. [156459]

  Mr. Morley
  I have personally met with representatives of both the fishing industry and the fish processing industry. I am therefore well aware of the position of all parts of the fisheries sector.

  I have already made clear that I share the catchers' and processors' wish to see a sustainable industry which is economically profitable and which uses environmentally sustainable practices. The package of aid measures worth £22.5 million in England, which will inter alia provide financial assistance to help restructure the fishing industry and make grants available for innovation in the marketing and processing of fish, makes clear that the Government are ready to support and encourage the industry in pursuing these aims.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for decommissioning British fishing vessels; and when he intends to announce them. [156457]

  Mr. Morley
  I have already announced additional funding worth £6 million to help restructure the fishing industry. We will be consulting closely with the industry about the form that this assistance will take.
  39W
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the landing sites for fishing ports in order of value of landings. [157879]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The values of landings of fresh and frozen fish by UK vessels in 1999 at the top 50 UK ports are set out in the table. Corresponding figures for 2000 are not yet available.

  Major ports: value of fresh and frozen fish landed by UK vessels into UK ports during 1999

  Port of landing

  Value (£ million)

  Peterhead

  78.8

  Fraserburgh

  27.9

  Aberdeen

  26.2

  Scrabster

  19.6

  Newlyn

  17.1

  Brixham

  15.8

  Mallaig

  14.8

  Lerwick

  14.4

  Kinlochbervie

  13.2

  Plymouth

  10.7

  Lochinver

  10.4

  Hull

  10.3

  Kilkeel

  8.4

  Ullapool

  8.0

  Grimsby

  7.6

  Portavogie

  7.4

  Lowestoft

  7.3

  Milford Haven

  7.1

  Eyemouth

  5.3

  Weymouth

  5.0

  Whitby

  4.9

  Scarborough

  4.3

  Fleetwood

  4.2

  Bridlington

  4.1

  Ardglass

  3.7

  Stornoway

  3.6

  Kirkcudbright

  3.4

  North Shields

  3.2

  Troon and Saltcoats

  3.2

  Pittenweem

  2.8

  Buckie

  2.8

  Scalloway

  2.8

  Shoreham

  2.6

  Oban

  2.5

  River Dart

  2.5

  Portsmouth

  2.4

  Looe

  2.2

  Whitehaven

  2.2

  Poole

  2.1

  Campbeltown

  2.1

  Blyth

  2.0

  River Fal—Falmouth

  1.9

  Wick

  1.9

  Lings Lynn

  1.9

  Amble

  1.9

  Kirkwall

  1.8

  Tarbert

  1.8

  Macduff

  1.8

  Padstow

  1.7

  Kyle

  1.6

  Total landings, all UK ports

  463.7

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate the Government have made of the proportion of the overall EU fisheries resource accounted for by British territorial waters. [153369]
  40W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  It is not possible to estimate the UK's share of the total EU fisheries resource occurring in British territorial waters. Fish movements are not determined by international boundaries. They also vary over time according to biological, environmental and other conditions. Furthermore, the ICES scientific assessments on which Total Allowable Catch decisions are based are provided in relation to the level of fish stocks within ICES rectangles. These include areas outside EU waters and do not take account of territorial waters.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the European Parliament's decision on(a) abolishing national control over fishing in coastal waters, (b) access to the North sea and (c) the Shetland and Irish boxes. [153237]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the resolution which the European Parliament adopted on 17 January 2001 in relation to the Commission report on the consultations the Commission conducted throughout the EU in 1998–99 in preparation for the 2002 Review of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). This resolution is not binding on the Commission and Council. Nor does it call for the abolition of national control over over fishing in national waters but, rather, for maintenance of the status quo if there is any controversy over the future of the six to 12 mile limits. The text of the resolution if available in the Library of the House. As we have consistently made clear, we are confident that the six to 12 mile access restrictions will again be renewed in the forthcoming review of the CFP. We shall be arguing then for these access restrictions to be made permanent.

  In the North sea, all the main commercial stocks are now subject to TACs with quotas allocated according to the principle of relative stability, which will continue to apply unless a qualified majority of the Council on the basis of a Commission proposal decides otherwise. There are no signs that this will happen. As a result, we do not expect to see new or increased access to the North sea after 2002.

  Restrictions on access to the Irish Box are laid down in the western waters effort regime, which the Commission has confirmed will continue automatically beyond 2002.

  The Shetland Box will be rolled over automatically beyond 2002 unless, on the basis of a Commission proposal and acting by qualified majority, the Council decides to make any changes. The Government are currently reviewing the effectiveness of the Box in terms of the objectives originally set for it and a way of clarifying the arguments for its continuation beyond 2002.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of(a) fishermen, (b) vessels and (c) value of catch of the UK fishing fleet is (a) English and (b) Scottish. [157239]

  Mr. Morley
  The available information is set out in the table.
  41W

  UK fishing fleet: Number of fishermen, vessels and value of catch (excludes Channel Isles and Isle of Man)

  England

  Percentage

  Scotland

  Percentage

  UK total

  Percentage

  At end 1999

  Number of fishermen1

  Regular

  5,298

  41

  6,042

  47

  12,970

  100

  Part-time

  933

  31

  1,288

  43

  2,991

  100

  Total

  6,231

  39

  7,330

  46

  15,961

  100

  Number of fishing vessels

  12 metre2 and under

  3,341

  54

  1,833

  30

  6,151

  100

  Over 12 metre2

  381

  29

  698

  54

  1,297

  100

  Total

  3,722

  50

  2,531

  34

  4,778

  100

  Value of landings (£ million)

  1999

  184

  31

  345

  59

  588

  100

  1As at 31 March 2000 for England

  2Based on registered length

  Source:

  Classification by Department of Administration

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the EU Commission about aid and support for the British fishing industry following the reduced fishing opportunities available under new quotas and the new instructions to protect cod and hake. [158434]

  Mr. Morley
  None. We have announced a package of national measures within FIFG and support for regional assistance from the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Commission about the compatibility with European law of the aid given to their national fishing industries by other EU Governments. [158436]

  Mr. Morley
  Following an announcement by the Commission of a formal investigation into state aid schemes in France and Spain, the Government wrote to the European Commission on 28 February setting out the UK's position on these aids.

  In particular, we made clear our view that such aids should be considered incompatible with EU state aid guidelines as they distort competition in the fisheries sector and that paying operating subsidies prevents or delays the necessary restructuring of the least economic parts of the fleet. We understand the French aid scheme has been discontinued following Commission investigation.

  Livestock Exports
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contribution the export of(a) cattle and (b) sheep has made to the British economy over the last five years. [156269]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: The estimated value of (a) live cattle and beef and (b) live sheep and sheepmeat exports from the United Kingdom over the last five years are shown in the table.
  42W

  Units: million pounds

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  UK exports of livestock

  Live Cattle

  14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Live Sheep

  103

  83

  71

  76

  72

  UK exports of meat2

  Beef

  140

  16

  13

  20

  19

  Sheepmeat

  303

  258

  218

  206

  197

  1Provisional

  2Includes meat of non-UK origin imported into the UK and then exported under the XAP scheme

  Source:

  ANIMO, HM Customs and Excise

  Food Procurement Standards
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what standards the Government are setting for the(a) catering, (b) food manufacturing and (c) fast food sectors in their procurement of products from the agricultural industry; and if he will establish a code of practice for these sectors. [157580]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The Government have no plans to prescribe standards for this purpose or to establish a code of practice for these sectors, but we encourage good communication across the food chain in a number of ways.

  Sand Eel Fishery
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 20 March 2001,Official Report, column 54WH, if he will publish the scientific advice on the level of the by-catch in the sand eel fishery. [157952]

  Mr. Morley
  This was summarised in an article on sand eels in Fishing News on Friday, 6 April. Table 1 gives details of haddock, whiting and cod by-catches in industrial fisheries for 1995–1999.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the names of the British scientists and discard experts who will work on board Danish industrial fishing vessels fishing for sand eels up

  43W
  to the end of June, (b) the names and registration numbers of the vessels involved and (c) the area in which they will be fishing. [157832]

  Mr. Morley
  Following initial contacts with the Danish authorities arrangements are being made for two discard experts from CEFAS to spend time on Danish fisheries protection vessels later this month. They will board Danish sand eel vessels as necessary fishing in the eastern closed area. Arrangements are also being made for CEFAS scientists to be on board Danish sand eel vessels fishing in June and July in the central North sea.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if UK scientists will(a) monitor the landing of the catches of fishing vessels engaged in the current research programme into sand eels and (b) be allowed full access to the landing and processing area. [157829]

  Mr. Morley
  Yes.

  Cod
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the British allocation of cod was caught in(a) the Norwegian and (b) the EU sector in each of the past three years. [157830]

  Mr. Morley
  The percentages of UK North sea cod quota caught in the Norwegian and EU sectors are:

  1998

  1999

  20001

  Total cod quota (tonnes)

  89,947

  83,557

  55,703

  Total cod uptake (tonnes)

  72,118

  49,087

  39,453

  Total cod uptake percentage

  80

  59

  71

  Average subsidies received by full-time farm businesses, England 1999–2000

  £000

  Of which:

  Total direct subsidies

  Crop subsidies

  Livestock subsidies

  Agri-environment

  Other1

  Cereals

  37.8

  34.2

  2.3

  1.0

  0.1

  General Cropping

  31.8

  28.8

  2.4

  0.6

  0.0

  Horticulture

  0.4

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  Pigs and Poultry

  3.6

  2.2

  1.4

  0.1

  0.0

  Dairy

  8.5

  2.8

  4.9

  0.8

  0.0

  LFA Cattle and Sheep

  29.3

  0.4

  25.4

  3.3

  0.2

  Lowland Cattle and Sheep

  14.1

  1.7

  10.6

  1.8

  0.0

  Mixed

  33.8

  21.4

  10.7

  1.7

  0.0

  All types

  22.5

  14.8

  6.4

  1.2

  0.1

  1Includes capital grants and any other miscellaneous grants. These reflect a combination of nationally funded and partly match funded schemes.

  Notes:

  HLCA payments to hill farms are included under livestock subsidies.

  The figures show direct subsidy payments; they do not include allowance for the financial benefit of prices supported above world market levels under the CAP.

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  In addition to CAP direct payments, farmers in the UK are benefiting from £1.35 billion in short-term financial relief since 2 May 1997.

  This includes £785 million in agrimonetary compensation worth some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average
  44W

  1998

  1999

  20001

  Percentage caught in:

  Norwegian sector

  23

  19

  27

  EU sector

  56

  39

  43

  Other sectors

  1

  1

  1

  1Provisional

  Departmental Policies (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ribble Valley constituency, the effects on Ribble Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157852]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. Information on land use, crop areas, livestock numbers, and labour on holdings in England by parliamentary constituency has been produced from 1 June 1999 Annual Agricultural and Horticultural Census. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Information from 1 June 2000 census will be available shortly and also placed in the House Library.

  As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis. Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices. The value of direct CAP payments to the average farmer is set out in the table. farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Since May 1997 the Government have more than doubled expenditure on agri-environment schemes in England. We now have more than twice as much land covered by Countryside Stewardship agreements and we have increased the funding of organic conversion from

  45W
  £571,000 in 1997–98 to £12 million in 2000–01 and £18 million in 2001–02. Full-time hill farmers in England will be in receipt of some £6,360 on average following the introduction of the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme this year. This compares with £4,048 under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance in 1996–97.

  Farmers in Ribble Valley can benefit from schemes available under the England Rural Development Programme, which is backed by funding of £1.6 billion over the period 2000–06. Three of the schemes within this programme—Rural Enterprise, Processing and Marketing, and Vocational Training—have a budget of around £190 million and are being operated on a regional basis; each region has its own allocation. These allocations are set out in the England Rural Development Programme.

  Consumers in Ribble Valley will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  Departmental Policies (Tiverton and Honiton)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical

  Average subsidies received by full time farm businesses, England 1999–2000

  £000

  Crop subsidies

  Livestock subsidies

  Agri-environment

  Other1

  Total direct subsidies

  Cereals

  34.2

  2.3

  1.0

  0.1

  37.8

  General cropping

  28.8

  2.4

  0.6

  0.0

  31.8

  Horticulture

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  Pigs and poultry

  2.2

  1.4

  0.1

  0.0

  3.6

  Dairy

  2.8

  4.9

  0.8

  0.0

  8.5

  LFA cattle and sheep

  0.4

  25.4

  3.3

  0.2

  29.3

  Lowland cattle and sheep

  1.7

  10.6

  1.8

  0.0

  14.1

  Mixed

  21.4

  10.7

  1.7

  0.0

  33.8

  All types

  14.8

  6.4

  1.2

  0.1

  22.5

  1Includes capital grants and any other miscellaneous grants. These reflect a combination of nationally funded and partly match funded schemes.

  Notes:

  1. HLCA payments to hill farms are included under livestock subsidies.

  2. The figures show direct subsidy payments; they do not include allowance for the financial benefit of prices supported above world market levels under the CAP.

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  In addition to CAP direct payments, farmers in the UK are benefiting from £1.35 billion in short term financial relief since 2 May 1996.

  This includes £785 million in agrimonetary compensation worth some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Since May 1997 the Government have more than doubled expenditure on agri-environment schemes in England. We now have more than twice as much land covered by Countryside Stewardship agreements and we have increased the funding of organic conversion from £571,000 in 1997–98 to £12 million in 2000–01 and £18 million in 2001–02. Full time hill farmers in England
  46W
  information relating as directly as possible to the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, the effects on Tiverton and Honiton of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157812]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. Information on land use, crop areas, livestock numbers, and labour on holdings in England by parliamentary constituency has been produced from 1 June 1999 Annual Agricultural and Horticultural Census. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Information from the 1 June 2000 census will be available shortly and also placed in the House Library.

  As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis. Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices. The value of direct CAP payments to the average farmer is set out in the table.

  will be in receipt of some £6,360 on average following the introduction of the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme this year. This compares to £4,048 under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance in 1996–97.

  Farmers in Tiverton and Honiton can benefit from schemes available under the England Rural Development Programme, which is backed by funding of £1.6 billion over the period 2000–06. Three of the schemes within this programme—Rural Enterprise, Processing and Marketing, and Vocational Training—have a budget of around £190 million and are being operated on a regional basis; each region has its own allocation. These allocations are set out in the England Rural Development Programme.

  Consumers in Tiverton and Honiton will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  Lancashire Horticulturalists
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the value of EU payments to Lancashire horticulturalists in the last five years. [157990]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: Payments under the EU Aid Scheme for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables are made to Producer Organisations for approved Operational Programmes. Since membership of Producer Organisations frequently extends beyond County boundaries, financial information is not available in the form requested. Payments to UK Producer Organisations has increased from £5.7 million in 1997 to about £9 million in respect of 2000.

  BSE
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cost of BSE to public funds. [158002]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: Total expenditure on the BSE crisis is estimated to be £4.4 billion to the end of this financial year. Of that amount, the other European Union member states contribute about £500 million when the Fontainebleau mechanism is taken into account. Therefore, the net cost of BSE to public funds is about £3.9 billion to the end of 2001–02.

  Arable Area Payment Scheme
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total payment has been to date of payments made to farmers in England in respect of the Arable Area Payment Scheme. [157877]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: 42,750 applications made to the Ministry for aid under the Arable Area Payments Scheme have been paid representing £852,219,681.92.

  A further 44,116 AMC 2000 1st Tranche payments with a total value to date of £28,275,505.01 has also been paid to farmers.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is Government policy to encourage farmers to lay disinfected straw on roads adjacent to livestock farms to help prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease. [154996]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: Disinfected straw laid across the entrance to a farm will provide a limited measure of protection against the spread of the foot and mouth virus. However, even with regular topping up, disinfectant will only be applied to the tyre treads of the vehicles passing over them. The best method of disinfection is the combination of thorough cleansing, preferable with a pressure hose, followed by the use of an approved disinfectant applied to all exposed surfaces using a hose or spray. The advice to people working in the countryside contained on the MAFF website (http://www.maff.gov.uk/) emphasises the importance of thorough spraying.
  48W
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department received about outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom(a) between May 1997 and December 1999 and (b) in 2000. [154849]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: There were 29 suspected cases of foot and mouth disease reported to the Department during the period between May 1997 and December 1999. However, following investigations these were found to be negative.

  There were no suspected cases of foot and mouth disease reported during 2000.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contingency plans his Department had in place to deal with an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom in the period up to the notification to his Department of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease at Heddon-on-the-Wall. [154954]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: MAFF has contingency plans for dealing with outbreaks of serious animal disease. These include detailed operational instructions for use by the State Veterinary Service. The general contingency plan for foot and mouth was updated and submitted to the European Commission in July 2000.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stocks the Foot and Mouth Reference Laboratory in Pirbright holds of live unattenuated foot and mouth viruses; and what strains are held. [155849]

  Ms Quin
  holding answer 27 March 2001]: The Foot and Mouth Reference Laboratory in Pirbright holds a library of over 5,000 strains from all over the world as part of their responsibility as the FAO/OIE nominated World Reference Laboratory.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the powers which he is using in order to halt the spread of foot and mouth disease; which powers derive(a) from EU legislation and (b) from domestic law, with special reference to (i) slaughter, (ii) disposal of carcases, (iii) movement of livestock (A) without and (B) with transport, (iv) compensation, (v) diagnosis and veterinary inspection, (vi) quarantine arrangements, (vii) limiting access to specified areas, (viii) use of animal byproducts not for human consumption, (ix) health and safety and (x) use of the armed services. [156120]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 4 April 2001,Official Report, column 200W.

  The following points are in addition to that answer.
  The exercise of domestic powers under the Animal Health Act and Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order is in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 85/511/EEC introducing community measures for the control of foot and mouth disease (as amended).
  The carcases of animals killed for disease control purposes are disposed of in accordance with the Animal By-Products Order 1990, which implements Council Directive 90/667/EEC. By-products from animals slaughtered for human consumption are used or disposed of in accordance with the Animal

  49W
  By-Products Order 1999, the Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997, the Specified Risk Material Order 1997 or the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983.
  Powers to ensure the health and safety of workers acting to control the Foot and Mouth outbreak are provided by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (as amended) and COSHH Regulations.
  The use of the armed forces is authorised by existing domestic powers under the Emergency Powers Act 1964.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what formula is used to determine the amount of compensation payable for farm livestock slaughtered as a consequence of the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [156555]

  Ms Quin
  The level of compensation payable for animals slaughtered as a result of a foot and mouth outbreak is governed by Schedule 3 of the Animal Health Act 1981.

  If an animal is infected with foot and mouth disease, the compensation for slaughter is the value of the animal immediately before it became infected. In all other cases (eg where animals have been exposed to the infection but are not affected, or showing signs of the disease) compensation is the value of the animal immediately before slaughter.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise the age limit for vets assisting local veterinary inspectors to above 65 years; and if he will make a statement. [156922]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 Apri1 2001]: The terms and conditions for Local Veterinary Inspectors (LVIs) who are contracted on an hourly basis to carry out work on behalf of the Ministry require that the appointment shall terminate on reaching the age of 65, unless the Minister decides that it shall continue. Under the special circumstances that apply at the present time discretion is being used as appropriate.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the value was of exports of pig and sheepmeat in the last year; and what he estimates the value to be in the first year following the end of the outbreak. [157785]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: In 2000 the value of exports of pigmeat was £186 million and of sheepmeat was £200 million. We hope that, once they resume, exports will steadily return to comparable levels.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of burning culled cattle on the possible spread of BSE to neighbouring farms. [157889]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: We have commissioned a risk assessment from DNV Consulting on the BSE risk to cattle of disposing of cattle carcases during the foot and mouth disease outbreak. We expect to receive the risk assessment shortly and copies will be made available to the Libraries of the House.

  DNV have produced an assessment of the BSE risk to human health of disposing of cattle carcases during the foot and mouth disease outbreak, and is available in the Libraries of the House. Our procedures for disposing of cattle carcases reflect the results of this risk assessment following advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.
  50W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the import into Britain of livestock products is allowed from countries in which foot and mouth is endemic. [153363]

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

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what dates in the last nine months his Department made inquiries of T. G. Norman Timber Ltd., of Longtown, Cumbria, about the availability of timber, with particular reference to old railway sleepers; [154960]

  (2) on what dates in the last three months his Department made inquiries of C. A. Talbot and Son (Timber) of Wootton Bank, Eccleshall, Staffordshire, concerning the availability of timber, with particular reference to old railway sleepers; [154959]

  (3) what inquiries his Department has made in the last 12 months to establish the availability of timber, suitable for use in pyres for burning deadstock. [154958]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: I assume that the hon. Member's questions relate to the media speculation that the Government were aware that foot and mouth existed in the UK prior to the first notification of disease in Essex on 19 February. Such speculation is entirely without foundation.

  The Ministry has contingency plans to deal with all notifiable exotic animal diseases, including foot and mouth disease. These are regularly updated and tested by the State Veterinary Service. As part of this process, Animal Health Offices, including the one at Stafford, will quite correctly contact contractors from whom they may need services or supplies during a disease outbreak. Any inquires directed to the businesses mentioned by the hon. Member would have been made as part of these contingency planning arrangements.

  Information on all the timber stockists contacted by the Ministry over the last year is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 March 2001,Official Report, column 249W, on foot and mouth, what actions the Government will take under the term "kick start the rural economy"; and what estimate he has made of when the disease will be eradicated. [155658]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: The Rural Task Force is continuing to look very carefully at measures to help the rural economy. On 20 March my

  51W
  right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced a package of measures to assist rural business, but the Government have also made it clear that the best way of helping business in the countryside is to encourage people to visit it so far as is consistent with measures to deal with the disease. As a further measure to help counteract the fall in demand and restore confidence, the Government have issued guidance to local authorities to help them assess whether rights of way in their area can be re-opened.

  The Government have published independent research on the epidemiology of the foot and mouth outbreak. The epidemiological forecasts both foresee the outbreak lasting at least until June and possibly beyond July.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what date (i) an official and (ii) a Minister in his Department first informed(a) an official and (b) a commissioner in the European Commission that the UK had its first (1) suspected and (2) confirmed case in the foot and mouth disease outbreak; [156386]

  (2) on what date (i) an official and (ii) a Minister in his Department first informed (a) an official and (b) a Minister in another EU member state that the UK had its first (1) suspected and (2) confirmed case in the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [156387]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 30 March 2001]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe on 30 March 2001, Official Report, columns 797–98W.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average sums are paid in compensation for each class, type and age of livestock slaughtered as a consequence of the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [156557]

  Ms Quin
  We are not able to give average compensation payments for each of the specified categories (class, type and age) of livestock slaughtered, as such specific figures are not recorded. We can however, give average payments for each species of animal. These are as follows:

  Cattle: £792

  Sheep: £92

  Pigs: £92.

  These figures are correct as of 9 April 2001.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what emergency provision has been made for the release to local veterinary inspectors of foot and mouth vaccine to vaccinate at-risk animals. [156010]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Local veterinary inspectors are working hard on measures to control foot and mouth disease and we are anxious not to divert them from this important work. The vaccination contingency plans which we have been developing do not envisage the use of local veterinary inspectors to administer vaccine.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what warnings were given to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department of the risk of spreading foot and mouth prior to the present outbreak through contaminated meat imports. [156881]
  52W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: MAFF Ministers and officials have long been aware of the possibility that foot and mouth disease might be introduced through contaminated meat imports. Foot and Mouth disease is a notifiable disease under Community and Office International Des Epizooties (OIE) protocols and the risks are well known. Notified outbreaks necessarily lead to trade restrictions. Responsibility lies with the European Commission to inform member states of disease controls in other countries and to take appropriate action to safeguard the Community from the risk that disease might be introduced in imported meat. Community law permits member states to take unilateral action to limit imports from countries where a particular risk has been identified, pending the introduction of Community measures.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a programme of vaccination against foot and mouth for deer to allow the Royal Parks to be re-opened to the public. [156894]

  Mr. Morley
  Bushy Park, Richmond Park and the Home Park at Hampton Court re-opened on 11 April.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his estimate is of the number of dairy herds in foot and mouth infected areas. [156915]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: On 1 April there were 7,792 dairy holdings (as classified in June 2000 Agricultural Census) in the infected areas in England and Wales.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total value of United Kingdom meat exports in each of the four years following the elimination of foot and mouth disease. [156916]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: Exports of meat and meat products in 2000 amounted to £630 million. We hope that, once they resume, exports will steadily return to comparable levels.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that the farming sector is not adversely affected by the foot and mouth outbreak when trading with large supermarket chains. [157579]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The Ministry holds regular meetings with all its stakeholders, including retailers, to consider the impact of foot and mouth disease across the food chain and to ensure that all sectors of the industry are working together.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Soil Association on the role of vaccination in tackling foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [157507]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The Prime Minister met representatives of the Soil Association on 2 April. The evidence submitted by the Association has been carefully examined by our scientific and veterinary advisers as part of our ongoing assessment of the case for using vaccination against foot and mouth disease.
  53W
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) sheep, (b) pigs and (c) cattle have been moved through or into Montgomeryshire from outside the county since 1 March; and if he will make a statement. [158727]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Genomics
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the potential of genomics in agricultural research. [153234]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Genomics is expected to make a significant contribution to UK agriculture. Genome maps for many agriculturally important plants, animals and micro-organisms have been produced in the last few years. Research on genome maps for plants, livestock and micro-organisms should enable scientists to identify those organisms with desirable traits. This information would be beneficial in speeding up breeding programmes.

  National Institute of Agricultural Botany
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by whom the National Institute of Agricultural Botany report which was presented to MAFF as part of their review on separation distances has been peer reviewed. [153231]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The NIAB report has been referred to a number of independent scientific experts both here and abroad for peer review. This process has yet to be completed.

  Hand-carried Imported Foodstuffs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the total annual volume of raw and cooked meats and other foodstuffs imported by visitors to the United Kingdom. [154249]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]: Data are not collected by Customs on the volume of raw and cooked meats and other foodstuffs imported by visitors to the United Kingdom and no reliable estimate is therefore available.

  Pig Movements
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects Mr. Adrian Wilcox of College Farm, Bletchington, Oxfordshire to be able to move his pigs. [155437]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: Mr. Wilcox applied for entry to the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme and a number of pigs were removed from College Farm on 14 April.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will calculate the impact on the cost of food to consumers arising from the CAP since 1973. [157376]
  54W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publishes an estimate annually of the transfers made by consumers in the European Union as a whole resulting from agricultural policies in the Union. Estimates of the impact of the CAP upon consumers are dependent upon the assumptions made concerning the policy which would have operated in the absence of the CAP.

  The table sets out the OECD estimates for the years 1986 to 1999. Estimates for earlier years are not readily available.

  Total transfers from EU consumers arising as a result of the CAP

  Year

  Billion ecu/euro

  1986

  69.1

  1987

  64.6

  1988

  62.7

  1989

  49.2

  1990

  71.5

  1991

  79.5

  1992

  63.2

  1993

  59.9

  1994

  59.3

  1995

  55.1

  1996

  45.3

  1997

  50.5

  1998

  60.8

  1999

  61.9

  Source:

  OECD Producer and Consumer Support Estimates Database

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were his Department's total gross running costs for travel, including fares, subsistence, accommodation and other expenses met from public funds but excluding such costs for journeys and stays exclusively within the United Kingdom(a) in the three years to 30 April 1997 and (b) in the 12 months ending 30 April 1997. [157629]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Actual spend

  £

  Description

  1 May 1994 to 30 April 1997

  1 May 1996 to 30 April 1997

  Travel EC Institution Meetings

  2,041,759.84

  644,740.78

  Travel Other Overseas Visits

  1,516.817.70

  511,356.29

  Travel Foreign Hospitality

  24.002.75

  13,902.86

  Subsistence EC Institution Meetings

  1,081,812.02

  319,372.26

  Subsistence Other Overseas Visits

  910,703.18

  276,013.48

  Total

  5,575,095.49

  1,765,685.67

  Farmgate Prices (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the farmgate price of(a) vegetables, (b) fruit and (c) non-edible products in Lancashire. [157989]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: Value statistics are not collected at county level.

  Flood Defences
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will make a statement about the allocation of the £52 million additional funds for flood defences. [158463]

  Mr. Morley
  I informed the flood and coastal defence operating authorities of revised allocations for 2001–02 on 17 February. As a result of increases in the last two Spending Reviews, and following the announcements of additional funding packages in November and January, MAFF funding available for flood and coastal defence in 2001–02 is £102.6 million. The funding will be shared between:

  £ million

  Environment Agency

  53.6

  Local Authorities

  46

  Internal Drainage Boards

  3

  Most of the increased funding is going to the Environment Agency: (a) to accelerate the capital programme on 'main' rivers, (b) to carry forward catchment studies and (c) to make a contribution towards the emergency response and repair costs incurred in the recent flooding. However both Local Authorities and Internal Drainage Boards will also be able to make

  Expected total costs

  Expected end date

  State Veterinary Service network/TB implementation

  5,306,704

  Annual revision required

  Replacement for current Vet Net systems—pilot projects

  150,000

  July 2001

  Cattle Ear Tag Allocation System

  200,000

  April 2001

  Geographical Information Systems for Animal Disease Control

  542,133

  April 2001

  British Cattle Movement Service Strategic Enhancements and Integration Testing of IT System

  3,204,727

  Annual revision required

  Web Access to Cattle Tracing System

  1,759,153

  May 2001

  Monitoring of Animal Movements within UK and EC

  237,965

  Annual revision required

  Pet Travel Scheme

  250,000

  August 2000

  GB Cattle Herd Registration Development

  1,367,000

  November 2000

  Scrapie Control System

  1,908,223

  July 2001

  Farm Survey System replacement

  1,329,020

  March 2002

  Grants and Subsidies Management System for Common Agricultural Policy Payments

  2,823,476

  Annual revision required

  Combined Bovine Risk Assessment Scheme

  2,151,500

  December 2001

  Beef Extensification Premium Scheme

  1,339,000

  May 2001

  New Common Agricultural Policy Support Systems

  15,846,854

  Annual revision required

  Cattle Slaughter Premium Scheme

  1,767,500

  Annual revision required

  Agenda 2000

  1,378,650

  Annual revision required

  Hill Farmers Allowance

  1,838,501

  May 2001

  England Rural Development Programme

  2,135,375

  February 2003

  Sea Fish Management Systems

  394,005

  Annual revision required

  Fisheries Satellite Surveillance

  322,541

  July 2003

  Integration of Existing Building and Estate Management Databases

  1,553,085

  Annual revision required

  Upgrade to Financial Systems and reporting tools

  10,878,802

  Annual revision required

  E-Commerce

  1,867,334

  December 2001

  Replacement Office/Corporate Systems

  9,827,835

  December 2001

  Central Science Laboratories (CSL): Integrated Business Information System

  500,000

  October 2001

  CSL: Upgrade to Hardware to run new Office Systems

  250,000

  May 2001

  Centre for Environmental, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS): Laboratory Information

  350,000

  March 2003

  Management Systems

  CEFAS: Biological Sampling System

  120,000

  March 2003

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA): Invest to Save Interdepartmental project

  462,000

  April 2002

  (MAGIC) Geographical Information System

  FRCA: Cartography Tool Kit

  930,000

  April 2003

  FRCA: basic mapping for administration of agri-environmental schemes

  292,000

  October 2001

  Intervention Board (IB): Oracle Multi Org for Intervention Board

  252,000

  February 2001

  IB: Block Guarantee Scheme System Redevelopment

  198,000

  April 2001

  IB: Audit Logging

  187,548

  December 2001

  IB: Data Integration

  278,833

  March 2001

  IB: Brussels Matrix

  429,018

  March 2001

  56W
  applications for accelerated river defence works, and £1 million is being set aside for the emergency costs incurred by Internal Drainage Boards.

  Revised plans for future years have been commissioned from the operating authorities recently. These will inform decisions about future allocations in due course.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2001,Official Report, column 476W, if he will list the IT projects currently undertaken in his Department; and if he will state the (a) expected completion date and (b) cost of each project. [151505]

  Ms Quin
  I am sorry that there was an error in the list of major IT projects in the answer of 12 March. The entry for 'Food Survey System' should read 'Farm Survey System'. Options for the further development of this system are still under consideration and it is not yet possible to confirm the expected completion date or costs. The costs quoted were those expected up until March 2002.

  We have clarified the heading detail in the list to show that the costs and dates of all projects were those expected and a footnote to show that they are subject to change.

  The rest of the answer remains correct.
  57W

  Expected total costs

  Expected end date

  IB: Modulation

  350,000

  June 2001

  IB: Over Thirty Month Scheme System Extension

  343,214

  July 2001

  IB: Slaughter Premium Scheme System Development

  735,428

  June 2001

  IB: Porting PI Open System to Universe

  1,150,000

  December 2001

  Note:

  These figures show expected costs and dates as at 12 March 2001 which may be subject to change to meet business demands.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [153423]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 12 March> 2001]: I have set out information as (a) DETR (Central), (b) Agencies and (c) Public Bodies.

  (a) DETR(C)

  My Department runs several public information campaigns each year using the most appropriate combination of television, radio and newspaper advertising, supported by other promotional material such as leaflets and posters. These campaigns mainly relate to environmental protection and road safety.

  For details of expenditure by medium over each of the past five years, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for. Bath (Mr. Foster) on 15 February 2001, Official Report, columns 222–23W.

  For details of expenditure by subject over each of the past five years, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 20 December 2000, Official Report, columns 168–69W.

  Latest figures showing advertising expenditure for each of the campaigns covered in the reply to the hon. Member for Hertsmere are set out.

  £

  Campaign

  Cost

  2000–01

  Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry

  44,143

  Quality Mark Scheme1

  41,633

  Rough Sleepers Change a Life Campaign

  433,338

  6 Sheet Poster Site

  19,861

  Road Safety Campaign

  7,661,188

  Child Road Safety

  734,991

  Are You Doing Your Bit?

  5,587,672

  Thames Safety Enquiry

  83,738

  Council Board Appointments

  36,147

  Election for Mayor of London

  651,554

  DETR Herts CC Posters

  1,500

  Local Website Information

  35,209

  Total

  15,330,974

  1Please note that an incorrect figure of £85,185 was mistakenly given in the previous reply. We are writing to the hon. Member for Hertsmere to provide him with updated figures.

  58W
  Increases in advertising expenditure in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 result from:
  "Are You Doing Your Bit?" campaign to help people to take action to protect the environment
  Road Safety and Child Road Safety campaigns, aimed at further reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads
  Greater London Authority elections campaign to encourage voting.
  For details of publications and reports, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Hertsmere on 19 December 2000, Official Report, columns 108–09W.

  (b) DETR Agencies

  Expenditure on paid publicity by DETR's agencies is set out.

  £

  Campaign

  Cost

  Drivers Standard Agency

  1996–97

  Separate Driving Theory Test

  36,817

  1997–98

  Nil

  1998–99

  Nil

  1999–2000

  Launch of touch-screen theory test

  9,808

  Go-Live date for touch-screen theory test

  8,500

  Shared DVO Group Stand at Motor Show

  16,166

  Total

  34,474

  2000–01

  Launch of "What if" Video

  6,908

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  1996–97

  Sales of Vehicle Registration Marks

  1,085,106

  Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) Enforcement

  702,127

  Total

  1,787,233

  1997–98

  VED Enforcement/Wheelclamping

  1,908,085

  Sales of Vehicle Registration Marks

  1,085,106

  Photocard Driving Licences

  5,395

  Total

  2,998,586

  1998–99

  VED Enforcement/Wheelclamping

  2,292,022

  Sales of Vehicle Registration Marks

  1,085,106

  Photocard Driving Licences

  444,890

  Statutory Off Road Notification

  428,936

  Graduated VED

  122,553

  Total

  4,373,507

  1999–2000

  Sales of Vehicle Registration Marks

  2,382,978

  VED Enforcement/Wheelclamping

  2,260,216

  Graduated VED

  419,574

  Photocard Driving Licence

  272,340

  5,335,108

  59W

  £

  Campaign

  Cost

  2000–01

  VED Enforcement/Wheelclamping

  2,231,587

  Graduated VED

  2,012,765

  Sales of Vehicle Registration Marks

  1,957,446

  Statutory Off Road Notification

  510,638

  Photocard Driving Licence

  486,808

  Total

  7,199,244

  The increase in advertising and promotional expenditure for the DVLA is partly due to the introduction of the national wheelclamping scheme and the photocard licence campaign. This increased the number of Vehicle Excise Duty campaigns from 17 in 1996–97 to 27 in 2000–01. Highways Agency expenditure during the past two years is set out in the table. The Agency was unable to provide information relating to years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  £

  Campaign

  Cost

  Highways Agency

  1999–2000

  Consumer campaigns advising of road closures/changes

  263,299

  2000–01

  Consumer campaigns advising of road closures/changes

  127,149

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency (established in April 1998)

  1998–99

  Sea Smart

  78,986

  Safe Fishing

  19,195

  Registry of Shipping and Seamen

  11,143

  Total

  109,324

  1999–2000

  Sea Smart

  25,216

  Registry of Shipping and Seamen

  6,766

  Non-Regulated Pleasure Vessels Code

  65,610

  Safe Fishing

  34,945

  Total

  132,537

  2000–01

  Receiver of Wreck Amnesty

  62,538

  Registry of Shipping and Seamen

  820

  Sea Smart

  53,812

  Flagging In

  12,515

  Total

  129,685

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  1996–97

  Advertising Training Courses

  19,203

  1997–98

  Advertising Training Courses

  53,853

  1998–99

  Advertising Training Courses

  46,607

  1999–2000

  Advertising Training Courses

  60,200

  New telephone Number for Vehicle Inspectorate

  9,480

  Total

  69,680

  2000–01

  Advertising Training Courses

  44,732

  New telephone number for Vehicle Inspectorate

  5,515

  Total

  50,247

  Planning Inspectorate

  1996–97

  Planning Inspectorate Campaign

  6,084

  60W
  The Rent Service, Vehicle Certification Agency and Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre have not carried out any significant communication activity during the period.

  (c) NDPBs

  DETR's Public Bodies are split into Executive and Advisory Non-Departmental Public Bodies. There are 55 in total (28 Executive and 27 Advisory Bodies). DETR(C) does not keep central records of Public Bodies' communications campaigns. The cost of tracing and listing each public body's advertising and promotional campaigns over the past five years could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the total cost of advertising run by his Department, its predecessors and its agencies was in each year since April 1992; and what the projected budget is for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [154852]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: I have set out information detailing:
  total advertising expenditure (1992 to date) for DETR (Central), its predecessors and its agencies, and
  projected budget for 2001–02 and 2002–03 for DETR (Central).
  DETR was created in 1997 when the Departments of Environment (DoE) and Transport (DoT) merged. Advertising expenditure since 1992 for DETR(C), its predecessors and its agencies are set out.

  Advertising Expenditure

  £

  Year

  DoE/DoT

  DETR(C)

  Agencies

  1992–93

  11,724,804

  —

  634,894

  1993–94

  8,627,562

  —

  744,726

  1994–95

  8,284,309

  —

  791,747

  1995–96

  8,845,697

  —

  850,912

  1996–97

  7,218,323

  —

  1,620,883

  1997–98

  —

  6,495,781

  3,080,340

  1998–99

  —

  5,993,766

  3,401,027

  1999–2000

  —

  11,927,878

  5,463,299

  2000–01

  —

  15,330,974

  7,127,149

  2001–02

  —

  110,670,000

  2—

  2002–03

  —

  3—

  2—

  1Projected advertising expenditure. Based on information available at time of answering.

  2Total projected expenditure for DETR agencies for 2001–02 and 2002–03 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  3Details of budget not yet agreed.

  Almost all of DETR(C) current advertising expenditure is for road safety and environmental protection campaigns.

  Bus Journeys
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many bus journeys were taken in Shrewsbury and Atcham in(a) 1997 and (b) for the latest available 12-month period; and if he will make a statement. [157598]

  Mr. Hill
  The information collected by my Department on the number of journeys made on local bus services cannot be disaggregated to a level of detail sufficient to provide accurate figures in the form requested.

  Flaxmill, Ditherington
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made with the Flaxmill project in Ditherington, Shrewsbury. [157599]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Flaxmill project is for the restoration and refurbishment of a unique grade I listed and historically significant structure in the county town, i.e. the first iron-framed building in the world. The project is to create development space for retail, educational, arts and leisure and residential uses. Advantage West Midlands is to make a significant contribution to the project of some £2.8 million over a three-year period.

  A certificate of title as proof of ownership, a condition of the funding agreement with Advantage West Midlands, was still outstanding at 9 April 2001. Contracts were due to be exchanged in February 2001. But the outstanding matter, together with a delay in the completion of legal documentation between Mowlem Midlands, the joint developer and works contractor, and the owner of the site, meant that this was not possible.

  I understand that discussions are continuing between the parties involved to ensure progress on the project is secured.

  London Underground
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many broken rails there were on the London Underground in(a) each of the last 10 years and (b) each of the last 12 months. [157636]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: This is an operational matter for London Underground, which has provided me with the following information on broken rails on the running line discovered during the operation of passenger services for recent years and for year 2000–01 until 3 March 2001.

  Total number

  1996–97

  24

  1997–98

  21

  1998–99

  20

  1999–2000

  17

  2000–01

  14

  Period

  2000–01

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  —

  4

  —

  5

  2

  6

  —

  7

  1

  8

  4

  9

  1

  10

  2

  11

  —

  12

  1

  62W
  Note:

  LUL operate a 13 period year. The end of period 12 represents 3 March 2001. Information for period 13 has not been provided yet. LUL confirm that four of these broken rails for 2000–01 were located on sections of track owned by Railtrack.

  Information on years prior to 1996–97 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many escalators were out of service for more than a day on each of the London Underground lines in each of(a) the last five years and (b) the past 12 months. [157481]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: This is an operational matter for London Underground, which informs me that although it keeps a range of records relating to escalators out of service on the Underground, to provide a breakdown of all incidents for time-periods of one day and over for each of the last five years would incur disproportionate costs.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has secured the agreement of Midland Expressway Ltd. to provide a crossing for the Hatherton Canal in the construction of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road. [157771]

  Mr. Hill
  The obligations of Midland Expressway Ltd. (MEL) to the future restoration of the Hatherton Canal are set out in the Secretary of State's decision letter published on 28 July 1997. MEL is required to facilitate the full restoration works waiving any consequential loss of tolls that these works may occasion. It is not required to provide a crossing for the canal and it has not agreed to do so.

  I understand MEL has met the Lichfield and Hatherton Canal Restoration Trust to discuss the trust's proposals for the canal crossings. The trust would like the canal crossings to be included in the BNRR construction contract and is seeking to raise funds to pay for these. I understand that MEL is continuing to work co-operatively with the trust.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria were used in drawing up the list of rural local authorities to which the emergency business rate relief scheme will be applicable as a result of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [157431]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: This list identifies the most rural and least densely populated LA areas in England. The decision to target additional Government support on these areas reflects the fact that in broad terms it is the most rural areas that are suffering most of all from the effects of FMD. It equates broadly with the worst effects of FMD, including its broader economic effects. It does not attempt to match every FMD case. Other authorities are likely to suffer less because they are closer to large urban centres and have a wider spread of economic activity. That is why we have targeted relief in this way, using a standard definition of rurality, developed by the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Agency.
  63W
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many Environment Agency staff have been diverted from their normal duties to work on the foot and mouth crisis. [157999]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: Approximately 400 Environment Agency staff are working on foot and mouth related issues. As the information is not held centrally it has not been possible to identify the number of staff diverted from their normal regulatory work. Many staff are working in their normal regulatory function but are dealing with the consequences of the foot and mouth outbreak on a daily basis.

  In addition, some 30 agency staff have been diverted from their normal duties to assist the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with additional administrative and technical work arising from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with other departments regarding the creation of a recovery package for those businesses which have been affected by the foot and mouth outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [158684]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am in close contact with other Departments about measures both to help rural businesses to survive the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak and to regenerate the rural economy once the outbreak has been eradicated.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the payment of compensation for consequential losses to firms suffering significantly reduced turnover as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak; and if he will make a statement; [158725]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on (a) suspending business rates, (b) suspending VAT payments and (c) introducing tax concessions for firms suffering significantly reduced turnover as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [158722]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend and I have kept in close touch with Ministers from a range of other Government Departments on the economic effects of the foot and mouth outbreak and the Government have announced a number of measures to help those adversely affected. These include additional financial support for local authority discretionary hardship rate relief schemes in rural areas. Implementation is for local authorities and many have announced their intention to introduce schemes. The measures also include extension of the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme, additional funding for the Regional Development Agencies and a

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Revenue Support Grant

  2.39

  2.69

  2.62

  2.44

  2.77

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  2.88

  2.91

  3.13

  3.48

  3.44

  Local Government Reorganisation

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Supplementary Credit Approval

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Housing Investment Programme

  1.27

  1.06

  1.28

  2.83

  1.14

  64W
  sympathetic approach to deferring or extending the time to pay tax, VAT and National Insurance contributions where businesses apply for this.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) of 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 301W, on foot and mouth, if he will instruct local authorities not to recover unpaid rates from businesses which have appealed for a temporary reduction in rating assessments on the grounds of the impact of foot and mouth and where the appeals have not yet been determined. [158673]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have no powers to do so. However, local authorities have discretion to defer or reschedule payment of rates of businesses that are severely affected by the foot and mouth outbreak, or by other adverse circumstances.

  Local authorities also have discretion to grant rate relief to businesses suffering from hardship. On 22 March, I announced measures designed to alleviate the immediate financial hardship of small businesses in rural areas that have been badly hit by the effects of foot and mouth disease. As part of this package of measures, I announced an increase in the central government contribution to rate relief from 75 per cent. to 95 per cent. for small businesses which are suffering hardship as a result of foot and mouth disease in 151 rural authorities in England.

  In addition, the Government have extended the deadline for making an appeal against the rateable values of properties in these 151 rural authority areas so that appeals received by 30 June 2001 may be backdated into the 2000–01 financial year, if appropriate.

  Emergency Services (Pleasure Boats)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what plans there are to levy a charge on pleasure boat owners for the provision of emergency services; and if he will make a statement. [158054]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no proposed plans to levy a charge on pleasure boat owners for the provision of any emergency services.

  Departmental Policies (Cannock Chase)
  Tony Wright
  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 Cannock Chase constituency, the effects on Cannock Chase of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158063]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to Cannock Chase since 1997 is shown in the table. This includes grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.
  65W

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  5.32

  4.45

  4.30

  3.96

  n/a

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.26

  0.84

  0.79

  —

  —

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.04

  0.04

  —

  —

  —

  Loan Charges Defective Housing1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Major Repair Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.40

  SRB Funding (Scheme/Accountable Body)

  Cannock Gateway

  2.9

  2.9

  3.7

  3.3

  2.4

  Trent Challenge

  1.4

  1.7

  1.6

  1.5

  1.0

  Total

  4.3

  4.6

  5.3

  4.5

  3.4

  New Deal for Communities

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ERDF Funding

  0.17

  0.74

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  7.37

  2.33

  1.94

  0

  0.42

  Transport Annual Capital Guidance

  7.12

  2.33

  1.94

  1.90

  0.42

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  1.07

  0.70

  2.36

  9.32

  14.37

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant4

  0

  0.17

  0.12

  0.12

  5—

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  0.20

  0.66

  0.75

  1.03

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit and I Basic Credit Approvals)

  0.75

  1.41

  1.20

  —

  —

  1Where known

  2None

  Notes:

  Housing

  The housing subsidy figure for 2000–01 is still provisional.

  The reduction in HIP resources for 2001–02 is due to the introduction of the new Major Repair Allowance, ie a new way of allocating resources for works to council stock; the table shows Cannock's indicative figure for 2001–02.

  3There is no data for Loan Charges Defective Housing.

  Cannock Chase SRB

  Cannock Gateway

  A comprehensive package of private sector led development with community involvement in a coal closure area. The seven-year scheme aims to tackle problems of drug abuse and child issues, low levels of educational attainment and involves major land reclamation schemes for private sector led employment development.

  Trent Challenge

  A six-year scheme led by Cannock Chase District Council, which complements the Regional Challenge bid for inward investment at the Lea Hall Power Station site. It targets three settlements, which have experienced considerable change in the wake of the closures of the local coal mine and power station. The scheme will enhance employment prospects through initiatives aimed at raising education and skill levels and by addressing housing, environment and quality of life issues.

  Transport

  The transport figures in the table apply to Staffordshire and not Cannock Chase District.

  Plymouth city council1

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  22001–02

  Revenue Support Grant3

  13.978

  103.545

  104.496

  103.809

  110.231

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates1

  8.171

  60.295

  65.108

  72.855

  71.213

  Local Government Reorganisation Supplementary Credit Approval

  —

  6.798

  5.214

  113.515

  —

  Housing Investment Programme

  54.788

  4.417

  4.703

  12.939

  714.750

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  12.131

  11.278

  11.149

  1110.093

  —

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.909

  3.076

  3.166

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.270

  0.251

  0.000

  n/a

  n/a

  Loan Charges Defective Housing

  0.344

  0.344

  0.344

  1220.344

  1220.344

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  81.058

  66W
  4Rural Bus Challenge totals represent awards for successful schemes, spend can be phased over more than one year.

  5N/K

  Departmental Policies (Plymouth Unitary Authority)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  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(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency and (c) South-West Devon constituency, the effects on the Plymouth unitary authority area of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158032]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to Plymouth city council in the years 1997–98 to 2001–02 and to Devon county council in 1997–98 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 has been spent on Plymouth, Sutton and Plymouth, Devonport constituencies and the part of South-West Devon constituency in the Plymouth unitary authority area. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.
  67W

  Plymouth city council1

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  22001–02

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  0

  0.334

  0.634

  0

  0

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  0

  0.334

  0.634

  0

  0.500

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  0.850

  0.929

  92.122

  3.723

  95.865

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant10

  0

  0

  0

  0.072

  n/k

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  0.010

  0.010

  0.010

  0.012

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  0.711

  1.370

  1.359

  —

  —

  Devon county council1

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  Revenue Support Grant3

  4266.389

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates3

  4205.912

  Local Government Reorganisation Supplementary Credit Approval

  1.812

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  1.738

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  1.738

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  2.560

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  2.694

  1 Plymouth city council became a unitary authority, responsible for all the council services in its area, from 1998–99.

  2Figures where known.

  3The amounts of Revenue Support Grant and Income from National Non-Domestic Rates shown for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are the revised amounts allocated under "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98 Amending Report 1999" and "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99 Amending Report 2000" respectively.

  4Devon was subject to a Structural Change Order on 1 April 1998. The figures for Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domestic Rates quoted for Devon county council for 1997–98 include an amount for the areas covered by the city of Plymouth and the borough of Torbay.

  51997–98 HIP allocation inherited from the previous Government's spending plans. Present Government introduced CRI from 1997–98.

  6Single Housing Pot introduced from 2000–01 resulting in CRI being merged with HIP.

  £ million

  SRB scheme

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  12001–02

  Plymouth 2000 Rounds 1–4 (Turning the Tide; Western Approaches; Key to the Future; Areas of Deprivation)2

  3.232

  4.112

  6.251

  5.294

  3—

  Working Together for a Better Future (Round 5)

  n/a

  n/a

  0.164

  1.687

  3—

  Bid for Sutton Ward (Round 6)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3—

  Plymouth 2020 Rounds 1–6

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8.569

  1Figures where known.

  2Rounds 1–4 funding merged for accountability purposes.

  3Rounds 1–6 funding merged for accountability purposes from 2001–02.

  European Funding

  The whole of Plymouth was included in the Plymouth Objective 2 programme, which closed for new applications at the end of 1999. Major projects which have received funding since 1997–98 include: Tamar Science Park Phase 2 (£1.1 million), Seaton Barracks (£0.6 million) and Goschen Business Communications Centre (£0.5 million) in Plymouth, Devonport constituency; Royal William Yard (£1.6 million) and West End Revival Package (£0.4 million) in Plymouth, Sutton constituency; and Mountbatten Sailing and Watersports Centre (£1.6 million) in the part of South-West Devon constituency included in the Plymouth unitary authority area.

  Most of Plymouth is included in the South West Objective 2 area that stands to benefit from £108 million
  68W
  7 Resource accounting has resulted in a change to the way capital resources are allocated for 2001–02, with the introduction of a new Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) to cover the cost of maintaining local authority housing in a sound condition. Plymouth city council's MRA allocation for 2001–02 is £8.888 million and, for comparison purposes, is included in the 2001–02 HIP allocation above.

  8Neighbourhood Renewal Fund starts in 2001–02.

  9Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval figures for Plymouth city council include Public Transport Information allocations of £0.804 million in 1999–2000 and £0.600 million in 2001–02.

  10Rural Bus Challenge figures represent awards—actual spend profiles for schemes may cover more than one year.

  11Provisional.

  12Estimated.

  New Deal for Communities (NDC)

  Devonport People's Dreams in Plymouth has submitted a full delivery plan bid for funding NDC Round 2. In 2000–01, £0.4 million funding has been provided for management and administration of the process and £0.131 for 'Quick Win' proposals.

  Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)

  Three SRB awards have been made in Plymouth in Rounds 4–6 since May 1997. Funding provided for these schemes, and for schemes continuing from previous SRB rounds, since 1997–98 is included in the following table. It is not possible to disaggregate the funding for these schemes by constituency.

  of European funds over the next seven years. The remaining five wards in Plymouth stand to benefit from a programme for traditional areas in the South-West worth around £10 million in European funding over the next six years.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the increase in(a) Standard Spending Assessment and (b) council tax between the previous and current financial years was for (i) Bournemouth, (ii) Brighton and (iii) Blackpool; and if he will make a statement. [158246]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) are a means of distributing a given total of grant which takes account of the demographic, physical and
  69W
  social characteristics of an area. Council tax levels are a matter for local authorities, which have to answer to their voters. SSA and council tax increases for 2001–02 are given in the table:

  Borough council

  Standard Spending Assessment increase (percentage)

  Authority's own council tax increase (Band D) (percentage)

  Bournemouth

  3.4

  10.0

  Brighton and Hove

  5.9

  6.0

  Blackpool

  4.2

  12.1

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–022

  Revenue Support Grant

  3.266

  2.473

  2.336

  2.064

  2.273

  18.309

  18.174

  18.348

  17.973

  18.939

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  3.516

  3.610

  3.881

  4.338

  4.299

  18.107

  18.524

  19.329

  110.641

  110.458

  Housing Investment Programme10

  1.196

  0.728

  0.965

  2.608

  31.248

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy10

  1.903

  1.378

  1.205

  41.684

  13—

  Capital Receipts Initiative10

  0.480

  1.138

  1.010

  n/a

  5n/a

  Cash Incentive Scheme10

  0.100

  0.050

  n/a

  n/a

  6n/a

  Loan Charges Defective Housing10

  79.646

  779.646

  779.646

  779.646

  779.646

  Transport Supplementary Grant11

  11.049

  10.858

  11.090

  1nil

  10.154

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline11

  11.049

  10.858

  11.090

  1nil

  1nil

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval11

  10.270

  10.354

  10.716

  13.303

  112.69

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant1

  1nil

  10.786

  10.786

  10.786

  1.81.004

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant11

  1nil

  10.463

  11.154

  10.213

  1.12—

  Supplementary Credit Approvals (Salisbury Transport package)9

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3.58

  1Figures for Wiltshire

  2Where known

  3MRA is ring fenced from HIP resources and was allocated centrally to those local authorities who managed their own housing stock

  4Provisional figure—subject to change

  5CRI ceased as a programme after 1999–2000

  6CIS still continues as a programme but without any DETR allocations

  7Figures are estimated

  8Figures represent the award—actual spend can he over more than one year

  9Funds are paid to Wiltshire County Council, but can only be spent on Salisbury

  10Funding applies to district level only

  11Funding applies to county level only

  12Not known

  13Figures not yet available

  High Hedges
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the terms of reference given to the Building Research Establishment and Tree Advice Trust are to develop an objective way of assessing the obstruction of light by hedges; when the report will be completed; and when it will be published. [158469]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Building Research Establishment (BRE) and Tree Advice Trust have been asked to produce guidance on the impact of evergreen hedges on daylight and sunlight to buildings, and loss of sunlight to gardens; and to devise a in method for calculating what height a hedge needs to be in order to alleviate any obstruction of light.

  Draft guidelines, including the proposed procedure for calculating hedge height, have recently been issued by BRE for limited consultation. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. These guidelines will be tested against a sample of problem hedges, and will be refined—

  Local Government Finance (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding his Department has provided to(a) Wiltshire county council and (b) Salisbury district council in the years 1997–98 to 2001–02, including grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure. [157791]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to Salisbury district council and Wiltshire county council in the years 1997–98 to 2001–02 are shown in the table (where available). These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  as necessary—in the light of the results of these field tests and the consultation. The final report on this project is due to be submitted to my Department at the end of July 2001.

  Rural Regeneration Partnerships
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local rural regeneration partnerships operating in the south-west of England; and what the budget of each is for
  2001–02. [158589]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The partnerships operating in the south-west of England are:

  Cornwall—Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Rural Development Programme Committee

  Devon—Devon Joint Rural Development Committee

  Dorset—Committee for Rural Dorset

  Somerset—Rural Somerset Committee

  Gloucestershire—Forest Regeneration Partnership

  Wiltshire—Rural Development Programme for Wiltshire.

  71W
  The partnerships do not have specific budgets but have equal access to the Rural Programme given to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) by DETR. The SW RDA's rural budget for 2001–02 is £9,388,000.

  Park Homes Industry
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date research was commissioned into the economics of the park homes industry; when the research is due to be completed; and when it will be published. [158470]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Research into the economics of the park homes industry was commissioned on 22 January 2001. Current plans are for the research to be completed by the end of September and a report to be published before the end of the year.

  Highcliffe Castle
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when a decision

  £ million

  Annual capital guideline

  Private sector renewal grant transitional payments

  Disabled facilities grant

  Major repairs allowance

  Barking and Dagenham

  4.419

  0.002

  0.412

  15.220

  Barnet

  5.202

  —

  0.585

  8.536

  Bexley

  1.553

  0.178

  0.763

  —

  Brent

  16.622

  —

  0.879

  8.013

  Bromley

  2.257

  0.40

  0.381

  —

  Camden

  18.758

  —

  0.068

  22.184

  City of London

  0.241

  —

  0.003

  1.771

  Croydon

  5.870

  —

  0.426

  10.705

  Ealing

  11.200

  0.285

  1.141

  11.419

  Enfield

  3.939

  0.084

  0.658

  9.882

  Greenwich

  11.084

  —

  0.503

  20.320

  Hackney

  17.148

  0.050

  0.268

  22.733

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  14.421

  0.036

  0.441

  11.261

  Haringey

  18.697

  —

  0.567

  13.403

  Harrow

  3.540

  0.045

  0.689

  4.133

  Havering

  2.255

  —

  0.232

  8.822

  Hillingdon

  5.115

  0.037

  0.838

  8.137

  Hounslow

  3.620

  0.460

  0.584

  10.867

  Islington

  12.651

  0.212

  25.434

  Kensington and Chelsea

  12.810

  0.045

  0.055

  5.817

  Kingston upon Thames

  1.958

  —

  0.199

  3.746

  Lambeth

  18.370

  0.350

  0.248

  27.361

  Lewisham

  14.563

  0.262

  0.154

  21.858

  Merton

  2.492

  0.006

  0.208

  5.022

  Newham

  21.902

  —

  0.448

  17.178

  Redbridge

  3.260

  —

  0.747

  4.483

  Richmond upon Thames

  2.440

  0.047

  0.443

  4.682

  Southwark

  13.979

  0.198

  0.285

  38.459

  Sutton

  2.027

  0.062

  0.358

  6.199

  Tower Hamlets

  14.809

  0.099

  0.275

  22.855

  Waltham Forest

  14.378

  0.120

  0.478

  9.937

  Wandsworth

  11.386

  1.500

  0.237

  14.773

  Westminster

  17.107

  —

  0.239

  11.851

  Note:

  The Annual Capital Guideline (ACG) figures for Hammersmith and Fulham, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest reflect small additional allocations made to those boroughs to fulfil ministerial commitments that authorities with housing stock would receive a combined 2001–02 housing ACG and Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) allocation that was at least 10 per cent. above their 2000–01 housing ACG. The adjustments were necessary as the final MRA allocations were not known until after the Housing Investment Programme allocations had been decided.
  72W
  will be taken on the application for alterations to Highcliffe castle to facilitate disabled access. [158468]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The application by Christchurch borough council for listed building consent to construct a temporary disabled ramp and associated works at Highcliffe castle was submitted to the Secretary of State on 15 February 2001. The Secretary of State is currently considering the issues and will ensure that the council is notified of the outcome as soon as possible.

  Housing (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the allocations of capital housing expenditure for 2001–02 for each London borough broken down into(a) repairs to local authority property, (b) repairs to regulated social landlord property, (c) new local authority build and (d) new regulated social landlord property. [158584]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The table shows the three elements of the housing capital allocations through the Housing Investment Programme and the Major Repairs Allowance allocations to London authorities for 2001–02.
  73W
  Resources to enable local authorities to maintain their own housing stock are provided through the MRA allocations which are distributed through the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy system. ACG allocations are not subdivided between repair and new building or between council and registered social landlord stock and local authorities have full discretion to use these resources to match local needs and priorities.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for the latest available date for each London borough(a) the

  Households on the housing register (April 2000)

  Acceptances of homeless households in priority need (January -December 2000)

  Households in B&B accommodation (December 2000)

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,925

  278

  0

  Barnet

  5,489

  293(1)

  159

  Bexley

  3,592

  343

  73

  Brent

  1,2603

  1,169

  477

  Bromley

  3,264

  885

  139

  Camden

  5,884

  1,009

  62

  City of London

  787

  24

  34

  Croydon

  6,265

  1,668

  401

  Ealing

  7,709

  476 (3)

  337

  Enfield

  6,001

  912

  252

  Greenwich

  5,473

  1,233

  0

  Hackney

  7,011

  414 (2)

  460

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  4,726

  973

  316

  Haringey

  9,510

  1,137 (3)

  222

  Harrow

  2,610

  680

  156

  Havering

  1,738

  55 (1)

  0

  Hillingdon

  3,656

  858

  407

  Hounslow

  5,017

  1,085

  180

  Islington

  1,1590

  1,485

  132

  Kensington & Chelsea

  8,206

  612

  591

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,113

  288 (3)

  16

  Lambeth

  16,220

  1,008

  111

  Lewisham

  9,774

  891

  0

  Merton

  3,920

  178

  32

  Newham

  11,107

  1,353

  562

  Redbridge

  3,555

  430

  277

  Richmond upon Thames

  4,992

  255 (3)

  71

  Southwark

  5,543

  1,127 (3)

  257

  Sutton

  2,154

  432

  46

  Tower Hamlets

  6,751

  1,275

  145

  Waltham Forest

  7,476

  906

  85

  Wandsworth

  2,441

  628 (3)

  240

  Westminster

  8,099

  1,037

  912

  Note:

  Numbers in brackets after an entry indicate the number of quarters for which figures were reported.

  Housing Targets
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the implications of removing housing targets from the planning process. [158431]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under the previous Government, long-term projections of household growth were converted using a "predict and provide" methodology into inflexible targets for new housing. This Government's approach is to enable public consideration at the regional level about the likely rate of housing provision required in a region over the foreseeable future, expressed as an annual rate, and to keep this under regular review.

  Local authorities are expected to provide sufficient land for housing but give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas. We have set a target
  74W
  number of people on the housing waiting list, (b) the number of priority homeless and (c) the number of people accommodated in bed and breakfast accommodation under housing legislation. [158582]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The table shows the number of households on the housing register, the number of homeless households in priority need accepted by London authorities and the number of households accommodated in bed and breakfast accommodation by London authorities under the provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts.

  that, by 2008, 60 per cent. of additional dwellings should be provided by redevelopment of previously developed land or through conversion of existing buildings. These policies have been supported by the issue of new planning guidance on housing, (PPG3).

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on controls to prevent urban cramming in market towns. [158432]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: "Housing" advises local authorities to improve the quality of residential development by good design and layout (para 54). It further advises local authorities to have clear policies for the protection of open space and playing fields (para 53). We are presently consulting on revised guidance on planning for sport, open space and recreation (PPG17) which reinforces this message.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is Government policy to allow(a) development on green belt land and (b) a review of the green belt in certain circumstances. [158658]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 2—"Green Belts" states a presumption against most built development on land designated as green belt. It allows review of established green belts and the alteration of boundaries in exceptional circumstances. If such an alteration were proposed, the Secretary of State would then wish to be satisfied that the authority has considered opportunities for development within urban areas before allowing it to take place.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish figures for (1)(a) the number of hectares of green belt land in each region and (b) the proportion of land that is green belt in each region of the United Kingdom; [158703]

  (2) (a) the number of hectares of green belt land in each council in England and (b) the proportion of land that is green belt in each council of the United Kingdom. [158702]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Information based on digital (computerised) green belt boundaries in England has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many hectares of non-green belt greenfield land have been(a) developed on and (b) given planning permission for development, since 1 May 1997; [158704]

  (2) how many hectares of green belt land have (a) been developed and (b) given planning permission for development, since 1 May 1997. [158705]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested on planning permissions within and outside green belts is not available centrally. The Department's land use change statistics provide estimates of the annual aggregate change to residential use within and outside green belts in England. In 1998, the latest year for which figures are available and during which the last Government's policy guidance on housing was still operational, 2,650 hectares of 'not previously developed' land outside green belts changed to residential use. Over the same period, 140 hectares of land within green belts changed to residential use, about 0.01 per cent. of the total area of green belts.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps have been taken since May 1997 to allow open green spaces of land in built-up areas to be designated as green belt. [158664]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Designation of land as green belt is a matter for local planning authorities having regard to the advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2—Green Belts. Advice on designation of land as green belt has not changed since the publication of the January 1995 edition of PPG2.
  76W
  The Government have recently issued for consultation a revision of PPG17—Sport, Open Space and Recreation, which emphasises the need to safeguard existing urban open spaces and to supplement provision where appropriate.

  Business Rate Revaluation
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the rateable value thresholds for mandatory rate relief following the recent business rate revaluation. [158669]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Rateable value thresholds for mandatory rate relief were increased on 1 April 2000, when the recent business rate revaluation came into effect. The rateable value thresholds under the village shop rate relief scheme were increased from £5,000 to £6,000 for mandatory relief and from £10,000 to £12,000 for discretionary relief. The rateable value threshold below which rates are not payable on empty properties was increased from £1,500 to £1,900. These increases reflect average changes in the rateable values of properties below the old thresholds. The £2,500 reduction in rateable value of properties used for the breeding and rearing of horses and ponies remained unchanged at the 1 April 2000 revaluation, because there was no significant change in the rateable values of such properties.

  Construction (Local Source Materials)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to allow councils to place conditions on planning permission to require materials to be constructed from local sources. [158667]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is for local planning authorities in the first instance to decide on specific planning conditions. The advice in DOE Circular 11/95—The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions—is that the use of conditions may be acceptable to secure a high quality of design in a proposal to make a positive contribution to a site and its surroundings and show consideration for its local context. Conditions may, for example, specify matching materials or the use of only original materials on listed buildings but the source of materials is a matter for the developer or builder.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on drawing up a national register of contaminated land. [158698]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Under Part HA of the Environment Protection Act 1990, which came into force in England in April 2000, each local authority with borough or district functions has a duty to"cause its area to be inspected from time to time for the purpose of identifying contaminated land".
  Statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State requires each local authority to take a strategic approach to carrying out this inspection function, and to describe its own particular approach in a written strategy. Under the guidance, these written strategies are required to be

  77W
  published by 20 June 2001. As at the beginning of April this year, the Environment Agency was able to confirm that at least 91 per cent. of authorities had work in hand to develop their inspection strategies.

  In any case where a local authority formally identifies any land as being contaminated land for the purposes of the Part IIA regime, either that authority or, in some cases, the Environment Agency, has a duty to ensure that appropriate remediation is carried out. Each local authority is required by section 78R of the 1990 Act to maintain a register of details of remediation carried out on contaminated land in its area. The Environment Agency has a parallel duty to compile a register of remediation on sites for which it is the enforcing authority. Part IIA does not, however, include any provisions establishing a single national register.

  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many acres of derelict land there are in(a) England, (b) the North West Region and (c) Halton; and what percentage of derelict land in (i) the North West Region and (ii) Halton is contaminated. [158500]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The most recent estimates from the National Land Use Database show that, in 1998, the area of derelict land and buildings was 19,340 hectares in England, 3,400 hectares in the North West Government Office region and 31 hectares in Halton. Information on how much of this land is contaminated is not available.

  Local Planning System
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to extend the local planning system to(a) forestry and agriculture (b) bulldozed tracks, (c) power stations and (d) overhead power lines. [158666]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  None. Power stations over 50 MW and most overhead electric lines are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the. Electricity Act 1989.

  Transport Supplementary Grants
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the allocation of local authorities' transport supplementary grants are linked to air quality standards. [158661]

  Mr. Hill
  Capital resources for local authorities for local transport improvements, including transport supplementary grant, are provided through the Local Transport Plan regime.

  Our guidance to authorities on Local Transport Plans (LTPs) makes clear that allocations will be determined by an assessment of the needs and priorities established in the plans and the extent to which the LTP is likely to provide value for money in delivering its integrated transport objectives. It also recognises that air quality is likely to be one of the major factors influencing the objectives and strategies contained within LTPs, particularly in large urban areas.

  The Environment Act 1995 requires authorities to review and assess local air quality to determine whether the national air quality objectives are likely to be met,
  78W
  and where this is unlikely, to designate air quality management areas and prepare action plans setting out the steps they propose to take in pursuit of them. Our guidance on LTPs makes clear that where an air quality management area has been declared, LTPs should include measures to improve air quality. In order to maximise the effectiveness of both air quality action plans and LTPs, the two should produced in a co-ordinated manner.

  Authorities submitted their first full Local Transport Plans last July. Authorities will be submitting their first annual progress reports later this year and we shall be monitoring closely their progress against the targets set in their LTPs, including those related to air quality standards.

  Pollution Charges
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made since May 1997 on the establishing of pollution charges on the main air, land and water pollutants. [158659]

  Mr. Hill
  The Environment Agency inherited from its predecessor bodies charging regimes for integrated pollution control, radioactive substances regulation, waste management licensing and discharges to controlled waters. It has implemented an interim charging scheme for the new Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) regulatory regime, which came into effect in 2000. The agency is currently working on a long-term scheme for PPC and on a revision to the waste management licensing charging scheme, so that it reflects a risk-based approach to inspections.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incinerators will need to be constructed over the next 10 years under the Government's waste strategy. [158706]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Government set out their aims and objectives for sustainable waste management in "Waste Strategy 2000", published in May 2000.

  The choice of waste facilities is for local councils to take in consultation with their local communities. The Government have no plan for any particular number of incinerators, but recognise that the recovery of energy from waste may have a role to play, alongside recycling and composting, in an integrated waste management plan.

  Dog Fouling Byelaws
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if local authorities have power to introduce byelaws against dog fouling without the prior approval of his Department. [158663]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Local authorities do not have the power to introduce dog fouling byelaws without obtaining this Department's approval. However, local authorities can designate areas where it will be an offence for failing to clear up after one's dog under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996. In such cases, dog wardens are able to issue fixed penalties of £25 to offenders or
  79W
  take them to court where the maximum fine on conviction would be £1,000, whereas under byelaws the maximum fine is £500.

  Commercial Premises Lighting
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on bringing lighting on commercial premises under local authority planning control. [158700]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Where proposed lighting installations, or proposals involving lighting, constitute development, they fall within the scope of planning control, and require submission of a planning application to the local planning authority in the usual way. Where they decide to approve an application, local planning authorities can impose planning conditions to limit any adverse impacts of light. However, the installation of some lighting does not constitute development—for example, if it does not materially affect the appearance of the building—and is therefore outside planning control. The courts have ruled that light itself cannot be treated as development. We have no plans to change the position.

  Minewater
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken since May 1997 to prevent the discharges of minewater from abandoned mines. [158699]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Government are committed to controlling pollution from abandoned mines and have both strengthened the regulatory regime concerning abandoned mines and supported works and programmes to address minewater pollution. Under the Mines (Notice of Abandonment) Regulations 1998 operators must now give the Environment Agency advance warning of any proposed abandonment to allow preventive action to be taken to avoid minewater breakouts. In addition, the Government have brought into effect section 60 of the Environment Act 1995, thus removing a statutory defence for owners and former operators of mines for minewater pollution, and have given the Environment Agency new powers to take remedial action under the Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999. Among the specific remedial and preventative schemes supported by the Government are programmes operated by the Coal Authority in close liaison with the Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency to prevent and treat significant water pollution from abandoned coal mines. Twelve treatment sites are now working and five others are under construction with a forward programme for four sites each year.

  Eco-labels
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that products tested on animals are not able to secure an eco-label. [158697]

  Mr. Meacher
  The only eco-labelling scheme administered in this country by the Secretary of State is the European Union eco-label. A company wishing to obtain a licence to use that label must ensure that its product satisfies the technical criteria applying to that type 80W
  of product. The criteria are agreed between the member states, following consultation with interested parties, and then adopted and published by the European Commission. The regulation governing the scheme requires that the technical criteria relate only to the environmental impacts of the type of product concerned and its functional fitness for use; and, as the scheme must operate consistently across the single market, no additional requirements for the licensing of the label may be imposed at a national level. However, the scheme must also operate without prejudice to other requirements of EU or national law on relevant product issues, which may include animal testing, and which determine which products may actually be placed on the market.

  Urban Trees (Cabling)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to prevent trees in urban areas being destroyed by cabling operations. [158665]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The utilities, including cable companies, are already signed up to guidelines—NJUG10 ("Guidelines for the planning, installation and maintenance of utility services in proximity to trees")—designed to ensure that they carry out their works without damaging trees unnecessarily.

  The key messages of NJUG10 have also been reinforced in a code of practice, included in the Department's "Tree Preservation Orders—A guide to the law and good practice". This further encourages good street works practice and effective consultation between utility operators and local authority tree officers.

  Local Authorities (Prompt Payment)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage more prompt payment of bills by local authorities. [158670]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government have set a statutory best value performance indicator requiring local authorities to monitor the percentage of invoices paid on time, and to publish this figure in their annual performance plan. Authorities are expected to set targets that are consistent with our own standards for central Government, whereby 100 per cent. of invoices must be paid on time by the end of the financial year 2002–03.

  European Drinking Water and Bathing Water Standards
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which parts of the United Kingdom have failed to meet European drinking water and bathing water standards since May 1997. [158657]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  At least 3 million tests are done on public drinking water supplies each year, for a variety of potential contaminants. Since 1997, rates of failure to meet the relevant national standards (which are in some cases more stringent than those required under the EC Drinking Water Directive) have been as follows (figures for 2000 are not yet available).
  81W

  Percentage

  1997

  1998

  1999

  England and Wales

  0.25

  0.22

  0.18

  Scotland

  1.70

  1.41

  0.96

  Northern Ireland

  1.11

  1.14

  1.05

  In the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, 57, 56, 47 and 33 UK bathing waters, respectively, failed to meet the relevant mandatory standards set in the EC Bathing Water Directive. Names and locations are included in the 'Bathing Water Directive—Detailed Summary of UK Survey Results' for each year, which have been placed in the Library.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to allow councils to place conditions on planning permission to require buildings to optimise energy conservation. [158668]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is for local planning authorities in the first instance to decide on specific planning conditions. Advice is given in. DOE Circular 11/95—The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. This indicates that planning conditions which duplicate the effect of other controls are normally unnecessary. The conservation of Fuel and power is covered by Part L of the Building Regulations.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government have taken to reverse the presumption in planning policy in favour of opencast mining. [158662]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A presumption in favour of opencast coal mining was introduced by a Conservative Administration in May 1988. This Government fulfilled their pre-election commitment to reverse the presumption in favour of opencast coal mining by issuing revised Mineral Planning Guidance on Coal (MPG3 (revised) March 1999) which advises that there should be a presumption against new coal mining development unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable (or could be made so by planning conditions or obligations) or would provide overriding local or community benefits.

  Waterways
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reform riparian rights for those wishing to use Britain's waterways for leisure. [158437]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  We currently have no plans to reform riparian rights. After discussion with the main interest groups, we made a commitment to commission research into the extent of access to waterways for leisure activities. That contract was recently awarded to the University of Brighton. The results of the research will inform the future development of our policies for water-based leisure.

  Planning Policy Guidance 7
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy on major developments in(a) the area of national parks and (b) areas of outstanding natural beauty in respect of the provisions of paragraph 3.21 of PPG7. [158389]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  PPG7 makes it clear that major developments should not take place in national parks save in the most exceptional circumstances. Such developments will need to demonstrate that they are in the public interest before they proceed. All such applications for development are subject to rigorous examination and will be subject to the specific assessments set out in paragraph 4.5 of PPG7. The Government have made it clear that they expect the same considerations to apply for proposals for major developments in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

  Paragraph 3.21 of PPG7 indicates that new house building and other new development in open countryside, away from established settlements or from areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled. But this paragraph also includes policy which would exceptionally allow individual isolated new houses to be built in the countryside if the proposals were of the highest quality and truly outstanding in terms of architecture and landscape design.

  The Government believe that there is a need for more affordable housing in rural areas, and do not see the current planning exception for isolated large dwellings which may be built in unsustainable locations as consistent with that priority, or with its objectives for the countryside more generally. We therefore intend to consult on amendments to PPG7 to remove the exceptions policy which allows such large dwellings to be built.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the amount of overhanging debt which has been written off by central Government for each local authority which has transferred its housing stock to a registered social landlord in each of the past three years, (b) the total estimated amount of overhanging debt which will be written off in 2001–02 and 2002–03 and (c) the budget heads under which these amounts are specified. [158214]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  A local authority is required to use the capital receipt from the transfer of its housing stock to repay the debt attributable to that stock. Where this is insufficient the Department will provide a one-off payment to assist the authority repay the debt. The capital receipt must, however, first cover any premiums payable to the Public Works Loan Board on the early repayment of the loans.

  To date, four one-off payments have been made. In 1999–2000 £20.99 million was paid to Burnley. In 2000–01 payments were made to Coventry (£111.68 million) Calderdale (£64.59 million) and Blackburn with Darwen (£78.9 million). Estimates for any future one-off payments will depend upon the housing stock transfer programme for the years concerned. Any resources required for the one-off payments will be held in the DETR Housing Budget.
  83W
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the level of housing revenue account debt for each local authority in England. [158213]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The information has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to subsidise local authorities, debt breakage costs where, following a large scale voluntary stock transfer, their capital receipt does not cover the full amount. [158212]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  We currently have no plans.

  Residential Developments
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is concerning suburban and brown belt residential developments which increase the number of units of accommodation on the same site; what instructions and guidance he gives to inspectors appointed to preside over planning appeals in such cases; and if such instructions and guidance changed in the last four years. [158217]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Government policy on planning for housing is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: "Housing" (March 2000). PPG3 encourages local authorities and developers to"think imaginatively about designs and layouts which make more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment".
  It further emphasises that local authorities should create places which are attractive, and respect and enhance local character (paras 54–56).

  Planning Inspectors are fully briefed on PPG3 and other aspects of planning policy. No additional guidance has been issued to inspectors relating to residential developments which might increase the density of dwellings on a site. They take into account all relevant material considerations when considering planning appeals under the procedural rules that govern the handling of appeals. Revised rules were published in June 2000.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the response he has received to his consultation on the control of noise from civil aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [158573]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  My Department received some 590 responses to this detailed consultation. They are currently being studied. We shall announce our conclusions in due course. Copies of the individual responses will be made available for inspection, by arrangement, at the Department's offices, except where consent to disclosure has been explicitly withheld.

  Coalfield Regeneration
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what 84W
  comparative weight his Department attaches to planning applications which could have an economic regeneration impact in former colliery sites. [158274]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act requires that an application for planning permission or an appeal shall be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Other considerations may include Government planning policy guidance, as well as the particular circumstances of the case, including the contribution a proposal could make to economic regeneration.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has provided to local planning authorities in relation to the regeneration of former colliery sites. [158276]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  No specific guidance has been issued to local planning authorities in relation to the regeneration of former colliery sites. The Government stated in response to the report of the Coalfields Task Force that sufficient flexibility already exists in national planning guidance to permit the development of carefully selected employment sites.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken, and what new initiatives he proposes, to bring about the regeneration of former colliery sites in the Yorkshire area. [158277]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Twenty-eight former colliery sites, covering in excess of 1,200 hectares, are located in Yorkshire. 26 of these are within the portfolio of Yorkshire Forward. The reclamation and servicing of these sites is being taken forward through the 10-year National Coalfield Programme.

  Work has already commenced on 16 of the Yorkshire sites. To date 247 hectares of derelict land has been reclaimed, with a further 286 hectares in the process of being reclaimed; 2,400 job opportunities have been created; about 60,000 sq m of floorspace constructed and £40 million of private sector investment secured. Reclamation work on a further four of the sites is expected to commence during the current year.

  The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has provided over £4.3 million in grants to the coalfields communities in the Yorkshire region. The Trust provides grants for smaller voluntary and community groups, through its development worker team, to help strengthen community identities. It also supports intermediate labour market projects that involve the training and employment of local people—projects that support lifelong learning. Following the Government's recent decision to provide an additional £45 million to the trust over the three years to March 2005, the trust is developing rolling regional plans to ensure that its actions meet regional needs. The trust will allow the trust to maintain and develop further its key role in combating poverty, debt and social exclusion in the former coalfield areas.

  In addition to these coalfield-specific programmes a range of national programmes directly benefit the coalmining communities in Yorkshire, including the Single Regeneration Budget, the Housing Investment Programme and the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund. The

  85W
  Single Regeneration Budget alone has provided over £100 million to deliver a holistic regeneration package across these coalfield areas.

  Tudor Court School
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 321W, if the Health and Safety Executive will visit the site of the subsidence at Tudor Court School to ascertain that sufficient safety precautions have also been taken in relation to the abutting highway and neighbouring residential properties, and that its requirement to make the subsidence area safe, has been adhered to satisfactorily. [158383]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) intends to visit Tudor Court School before the start of the summer term. The HSE has been in contact with the Highways Authority and the Building Control Department of Thurrock council about concerns over subsidence in neighbouring areas. They enforce the relevant legislation.

  Euratom
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many verification missions Euratom has made to United Kingdom nuclear facilities, pursuant to article 35 of the Euratom Treaty since the United Kingdom joined the Treaty; and if he will list the plants involved and date of visit to each. [158429]

  Mr. Meacher
  The European Commission has undertaken four verification visits to UK nuclear plants under the terms of article 35 of the Euratom Treaty as follows:Dounreay 10–14 May 1993
  Sellafield 6–10 December 1993
  Dounreay 15–18 March 1999
  Dungeness 6–10 November 2000.

DEFENCE

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the value of defence contracts in the north-west since 1997. [156937]

  Dr. Moonie
  Over 60,000 new defence contracts are placed each year and the Ministry of Defence does not routinely analyse all of these on a regional basis. However, it is estimated that the value of defence equipment contracts placed in the north-west of England was £850 million in financial year 1997–98 and £1,200 million in 1998–99. These estimates relate to the locations of defence equipment contractors, and do not take account of the locations of sub-contractors.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he makes concerning employment in manufacturing in the UK when making defence procurement decisions. [156952]
  86W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is committed to ensuring that our armed forces have the right equipment, procured in a cost-effective manner that offers the best value for money. When making defence procurement decisions a wide range of factors are taken into account, including possible effects on employment in the UK.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards the Headline Goal on European Defence. [156943]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK and France announced at Cahors in February the proposal to hold a second EU Capabilities Conference in the autumn. At this Conference, EU member states will identify and commit to the improvements needed to achieve the level of capability set out in the Headline Goal.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the French Defence Minister to discuss UK and French contributions to European Security and Defence Policy. [156957]

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the French Defence Minister to discuss the European Security and Defence Policy. [156963]

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the European Security and Defence Policy. [156965]

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the European Security and Defence Policy. [156928]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) on 23 April 2001,Official Report, column 12.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the NATO Secretary General to discuss European Security and Defence Policy. [156958]

  Mr. Hoon
  I last discussed European Security and Defence Policy with Lord Robertson at the North Atlantic Council in Defence Ministers session on 5-6 December 2000.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will define the phrase "pursuit of efforts" used in the presidency report of the European Security and Defence Policy at Nice, in the area of(a) command and control, (b) intelligence and (c) strategic lift under section I(i); and if he will make a statement. [158309]

  Mr. Hoon
  European Security and Defence Policy is about improving European military capability. The European Council at Helsinki decided to develop collective capability goals in the fields of command and control, intelligence and strategic transport. As with the Headline Goal, the European Council at Nice noted efforts made by member states to define and achieve these goals. Member states committed themselves to pursuing efforts to develop and improve these capabilities. They also agreed to take steps to ensure the coherent development of EU and NATO capabilities where they overlap.
  87W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the Reserve Forces in the context of the European Security and Defence Policy commitments. [158316]

  Mr. Hoon
  UK participation in any particular operation, and the nature of our contribution (including any potential use of the Reserve Forces), would be matters for decision by the UK Government in the light of circumstances at the time.

  Our aim in restructuring the Reserve Forces, particularly for the Territorial Army, was to make it more integrated with regular forces and defence plans, with a shift in emphasis away from traditional home defence roles, to others such as signallers, artillery, air defence, logisticians and particularly medical services.

  The number deployed with regulars would depend on the nature and scale of the operation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the costs of upgrading EU armed forces to comply with the strategic capability requirements as identified in the Presidency report on the European Security and Defence Policy. [158315]

  Mr. Hoon
  The EU has set itself a target for military capability improvements under the Headline Goal. Commitments by individual nations to meet the targets that they have signed up to are a matter for those nations, as are the ways by which these are achieved.

  Many European nations are undertaking restructuring programmes and defence reviews. Defence reviews help to identify the areas where re-prioritisation of defence spending can bring about more effective defence outputs. Improvement in capabilities is not just about spending more money, but spending more effectively.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will define peacemaking as established under the actions of the European Security and Defence Policy; and if he will make a statement. [158308]

  Mr. Hoon
  The establishing of conditions for negotiating peace through the disengagement of the warring parties and their withdrawal from a demilitarised zone has been endorsed by EU Ministers as suitable for an EU led force. In this, as in other scenarios, it is assumed that the EU would be acting militarily in accordance with the UN Charter.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on changes to(a) his Department's and (b) NATO's practice in the context of the transparency of comparison of Governments identified in the Appendix to Annexe 1 of the Nice Presidency Guidelines on the European Security and Defence Policy. [158317]

  Mr. Hoon
  Transparency is necessary to stimulate capability improvement among EU member states, and to ensure coherence with NATO defence planning and Partnership for Peace (PfP) Planning and Review Process (PARP).

  There have been no significant changes in departmental practice to ensure transparency as identified in Annexe 1 of the Nice Presidency Report on the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).

  KFOR
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of KFOR. [156945]

  Mr. Spellar
  NATO forms the core of the international peacekeeping mission to Kosovo in which some 43,000 military personnel from 39 countries are deployed. The mission is seeking to build a secure environment within Kosovo in which all citizens, irrespective of their ethnic origins, can live in peace and, with international aid, democracy can begin to grow.

  KFOR's mandate comes from UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of 12 June 1999 and is guided by a Military Technical Agreement signed by NATO and Yugoslav commanders on 9 June 1999.

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of British troops deployed in Kosovo. [156962]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 17 April, there were 3,343 British troops deployed to KFOR.

  Armed Forces (Training)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the training provided by British armed forces to the armed forces of other countries. [156949]

  Mr. Spellar
  Our armed forces provide a wide range of training, both in the UK and abroad, to those of other countries. This training is a key element of our relationship with many countries. It is an integral part of UK defence policy and makes an important contribution to the Government's conflict prevention initiative.

  Operational Commitment
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the level of operational commitment of the armed forces is. [156950]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 1 March 2001, some 22 per cent. of the trained Army were committed to operations. This compares favourably to the figure of 26 per cent. that we inherited on 1 May 1997.

  For the other Services, 10 per cent. of the Naval Service were committed to operations as at 1 January this year; this figure, which is the latest available, reflects the position over the Christmas and New Year break. For the RAF 10 per cent. of the trained strength was committed to operations as at 1 March this year. Unfortunately, for the Naval Service and RAF comparable figures for 1 May 1997 are not available.

  NATO (Nuclear Weapons Policy)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will request NATO to review its nuclear weapons policy. [156951]

  Mr. Hoon
  NATO's 1999 Strategic Concept emphasised that the Alliance's nuclear forces will continue to play an essential part in preserving peace and preventing coercion, and will be maintained at the minimum level necessary to ensure credible deterrence. I see no reason to request a further review of that position.

  Defence Co-operation (France)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence co-operation with France. [156953]

  Mr. Hoon
  Co-operation between France and the UK on defence matters is very good. This is emphasised by important bilateral agreements, including navy to navy and army to army Letters of Intent (LOI); an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) covering the European Air Group; a LOI on co-operation in crisis management and operations; and a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement.

  These agreements cover a wide range of activity and build on already close defence links and successful combined operations e.g. Bosnia, West Africa, Kosovo.

  Other areas of co-operation include the Franco British Joint Commission on Peacekeeping, established in 1996; joint work to develop and better co-ordinate our activities in Africa and Central and Eastern Europe.

  New areas of co-operation that we are considering, as part of the UK's multinational defence co-operation initiative, include fuel supplies, medical issues, arms control and Combat Search and Rescue, and will further strengthen our bilateral relationship.

  Throckmorton Airfield
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his long-term plans for the use of Throckmorton airfield in Worcestershire. [156954]

  Dr. Moonie
  The site is used as an outdoor 'quiet electromagnetic test range' for testing technologies developed at the associated DERA site at Malvern, the main benefit being the large amount of open space available. It is envisaged that this activity will continue into the foreseeable future. Several commercial tenants currently use the former hangars for business activity—employing about 100 local people in total—and the option to further develop this activity exists.

  A part of the site is currently being used by MAFF in support of foot and mouth related activities. It is not anticipated that this usage will have any impact on long-term plans for the site, which offers a brown field location that has the potential to be used, in full or part, to assist in the economic development and prosperity of this region. DERA continues to discuss with both Regional and Local government representatives possible future developments in the context of the County and Local Structure Plans.

  It is intended that Throckmorton airfield, now known as DERA Pershore, becomes part of NewDERA plc on 1 July 2001.

  Compensation
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many compensation claims from ex-service personnel are outstanding against his Department. [156956]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence claims database does not distinguish between claims from former and serving members of the armed forces. The total number of outstanding claims from serving and former Service personnel against the Ministry of Defence is 2,341.

  Defence Establishments (Shoeburyness)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in providing employment and promoting development on the defence establishments in Shoeburyness. [156959]

  Dr. Moonie
  As a consequence of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiative, operations at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range, Shoeburyness, known also as New Ranges, will be carried out by NewDERA under an arrangement which is currently being negotiated. The intention is that NewDERA will have the flexibility to conduct operations on ranges while meeting the needs of the Ministry of Defence and maintaining value for money for the taxpayer. Meanwhile DERA is continuing to work with SERCO Ltd. to rationalise the New Ranges estate to introduce new businesses which are able to co-exist with continuing range activities. There are currently 10 tenants on the site and this number is expected to increase. Recent new tenants include two from the transport industry. Old Ranges at Shoeburyness was sold in March 2000 to Gladedale Homes Ltd. and the Ministry of Defence has no further interest in the site.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to deploy the Territorial Army to assist in combating the foot and mouth outbreak. [156960]

  Mr. Hoon
  Individual members of the Territorial Army are already engaged in combating the foot and mouth outbreak in affected parts of the country. This is on a voluntary basis. Generally, their engagement is during their allocated Territorial Army time, that is the weekends and weekday evenings they would ordinarily spend on TA duty.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) prior to the present outbreak of foot and mouth, what contingency plan his Department had for providing military assistance to the civil power in combating foot and mouth; and when this plan was last updated; [158332]

  (2) if, prior to the present outbreak of foot and mouth, his Department had received a request to prepare a contingency plan for providing military assistance to the civil power in combating foot and mouth based on achieving a maximum of 24 hours between detection and slaughter anywhere in the United Kingdom. [158307]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are well-established procedures in place to enable civil authorities to raise requests for military assistance in a wide variety of circumstance. Other Government Departments are aware of these arrangements, and they were implemented rapidly and effectively during the current outbreak of the disease. The procedures ensure that past experience and the current capabilities of the armed forces are drawn upon in order to make the most effective and appropriate contribution to crisis management and (in this case) combating the spread of the disease. In particular, the armed forces are skilled practitioners in a number of important roles such as logistic support and command and control. These skills are exercised on a regular basis and, in the event of a crisis, their high state of readiness can be drawn upon.

  Army Manpower
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the manpower strength is of the Army. [156961]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 1 March 2001, the full-time trained strength of the Army was 100,199 and the size of the Territorial Army was 40,684.

  NATO
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet the United States Secretary of Defence to discuss issues of mutual interest concerning NATO; and if he will make a statement. [156964]

  Mr. Hoon
  I next plan to meet Secretary Rumsfeld at the NATO Defence Ministerials in Brussels between 6–8 June.

  Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which individuals and competencies were represented on the Baton Rounds Steering Group; when this body was created; what its annual budget is; and what meetings and correspondence the Group has had with the body set up as a result of the Patten Commission recommendation to commission urgent research to develop an alternative to the plastic baton round. [158053]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Baton Rounds Steering Group which has now been wound up, comprised representatives of the police, the Home Office (including scientific advice), the Ministry of Defence (both military and scientific) and the Northern Ireland Office. It is not our practice to name individual members of committees or officials. The group itself held no budget.

  As the work of the Baton Rounds Steering Group had largely been completed prior to the establishment of the project group looking at alternatives to the baton round, no formal meetings or correspondence between the two took place. But, as the majority of the organisations represented on the "Alternatives to Baton Rounds" project group were also represented on the Baton Rounds Steering Group, any relevant information was routinely shared.

  Defence Assets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list UK assets identified in the Force catalogue under the Helsinki Headline Goal; and if he will list those assets therein which are(a) double and (b) multiple-hatted to (i) the UN, (ii) NATO, (iii) other bodies and (iv) standing tasks. [158314]

  Mr. Hoon
  As announced on 20 November 2000, in the maximum scale operation envisaged at Helsinki—a corps level deployment of up to 60,000 troops—the UK component could be around 12,500 strong. Maritime and air deployments of up to 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft could be made in addition.

  The pool of forces identified by the UK provides for an element of choice in order to cater for differing operational, political or geographical circumstances, and the major elements are as follows:
  92W
  Land

  Either an Armoured or Mechanised brigade, each of which could be sustained for at least a year or an Air Assault brigade which would be deployed for up to six months. Combat Support enabling capabilities such as Artillery, and Short Range Air Defence, and Attack Helicopters could be deployed in addition, supported by the appropriate complement of logistic enablers and national support troops.

  Maritime

  Maritime forces comprising one aircraft carrier, two nuclear powered submarines, deployment of up to four destroyers/frigates, support vessels; and an amphibious task group, including one helicopter landing platform and an amphibious brigade. The aircraft carrier, helicopter landing platform and submarines could not necessarily be sustained continuously for a whole year.

  Air

  Up to 72 combat aircraft (including Sea Harriers), with associated support aircraft including strategic transport. This number would be available for six months to cover initial theatre entry. For a longer term commitment the total would reduce.

  All the pool of forces and capabilities which the UK has identified in response to the EU' s Headline Goal, are also potentially available to NATO (for which a range of other forces are also available).

  The UK does not earmark troops for use by the UN or other bodies. However under the UN's Standby Arrangements System, designed to facilitate the rapid deployment of forces once political decisions have been made, we have declared a range of capabilities from the UK Joint Rapid Reaction Force as potentially available for peacekeeping operations. This was undertaken in a Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and the UN.

  The forces declared as potentially available for an EU-led operation ate not committed to current standing tasks.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those occasions since May 1997 on which defence assets were(a) hired out and (b) loaned to a private (i) company and (ii) individual; and if he will make a statement on his policy thereon. [156972]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) places some 50,000 contracts a year, many of which involve the loan of defence assets in aid of the contract. Under the terms of exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information details regarding the hire or loan of defence equipment could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  It is MOD's general policy to raise charges for any equipment that is loaned out to private companies or individuals. These charges are normally raised at a level that ensures MOD's costs are recovered.

  Tornado
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the investigation into allegations of accounting irregularities and financial malpractice on the Tornado maintenance
  93W
  programme; how many Defence Police Fraud Squad officers were attached to the case; when investigations will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [157593]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to my answer of 13 July 2000,Official Report, column 635W. This remains an operational policing matter. I understand that varying numbers of officers have been assigned to the investigation at different stages. The Ministry of Defence Police Fraud Squad are currently awaiting the results of inquiries which it is hoped will enable them to take the investigation forward. At this stage it is not possible to predict when it is likely to be completed.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the Tornado GR1/GR4 fleet are operationally deployable; what percentage of the fleet this represents; and if he will make a statement. [157589]

  Mr. Spellar
  122 of a total of 181, or 67 per cent. of Tornado GR1/GR4 aircraft in the active fleet are allocated to the front line. Of these, all are potentially capable of being deployed. The specific numbers available vary from day-to-day depending on aircraft serviceability. However, there are sufficient aircraft of both marks of Tornado to meet current operational, training and immediate readiness requirements.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the scheduled deployments for the Tornado GR4 for the next year; indicating in each case the date and duration of development and the number of aircraft to be deployed; and if he will make a statement. [157639]

  Mr. Spellar
  Tornado GR4 aircraft are scheduled to undertake the following major deployments in the year from 1 April 2001. The number of aircraft in each deployment is shown in brackets:Various exercises, United States and Canada, 9 February to I October 2001—(9)
  NATO Air Meet, Oerland, Norway 3–14 September 2001—(6)
  Ex SAIF SAREEA, Oman, 16 September to 30 October 2001—(12)
  Ex STRONG RESOLVE, Bodo, Norway, 1–15 March 2002—(12)

  Note:

  The nine Tornados deployed to North America will be used by a number of squadrons in rotation.

  Royal Navy Shore Establishments
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 21 December 2000,Official Report, column 253W, which Royal Navy shore establishments are under review with respect to possible amalgamation or closure. [158526]

  Mr. Spellar
  A comprehensive review of the utilisation of the Royal Navy's training estate has identified possible efficiencies but is not yet fully complete and requires further work. This work is being taken forward, in conjunction with proposals for the rationalisation of specialist training which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in the House as part of the Defence Training Review on 27 March 2001,Official Report, columns 545–46W, to determine the optimum mix of shore establishments to meet the training
  94W
  needs of the Royal Navy. It is not possible to confirm which establishments might be affected until this further work has been completed.

  As I announced in a written answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 30 March 2001, Official Report, column 788W, formal consultation is currently under way with the departmental trade unions regarding the proposed streamlining and re-location to Portsmouth of elements of the Commander in Chief Fleet's Headquarters from Northwood as a result of the Fleet First study. No decision will be taken on the re-location until the formal consultation process is complete. Comments have been invited from the unions by 15 May 2001.

  Royal Navy Training Estate
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the Royal Navy's study of its training estate in the Library. [158527]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA) initiated a comprehensive study of the Royal Navy's Training Estate in association with KPMG Consultants in 2000. The initial conclusions are being reviewed in light of the findings of the Defence Training Review which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House on 27 March 2001,Official Report, columns 545–46W, and the proposals for the future fleet HQ which is currently undergoing the formal consultation process. I shall write to the hon. Member once the review of the study's initial conclusions is complete.

  DMSO Solvent Experiments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service volunteers have been exposed to the solvent DMSO in experiments since 1990 at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down; what the purpose was of these experiments; in what years these experiments took place; what the conclusions were of these experiments; on what dates the Independent Ethics Committee scrutinised these experiments; and if he will place in the Library copies of the technical reports which arose out of these experiments. [157328]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1990, the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down has undertaken studies in which 25 service volunteers were exposed to small amounts of dimethylsulphoxide (DMSO). The two protocols covering this work were submitted to the Ethical Subgroup of the Defence Scientific Advisory Committee (DSAC) Medical Committee in November 1989 and April 1990, respectively. The studies were designed to investigate whether DMSO could be used as a chemical warfare agent simulant (training agent). Volunteers were exposed to either DMSO applied as a liquid to the skin or as an inhaled vapour. The quantity of the metabolite dimethylsulphide (DMS) exhaled on their breath was measured.

  The results of these studies have not been written up in any technical reports but the assessment was that DMSO was not suitable for the requirement.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which buildings and premises(a) owned and (b) leased by his Department use (i) chlorofluorocarbons and (ii) hydrochlorofluorocarbons for refrigeration and other energy needs; and if he will give details of such use and the reasons for it. [153012]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: This information is not held centrally in the form requested and will take a little time to compile. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent his Department's building in Whitehall uses hydrofluorocarbons for(a) refrigeration and (b) air conditioning; what amounts of hydrofluorocarbons have been purchased in each year since 1995; and what plans he has to phase out the (i) purchase and (ii) use of hydrofluorocarbons. [153014]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: As far as can be ascertained from our records, minimal use of hydrofluorocarbons is currently made in the operation of Main Building, Whitehall. Known uses include small scale refrigeration equipment, small air conditioning units and drinking water coolers. Only very small amounts of hydrofluorocarbons would have been purchased since 1995. We have no current plans to phase out the purchase or use of hydrofluorocarbons in Main Building. However, any use of hydrofluorocarbons in relating to operating the building will continue to follow the Government policy laid down in Climate Change the UK Programme (November 2000).

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is regarding the purchase of(a) hydrocarbons and (b) other environmentally benign refrigerants to meet the refrigeration and other energy needs of buildings and premises (i) owned and (ii) leased by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [153013]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: It is the policy of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) that hydrocarbons and other environmentally benign refrigerants will be routinely considered as replacements for ozone depleting substances both in existing and new refrigeration applications in MOD buildings and premises. These refrigerants will be utilised wherever they provide an acceptable solution in terms of safety, technical feasibility and efficiency.

  Training Rounds
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training rounds were used by(a) RAF and (a) Fleet Air Arm pilots, by aircraft type, in the last 12 months. [156976]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all the documents in his Department relating to 96W
  the official inquiry in 1970 into allegations that the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment had experimented on old people have been placed in the Public Record Office; and if he will make a statement. [157304]

  Dr. Moonie
  No, but we are in the process of transferring these to the Public Record Office.

  Defence Committees (UK Membership)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the UK contribution to staffing(a) the Political and Security Committee, (b) the Military Committee of the European Union and (c) the Military Staff of the European Union. [158323]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Political and Security Committee (PSC) of the EU is composed of national representatives of senior/ambassadorial level dealing with all aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the Common European Security and Defence Policy (CESDP). Each of the EU member states (including the UK) has a representative.

  The EU Military Committee is composed of the EU member states' Chiefs of Defence, represented on a day-to-day basis by a national military representative, based in Brussels. It gives military advice and makes recommendations to the PSC, and provides military direction to the Military Staff.

  The EU Military Staff will provide military expertise and support to the CESDP. The Military Staff posts are still in the process of being filled. The UK will hold 13 of the 135 posts, including the Deputy Director General of the EUMS.

  EU Deployment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the way in which his Department will hand over data to the European Union military staff for identifying possible assets for EU deployment. [158324]

  Mr. Hoon
  Information is passed to the European Union Military Staff in accordance with the appropriate security regulations and procedures.

  The UK has identified a range of forces and capabilities it could contribute to the achievement of the EU's Headline Goal. Deployment of forces for a particular operation will depend on a national decision in light of circumstances at the time.

  Fleet Capability
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the fleet size is of(a) Hercules C1, (b) Hercules C3, (c) Hercules C4 and (d) Hercules C5; how many on 1 April were (i) fully serviceable, (ii) unserviceable 1 line, (iii) unserviceable 2 line, (iv) unserviceable 3/4 line, (v) on trials, (vi) held in reserve and (vii) undergoing upgrade; what percentage of the fleet this represents for each category; and if he will make a statement. [157605]

  Mr. Spellar
  Figures are not available for 1 April which was a Sunday. I will write to the right hon. and learned Member regarding general availability of the Hercules fleet.

  Hercules C130J
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Hercules Cl30J are in service with the RAF; when they received military aircraft release; and if he will make a statement. [157641]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 6 April, 15 of the 25 Hercules C-130J aircraft ordered were in service with the RAF, and a further two aircraft were in the process of being accepted from the Contractor. Initial Military Aircraft Release was issued on 17 January 2000. The aircraft are currently cleared for strategic (cargo transportation) operations. A revised Military Aircraft Release covering tactical operations (cargo and paratroop aerial delivery) is planned for mid 2002.

  UK Nuclear Defence Policy
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the United Kingdom's obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement with the United States of America. [158100]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom's obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are fully compatible with the terms of the 1958 UK/US Agreement for Co-operation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes.

  Aldermaston and Los Alamos
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the nature was of the cargo sent from AWE Aldermaston to Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico via RAF Brize Norton and Kirtland Airforce Base in Albuquerque on 2 April. [158097]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am withholding the details under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the relationship between the nuclear weapons laboratories at Aldermaston and Los Alamos. [158099]

  Mr. Hoon
  The laboratories continue to enjoy a close working relationship on nuclear weapons science and technology under the terms of the 1958 US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement.

  St. Dunstan's Charity
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support he and his predecessors have given to St. Dunstan's charity for blind ex-service men and women; and what further support is under consideration. [158023]

  Dr. Moonie
  In keeping with the long standing practice that central Government do not provide funds to assist individual charities' core activities, St. Dunstan's is required to raise its own funding. It does not, therefore, receive financial support from the Ministry of Defence. However, considerable Government assistance is available for those ex-Service personnel who are disabled. Personnel deemed to have sustained a disability due to their work in the armed forces may qualify for a tax-free 98W
  'War Disablement Pension' from the War Pensions Agency. They may also qualify for a pension under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS).

  HMS Edinburgh
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the planned deployments of HMS Edinburgh are for the next 12 months. [158525]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Edinburgh is scheduled to deploy from Portsmouth on 15 May as the Atlantic Patrol Task (South) ship. Thereafter, subject to operational requirements, she is due to operate in North European waters during January-March 2002.

  Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships have(a) entered into service with the Royal Navy since 1 May 1997 and (b) left the service of the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary since 1 May 1997. [158524]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following ships have entered service with the Royal Navy since 1 May 1997:HMS Ocean, HMS Kent, HMS Portland, HMS Sutherland,
  HMS Penzance, HMS Pembroke, HMS Grimsby, HMS Bangor,
  HMS Ramsey, HMS Blyth, HMS Vigilant and HMS Vengeance.
  The following ships have left Royal Navy and RFA service since 1 May 1997:
  HMS Birmingham, HMS Brave, HMS Beaver, HMS Boxer,
  HMS London, HMS Bicester, HMS Berkeley, HMS Orkney,
  HMS Blackwater, HMS Spey, HMS Arun, HMS lichen, RFA Olna and RFA Olwen.

  Whistleblowers (Soldiers)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures enable soldiers to give confidential information to officers concerning suspicions of(a) paramilitary and (b) Nazi membership of fellow soldiers. [158570]

  Mr. Spellar
  Service policy is that membership of paramilitary or Nazi-type organisations is unacceptable. Any member of the armed forces who has a suspicion about an individual involved in such activities would have a duty to report it to the chain of command. Divisional or commanding officers take all such allegations very seriously and have a duty to investigate them and take appropriate action. In addition, in particular where criminal, disciplinary or security activity is suspected, an allegation may be made to either the Service police or security staff.

  Each Service also operates a confidential helpline which would advise Service personnel of the correct course of action to take if, for any reason, they were uncertain what steps they should take in these circumstances.

  Lance Corporal William Thompson
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the service career of former RIR Lance Corporal William Thompson, indicating in which units of the RIR he served. [158569]
  99W
  Mr. Spellar
  In accordance with exemption 8a and exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, such details are not to be disclosed without the consent of the individual to whom the information relates.

  RAF Chinook ZD576
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 2001,Official Report, column 86W, on what evidence he based his statement that RAF Chinook ZD576' s engines were working right up until impact. [158215]

  Mr. Spellar
  This statement was based on the report of the technical investigation carried out by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch following the accident, which said:"The engines sustained generally moderate impact and fire damage. Strip examination indicated that both were running at high speed with turbines hot at the time of impact, and revealed no signs of pre-impact failure or malfunction that could have affected the operation of either engine."

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Air Accident Investigation Branch took to verify independently information provided by Textron Lycoming during their investigation into the loss of RAF Chinook ZD576. [158184]

  Location

  Unit

  Missiles fired

  Date

  Castlemartin

  Royal School of Artillery, Larkhill

  6

  16 February 2000

  Otterburn

  101 (V) Regiment Royal Artillery

  6

  25 November 2000

  Castlemartin

  Royal School of Artillery, Larkhill

  6

  21 February 2001

  In addition 750 reduced range practice rockets were fired at the above ranges.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of Military Appreciation of the Security Situation in Northern Ireland presented to the Prime Minister on 4 October 1971. [158505]

  Mr. Spellar
  The document in question was submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. It would be inappropriate to publish such documents while the Inquiry is still sitting.

  US National Missile Defence System
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of the US National Missile Defence System on the national security of the UK. [156940]
  100W
  Mr. Spellar
  The engines of RAF Chinook ZD576 and their fuel systems were examined externally in detail by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) at Farnborough with the assistance of a representative from Textron Lycoming, together with representatives from Chandler Evans Co. and Hawker Siddeley Dynamics Engineering. The engines were then strip examined at Textron Lycoming's Stratford, Connecticut plant under the direction of the AAIB.

  MLRS M28 Rockets
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MLRS M28 rockets Her Majesty's armed forces have in stock. [158396]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am withholding information regarding the quantity of MLRS M28 rockets held in stock by the armed forces, in accordance with exemption 1 (a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MLRS M28 rockets have been fired by Her Majesty's armed forces within the United Kingdom since 25 October 1998, indicating in each case the date and location. [158395]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of MLRS M28 rockets that have been fired by Her Majesty's armed forces within the United Kingdom since 25 October 1998, by location and date, is as follows:

  Mr. Hoon
  We share the US's concerns about the problem of missile Proliferation and understand the role that missile defence can play as one element of the response. The US has not yet put forward specific missile defence proposals, but has made clear that it intends to consult fully with its Allies before making any decision. We expect to play a full and constructive part in that process, taking account of UK national security interests.

  Canadian Defence Deployments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has held with his Canadian counterpart on identifying Canadian assets for deployment in EU-led operations. [158312]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have regular discussions with my Canadian counterpart. The European Union has already welcomed the interest shown by Canada in participating in EU-led operations. Consultations with Canada will be stepped up in times of crisis. Participation by Canada will be of particular importance in the case of EU operations drawing on NATO assets and capabilities. In this context, when the European Union embarks on detailed examination of an option making use of NATO assets and capabilities, particular attention will be paid to consultation with Canada.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Policies (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ribble Valley constituency, the effects on Ribble Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157850]

  Mr. Wills
  Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Ribble Valley constituency and Lancashire LEA have been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Policies (Camden)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the effects, with statistical information on(a) Hampstead and Highgate and (b) the London borough of Camden of his Department's policies since 2 May l997. [158014]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on (a) Hampstead and Highgate and (b) the London borough of Camden and Camden LEA have been placed in the Library.

  Child Care
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new child care places were created in(a) Wandsworth and (b) the constituency of Battersea between 2 May 1997 and April 2001; and if he will make a statement. [156769]

  Ms Hodge
  Between May 1997 and March 1999, the National Childcare Strategy created 9,784 childcare places in the London region. Since April 1999 local Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships have provided details of the new childcare places that have opened by local education authority and constituency. Between April 1999 and December 2000 two Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships have reported new childcare places in the constituency of Battersea. Wandsworth Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership have reported the creation of 411 new out of school hours childcare places in the borough of Wandsworth and 124 of these are in the constituency of Battersea. Lambeth Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership reported the creation of 2,648 new childcare places between April 1999 and December 2000, of which 24 places were on the border of the constituency and fall within Battersea.

  Since September 1998, all four-year-olds in Wandsworth have been entitled to receive a free, part time, early education place. This entitlement is also available for all three year olds in Wandsworth. From 1999 to 2001, Wandsworth received a total of £2,850,000 to fund 3,172 early education places for three year olds. In 2001–02, Wandsworth LEA have been allocated additional funding of £2,050,488 to provide places for 1,726 three year olds. This is in addition to the places that the authority will make available through their own resources (including Standard Spending Assessment).

  Work Permits (IT)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many work permits for entrants to the UK were granted in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000 to information technology and e-commerce specialists from countries outside the European Union. [157694]

  Ms Hodge
  The number of foreign nationals granted permission, through work permit arrangements, to undertake information technology related jobs during 2000 was 18,257. Comparable figures for 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 are not available as the way in which work permit management information is collected was changed in October 1999.

  Employment (Asian Women)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to increase participation in the labour market of British Asian women; and if he will make a statement. [157773]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government have a range of initiatives to increase job opportunities for groups such as British Asian women who traditionally suffer disadvantage in the labour market. In particular, three major initiatives—New Deal, Action Teams and Employment Zones—are taking steps, including outreach work in local communities, to overcome the specific barriers that stop Asian women from moving into work.

  Education Achievement Awards
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the success of the education achievement awards; and if he will make a statement. [157776]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: School Achievement Awards are for schools that have substantially improved their results since 1997 or achieved better results last year than other schools in similar circumstances. They are a very effective way of recognising those achievements and enabling schools to reward whole staff teams. The very regrettable error affecting a minority of the schools involved should not detract from that.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what appeals procedure is available to schools that feel unfairly excluded from the list of those regarded as eligible for an achievement award. [157777]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The Department has telephone and e-mail helplines for School Achievement Awards inquiries that are available to all schools. Every school that asks why it did not win an award is being told the specific reason. We will ensure that every school that qualifies for an award receives one.

  Teachers' Working Hours
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with teacher unions about resolving the dispute over working hours; and if he will make a statement. [157778]
  103W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: My right hon. Friend will hold discussions with the teacher unions about a review of teacher workload when they have all suspended industrial action. At that point, he will be prepared to hold discussions about the proposed remit and timetable for the review which was recommended by the independent School Teachers' Review Body.

  Schools (Battersea)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding has been made available for improving school buildings under the New Deal for Schools in the Battersea parliamentary constituency since 1 May 1997; and if he will list the improvements concerned. [157804]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to his previous question on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 310W.

  Table A: New Deal for Schools (NDS). Allocation for schools in the Battersea constituency

  School

  Project

  Grant awarded (£)

  1997–98

  Alderbrook Primary

  Replace gas heater

  1135,000

  Joseph Tritton Primary

  Provide a secure main entrance with CCTV

  1998–99

  Chesterton (with Chantfield) Primary

  Replacement of three asbestos clad huts

  123,338

  St. George's C of E Primary (VA)

  Renew heating pipework system

  73,840

  Joseph Tritton Primary

  Major works to corroded boundary wall

  57,477

  Honeywell Infant

  Demolition of old dining hall and outside toilets and replacement with new facilities

  194,419

  Honeywell Junior

  Demolition and replacement of old dining hall and outside toilets with new facilities

  196,299

  Borough wide package of 22 schools

  Safety of chimneys/flue renewals

  2379,500

  1999–2000

  Included within a 12 school package:

  Belleville Primary

  Renewal of mechanical and electrical services

  21,015,500

  High View Primary

  The Vines

  Wix Primary

  Included within eight school package:

  Chesterton Community College

  Asbestos removal

  2157,886

  2000–01

  Included within a 12 school package:

  Allfarthing Primary

  Renewal of roof and associated drainage works

  21,621,017

  Battersea Technology College

  Bolingbroke Primary

  John Burns Primary

  Chesterton Primary

  Replacement of temporary classrooms

  234,240

  1 Local education authorities (LEAs) were not required to specify individual project costs for phase 1 of the NDS programme, so the amount shown is the total allocation in that year to the LEA. London borough of Wandsworth local education authority holds project level information.

  2 Denotes total allocation made to package projects covering more than one school. London borough of Wandsworth local education authority will be able to advise the value of projects at schools which have benefited from these allocations.

  104W
  Information showing the schools in the Battersea constituency that benefited from investment under New Deal for Schools is shown in table A. These allocations formed part of the £4.651 million investment made so far in schools in the London borough of Wandsworth local education authority under the New Deal for Schools programme.

  In total, since 1997 the London borough of Wandsworth local education authority has received some £13.214 million of funding for capital investment in school buildings as shown in Table B.

  Nationally, investment in school buildings has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.5 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £8.5 billion in school buildings in total from 2001–02 to 2003–04. Capital investment already allocated to the London Borough of Wandsworth local education authority in 2001–02, including the increases announced by the Chancellor in the Budget statement of 7 March, amounts to £5.942 million.
  105W

  Table B: All capital allocations to London borough of Wandsworth local education authority

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Annual Capital Guideline (ACG) Basic Credit Approvals

  50

  274

  1,614

  1,166

  Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCAs)

  212

  98

  26

  124

  Grant to Voluntary Aided (VA) Schools

  428

  229

  142

  715

  New Deal for Schools (NDS)

  135

  865

  1,016

  2,635

  School Security Grant

  36

  45

  59

  59

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  —

  25

  —

  —

  Class Size Initiative

  —

  —

  115

  108

  National Grid for Learning (NGfL) Grant

  —

  292

  455

  580

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  23

  —

  Seed Challenge Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  133

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  659

  Additional Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  593

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  124

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  68

  Schools Access Initiative (Grant)

  —

  3

  26

  16

  Outside Toilet Initiative

  —

  66

  —

  —

  Total

  861

  1,897

  3,476

  6,980

  Departmental Policies (Tiverton and Honiton)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, the effects on Tiverton and Honiton of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157814]

  Mr. Wills
  Outlined are details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Tiverton and Honiton constituency and Devon LEA.

  Schools with specialist status

  Queen Elizabeth Community College was awarded Technology college status in 1998.

  School Achievement Awards

  Staff at 12 schools in the constituency received Improvement Awards because pupil performance in 2000 was substantially better than in 1997, or because schools had come out of special measures. Four schools received Excellence Awards, because pupil performance in 2000 was better than most schools in similar circumstances. Awards were around £5,000 for a typical primary school and £25,000 for a typical secondary school.

  Class Sizes

  £000

  Revenue Funding

  Capital Funding

  1998–99

  1,000

  523

  1999–2000

  1,831

  732

  2000–01

  2,596

  719

  Total

  5,427

  1,974

  The September 2000 figures show that in Devon there are now 62 (0.3 per cent.) pupils remaining in infant classes of 31 or more. The figure in January 1998 was 5,639 (26 per cent.).

  Classroom of the Future

  Devon LEA was awarded £900,000 as part of this initiative in February 2001. The stated aim is, in the context of recent educational research, to provide life long learning opportunities that broaden experiences for pupils and the whole community. It will be an inclusive project that provides greater educational opportunities for those
  106W
  living in rural communities, so that social exclusion in isolated rural areas no longer exists. The proposal is to set up units in two primary schools and a community college within an existing cluster of schools, and to work with three technology colleges. The potential of ICT is fully explored, in combination with a sustainable design. Partners include Exeter and Plymouth universities and the Timber Research and Development Association.

  Performance Data (England averages include independent schools)

  Key Stage 2 test results: percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above

  11997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  English

  LEA

  62

  66

  72

  75

  England

  63

  65

  71

  75

  Maths

  LEA

  62

  60

  70

  72

  England

  62

  59

  69

  72

  Science

  LEA

  67

  72

  80

  86

  England

  69

  69

  78

  85

  GCSE and GNVQ results

  Percentage

  11997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  5+ A*-C grades

  LEA average

  44

  47

  48

  49

  England average

  45

  46

  48

  49

  5+ A*-G grades

  LEA average

  90

  91

  91

  91

  England average

  86

  88

  89

  89

  No Passes

  LEA average

  5

  4

  4

  4

  England average

  8

  7

  6

  6

  Average Point Score

  LEA average

  n/a

  38.4

  38.7

  39.2

  England average

  n/a

  37.0

  38.1

  38.9

  Results for 1997 include Plymouth and Torbay, which became separate unitary authorities with effect from 1998.

  107W

  GCE A/AS level examinations and advanced GNVQs

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Average points for 2 or more A/AS levels

  LEA average

  16.3

  17.3

  17.9

  England average

  17.8

  18.2

  18.5

  A/AS average per entry

  LEA average

  5.2

  5.5

  5.3

  England average

  5.4

  5.5

  5.5

  LEA capital funding

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  Credit approvals

  Annual Capital Guideline (ACG)

  10,890

  6,788

  6,727

  9,467

  10,072

  43,944

  Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA)

  2,771

  857

  1,200

  328

  1,400

  6,556

  Grants

  New Deal for Schools

  1,018

  2,397

  4,763

  7,536

  —

  15,714

  NDS Condition funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,520

  1,520

  Nat. Grid for Learning (NGfL)

  —

  979

  1,213

  2,342

  3,620

  8,154

  Voluntary Aided Grant

  1,002

  187

  251

  387

  1,768

  3,595

  Devolved Formula Capital

  —

  —

  —

  5,013

  4,101

  9,114

  Science labs

  —

  —

  —

  327

  327

  654

  Energy

  —

  175

  —

  —

  —

  175

  Assist Management Plan support

  —

  —

  108

  —

  —

  108

  SEED challenge

  —

  —

  —

  341

  395

  736

  Class Size Initiative

  —

  247

  1,001

  664

  —

  1,912

  Outside toilet removal

  —

  972

  —

  —

  —

  972

  Schools Security at 75 per cent.

  262

  219

  231

  233

  165

  1,110

  SSLU's Grant

  —

  —

  —

  114

  99

  213

  Schools Access Initiative at 85 per cent.

  —

  —

  —

  22

  581

  603

  Totals

  15,943

  12,821

  15,494

  26,774

  24,048

  95,080

  Modern Apprenticeships

  Information on Modern Apprenticeships for all English constituencies was placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 30 March 2001.

  New Deal for Schools

  Year

  School

  Project

  Allocation (£)

  1997–98

  Tiverton High

  ICT project

  11,017,000

  1998–99

  Clyst Hydon Primary

  Replacement of cesspool

  16,500

  1999–2000

  Cullompton Community College

  Replacement of concrete roof

  558,888

  Clyst Vale Community College

  Upgrade food technology area

  40,000

  2000–01

  The King's School

  Replacement of HORSA kitchen/dining building

  532,465

  Honiton Primary

  Replacement of four temporary classrooms and demolition of HORSA kitchen

  493,370

  Kentisbeare Primary

  Replacement of HORSA hut, temporary classroom and toilets (Phase 2)

  411,347

  Broadclyst Community Primary

  Replacement of HORSA hut classrooms

  713,065

  1 The LEA will be able to advise how much of the total allocation of £1.017 million was awarded to this school.

  New Deal for Young People

  In the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, 423 young people have joined the New Deal to end December 2000. 236 have found jobs, 190 of which are sustained.

  Labour market statistics

  The working age employment rate in Devon local education authority in winter 2000–01 was 77.6 per cent., above the UK rate of 74.5 per cent. The rate in winter 1996–97 was 73.5 per cent.

  The claimant unemployment rate has fallen from 3.3 per cent. in March 1997 to 1.6 per cent. in March 2001 in the Tiverton and Honiton constituency.
  108W

  GCE A/AS level examinations and advanced GNVQs

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Average point score GNVQs

  LEA average

  10.5

  10.7

  10.6

  England average

  9.6

  9.9

  10.1

  Funding per pupil

  In Devon LEA, funding per pupil has increased by £420 in real terms between 1997–98 and 2001–02.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many classes in UK primary schools excluding years one, two and three have more than 30 children in them. [157828]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of key stage 2 classes in England, taught by one teacher, with 31 or more pupils, was 22,817 (29.5 per cent.), in January 2001. The equivalent figure for January 1998 was 25,295 (34.3 per cent.). For information for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I refer my hon. Friend to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.
  109W
  Nationally, average class sizes for primary children have fallen under this Government. At Key Stage 1 the figure has gone down from 27.1 in January 1998 to 25.2 in January 2001. At Key Stage 2 the figure has gone down from 28.3 in January 1998 to 27.9 in 2001. This is a reflection of the fact that delivery of our infant class size pledge is not being achieved at the expense of bigger junior classes. We are making £73 million available in 2001–02 to make further progress on class sizes at Key Stage 2.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average class size was in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) March 1997 and (ii) March 2001 in North Yorkshire. [157868]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The available information is shown in the table.

  Average class size1 in maintained primary and secondary schools in North Yorkshire LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  January 20012

  25.3

  21.1

  January 1997

  26.3

  20.6

  1 Classes taught by one teacher.

  2 Provisional.

  Information on class sizes as at January 2001 has been published in a Statistical First Release "Class Sizes in Maintained Schools in England January 2001" on 6 April, copies of which are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department for Education and Employment statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics.

  Nationally, average class sizes for primary schools has fallen significantly since 1997. At Key Stage 1 the figure has gone down from 26.9 in 1997 to 25.2 in 2001. At Key Stage 2 the figure has gone down from 28.1 in 1997 to 27.9 in 2001. This is a reflection of the fact that delivery of our infant class size pledge is not being achieved at the expense of bigger junior classes. More generally at secondary level, the 2001 figures show that class sizes nationally have stabilised after a decade of rises. As for the pupil/teacher ratio in secondary schools, the number of pupils in secondary schools rose between 1991 and 1997 and between 1997 and 2001 by just under 190,000 nationally in both sets of years—yet the increase in the pupil/teacher ratio nationally in secondary schools was three times greater between 1991 and 1997 than it was between 1997 and 2001. Indeed, the 2001 figures show that the secondary pupil/teacher ratio has in fact improved for the first time in 10 years and now stands at 17.1.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average class size was in the Bury St. Edmunds constituency for (i) middle schools and (ii) upper schools in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; and what is it at present. [157975]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The information requested is shown in the following table.
  110W

  Average class sizes1 in Bury St. Edmunds constituency

  Middle deemed Secondary schools

  Maintained secondary schools2

  Key Stage 1

  January 20013

  25.2

  19.1

  23.4

  January 2000

  22.9

  19.9

  24.0

  January 1999

  23.1

  18.7

  24.9

  January 1998

  23.1

  18.7

  24.0

  January 1997

  22.7

  18.9

  24.7

  1 Classes taught by one teacher.

  2 Excluding middle deemed secondary schools.

  3 Provisional.

  Average class sizes for primary children in Bury St. Edmunds have fallen significantly since 1997. At Key Stage 1 the figure has gone down from 24.7 in 1997 to 23.4 in 2001. At Key Stage 2 the figure has gone down from 26.7 in 1997 to 25.8 in 2001. This is a reflection of the fact that delivery of our infant class size pledge is not being achieved at the expense of bigger junior classes. More generally at secondary level, the 2001 figures show that class sizes nationally have stabilised after a decade of rises. As for the pupil/teacher ratio in secondary schools, the number of pupils in secondary schools rose between 1991 and 1997 and between 1997 and 2001 by just under 190,000 nationally in both sets of years—yet the increase in the pupil/teacher ratio nationally in secondary schools was three times greater between 1991 and 1997 than it was between 1997 and 2001. Indeed, the 2001 figures show that the secondary pupil/teacher ratio has in fact improved for the first time in 10 years and now stands at 17.1.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average class size was in Suffolk local education authority for (i) middle schools and (ii) upper schools in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; and what is it at present. [157976]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Average class sizes1 in Suffolk LEA

  Middle deemed schools

  Maintained secondary schools2

  Key Stage 1

  January 20013

  24.2

  20.2

  23.7

  January 2000

  23.8

  19.9

  24.3

  January 1999

  23.6

  19.6

  24.1

  January 1998

  23.7

  19.7

  24.1

  January 1997

  23.3

  20.1

  24.3

  1 Classes taught by one teacher

  2 Excluding middle deemed secondary schools

  3 Provisional

  Average class sizes for primary children in Suffolk LEA have fallen since this Government came to power. In addition to smaller Key Stage 1 classes, the size of the average Key Stage 2 class has gone down from 26.3 in January 1998 to 26.2 in January 2001. More generally at secondary level, the 2001 figures show that class sizes nationally have stabilised after a decade of rises. As for the pupil/teacher ratio in secondary schools, the number of pupils in secondary schools rose between 1991 and 1997 and between 1997 and 2001 by just under 190,000 nationally in both sets of years—yet the increase in the pupil/teacher ratio nationally in secondary schools was three times greater between 1991 and 1997 than it was

  111W
  between 1997 and 2001. Indeed, the 2001 figures show that the secondary pupil/teacher ratio has in fact improved for the first time in 10 years and now stands at 17.1.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the change to average class sizes in sixth forms in(a) West Sussex and (b) Chichester constituency since May 1997. [158593]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In West Sussex local education authority the size of the average sixth-form class has fallen from 11 in January 1997 to 9.7 in January 2001. The corresponding fall in Chichester is from 11.1 to 10.5.

  At secondary level, the 2001 figures show that class sizes nationally have stabilised after a decade of rises. As for the pupil/teacher ratio in secondary schools, the number of pupils in secondary schools rose between 1991 and 1997 and between 1997 and 2001 by just under 190,000 nationally in both sets of years—yet the increase in the pupil/teacher ratio nationally in secondary schools was three times greater between 1991 and 1997 than it was between 1997 and 2001. Indeed, the 2001 figures show that the secondary pupil/teacher ratio has in fact improved for the first time in 10 years and now stands at 17.1.

  Art and Design Edexcel Unit Tests
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the pass rate of students at(a) unit 4 and (b) unit one of the recent GNVQ intermediate art and design Edexcel unit tests. [157895]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: Responsibility for assessing the standards of qualifications rests with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and with the awarding body.

  New Deal (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in Coventry have found jobs through the New Deal. [157858]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The table shows, for Coventry, jobs gained from New Deal programmes in the period ending January 2001.

  Jobs gained

  New Deal for Young People

  1,765

  25+ New Deal

  85

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  536

  New Deal 50+

  226

  New Deal for Partners

  1

  New Deal (Hampstead and Highgate)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in Hampstead and Highgate are benefiting from each strand of the New Deal. [158021]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The following table shows, for Hampstead and Highgate parliamentary constituency, starts to New Deal programmes and jobs gained in the period ending January 2001.
  112W

  Starts

  Jobs gained

  New Deal for Young People

  1,085

  367

  25+ New Deal

  1,333

  221

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  301

  71

  New Deal 50+

  n/a

  26

  Figures for other voluntary New Deal programmes are not available at parliamentary constituency level.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the teaching assistants providing classroom support for children with learning difficulties have received training in special needs education. [158081]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not held centrally.

  Through the Department's Standards Fund programme, we are supporting expenditure on special educational needs (SEN) training and development for teachers, headteachers, special educational needs co-ordinators and teaching assistants. It is envisaged that, of the overall £82 million available for SEN in 2001–02, £30 million will be spent on training. This is an increase from SEN training expenditure of £26 million in 2000–01 and £21 million in 1999–2000.

  From September 2000 we have made available introductory training materials for recently recruited teaching assistants, which include coverage of the special educational needs framework, and in October of last year we published "Working with teaching assistants: a good practice guide".

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of enforcement of the legislation relating to the employment of people with learning difficulties. [158347]

  Ms Hodge
  My Department monitors Employment Tribunal cases and case law on the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA). It also carries out targeted research on how the DDA's employment provisions are working. "Monitoring the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—Phase 2" (an interim report published in March 2000 by Income Data Services Ltd.), provides a statistical analysis of Employment Tribunal cases and a commentary on case law.

  Of the 487 Employment Tribunal cases where the disability was known and the case reached a hearing, 18 concerned specific learning difficulties (e.g. dyslexia) and 3 severe learning difficulties. The Disability Rights Commission, as part of its statutory role for monitoring the DDA, will be taking forward with my Department the next phase of the project later in 2001.

  Pupil Exclusion
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children have been excluded from school because of their health needs in the last 12 months. [158082]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is not collected centrally.
  113W
  Information on permanent exclusions was published in the Statistical Bulletin "Permanent Exclusions from Maintained Schools in England" on 29 November 2000, copies of which are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department for Education and Employment statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics.

  We are providing £174 million this year to help schools and LEAs tackle exclusion—a third more than in 1999–2000 and 10 times more than in 1996–97. This is helping to pay for more than 1,000 on-site Learning Support Units which take disruptive pupils out of the classroom quickly, improve their behaviour and reduce the need for exclusion. Where an exclusion is necessary, provision for excluded pupils is being greatly increased. There are now 1,000 more places and nearly 600 more teachers and support staff in Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) than in 1997. The quality of education provided by PRUs has improved rapidly and by September 2002 all local education authorities will be required to offer excluded pupils a full-time education, not the 2–3 hours typical in the past.

  Special Educational Needs
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children have a statement of special educational needs, what percentage of school age children have been statemented, and what percentage of statemented children are on(a) level 2 and (b) level 3, in each local education authority. [153149]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  The available data are shown in the table.

  Arrangements for identifying and providing for children with SEN are set out in the Education Act 1996 (and, prior to this, the Education Acts 1993 and 1981). This Act is supported by the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs, issued in 1994, to which local education authorities (LEAs) and schools must have regard. The Government published "Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action" in November 1998 following consultation on its proposals to support the increased achievement of children with SEN.

  The Code of Practice sets out five recommended stages for addressing the different levels of pupils' SEN. Stages 1–3 are school-based, with support from specialists from outside the school at stage 3. The vast majority of these children will have their needs met in mainstream schools. Stage 4 involves the LEA considering the need for, and if appropriate making, a multi-disciplinary assessment of the child's needs. Stage 5 involves the LEA making and monitoring a statement of SEN. The Government are currently reviewing the Code of Practice.

  All schools: Number of pupils with statements of Special Educational Needs (SEN)—January 2000

  Local education authority area

  Number of pupils with statements

  Total number of pupils

  SEN as a percentage of all pupils1

  England

  252,857

  8,345,815

  3.0

  North East

  13,943

  446,668

  3.1

  Darlington

  580

  17,231

  3.4

  Durham

  3,296

  82,634

  4.0

  114W

  All schools: Number of pupils with statements of Special Educational Needs (SEN)—January 2000

  Local education authority area

  Number of pupils with statements

  Total number of pupils

  SEN as a percentage of all pupils1

  Gateshead

  827

  32,786

  2.5

  Hartlepool

  430

  17,250

  2.5

  Middlesbrough

  776

  26,541

  2.9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,151

  45,623

  2.5

  North Tyneside

  942

  33,012

  2.9

  Northumberland

  1,635

  53,095

  3.1

  Redcar and Cleveland

  590

  26,231

  2.2

  South Tyneside

  839

  26,543

  3.2

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1,082

  34,777

  3.1

  Sunderland

  1,795

  50,945

  3.5

  North West

  39,791

  1,203,679

  3.3

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1,176

  28,781

  4.1

  Blackpool

  828

  22,684

  3.7

  Bolton

  1,630

  50,160

  3.2

  Bury

  918

  32,295

  2.8

  Cheshire

  3,564

  115,961

  3.1

  Cumbria

  2,899

  81,879

  3.5

  Halton

  965

  21,657

  4.5

  Knowsley

  1,179

  29,801

  4.0

  Lancashire

  7,666

  189,279

  4.1

  Liverpool

  2,359

  83,087

  2.8

  Manchester

  2,160

  75,076

  2.9

  Oldham

  679

  43,281

  1.6

  Rochdale

  982

  37,378

  2.6

  Salford

  946

  38,830

  2.4

  St. Helens

  1,440

  30,998

  4.6

  Sefton

  1,649

  51,796

  3.2

  Stockport

  1,250

  49,455

  2.5

  Tameside

  1,189

  38,931

  3.4

  Trafford

  853

  39,028

  2.2

  Warrington

  993

  32,996

  3.0

  Wigan

  2,292

  51,354

  4.5

  Wirral

  2,146

  58,972

  3.6

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  26,974

  867,713

  3.1

  Barnsley

  1,126

  35,573

  3.2

  Bradford

  2,555

  93,324

  2.7

  Calderdale

  1,071

  36,601

  2.9

  Doncaster

  2,252

  53,258

  4.2

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,299

  51,986

  2.5

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  998

  44,927

  2.2

  Kirklees

  2,832

  67,285

  4.2

  Leeds

  4,239

  122,363

  3.5

  North East Lincolnshire

  805

  29,047

  2.8

  North Lincolnshire

  735

  25,980

  2.8

  North Yorkshire

  2,400

  95,293

  2.5

  Rotherham

  1,764

  46,688

  3.8

  Sheffield

  2,593

  79,474

  3.3

  Wakefield

  1,575

  58,353

  2.7

  York

  730

  27,561

  2.6

  East Midlands

  19,126

  709,751

  2.7

  Derby

  1,427

  40,719

  3.5

  Derbyshire

  4,321

  121,462

  3.6

  Leicester

  2,094

  51,093

  4.1

  Leicestershire

  2,813

  99,715

  2.8

  Lincolnshire

  3,239

  104,362

  3.1

  Northamptonshire

  3,114

  112,071

  2.8

  Nottingham

  685

  46,848

  1.5

  Nottinghamshire

  1,273

  126,626

  1.0

  Rutland

  160

  6,855

  2.3

  West Midlands

  28,322

  935,483

  3.0

  Birmingham

  5,256

  187,380

  2.8

  Coventry

  1,425

  53,901

  2.6

  Dudley

  1,259

  51,590

  2.4

  herefordshire

  825

  26,102

  3.2

  Sandwell

  1,352

  52,851

  2.6

  Shropshire

  1,667

  45,259

  3.7

  Solihull

  750

  41,126

  1.8

  Staffordshire

  5,552

  138,349

  4.0

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,229

  39,605

  3.1

  Telford and Wrekin

  1,256

  28,169

  4.5

  Walsall

  1,426

  51,061

  2.8

  Warwickshire

  2,514

  84,033

  3.0

  Wolverhampton

  1,213

  45,084

  2.7

  Worcestershire

  2,598

  90,973

  2.9

  115W

  All schools: Number of pupils with statements of Special
  Educational Needs (SEN)—January 2000

  Local education authority area

  Number of pupils with statements

  Total number of pupils

  SEN as a percentage of all pupils1

  East of England

  24,913

  901,470

  2.8

  Bedfordshire

  2,315

  69,641

  3.3

  Cambridgeshire

  2,845

  85,034

  3.3

  Essex

  4,634

  210,299

  2.2

  Hertfordshire

  4,709

  195,782

  2.4

  Luton

  732

  32,593

  2.2

  Norfolk

  4,084

  119,701

  3.4

  Peterborough

  1,011

  29,697

  3.4

  Southend-on-Sea

  684

  27,550

  2.5

  Suffolk

  3,387

  108,881

  3.1

  Thurrock

  512

  22,292

  2.3

  London

  34,200

  1,185,392

  2.9

  Inner London

  13,410

  426,647

  3.1

  Camden

  880

  29,894

  2.9

  City of London

  2

  1,925

  0.1

  Hackney

  1,040

  31,437

  3.3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  748

  21,731

  3.4

  Haringey

  944

  36,038

  2.6

  Islington

  912

  24,923

  3.7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  310

  21,590

  1.4

  Lambeth

  1,221

  30,332

  4.0

  Lewisham

  1,274

  38,694

  3.3

  Newham

  1,496

  49,506

  3.0

  Southwark

  1,227

  40,852

  3.0

  Tower Hamlets

  1,569

  37,633

  4.2

  Wandsworth

  1,150

  37,498

  3.1

  Westminster

  637

  24,594

  2.6

  Outer London

  20,790

  758,745

  2.7

  Barking and Dagenham

  816

  29,445

  2.8

  Barnet

  1,272

  54,777

  2.3

  Bexley

  1,074

  40,885

  2.6

  Brent

  1,235

  39,661

  3.1

  Bromley

  1,643

  51,219

  3.2

  Croydon

  1,174

  58,505

  2.0

  Ealing

  1,224

  49,080

  2.5

  Enfield

  1,196

  49,290

  2.4

  Greenwich

  1,599

  38,784

  4.1

  Harrow

  808

  33,787

  2.4

  Havering

  1,094

  37,656

  2.9

  Hillingdon

  1,419

  44,363

  3.2

  Hounslow

  1,077

  36,928

  2.9

  Kingston upon Thames

  558

  24,000

  2.3

  Merton

  808

  27,216

  3.0

  Redbridge

  847

  46,743

  1.8

  Richmond upon Thames

  624

  27,904

  2.2

  Sutton

  967

  30,955

  3.1

  Waltham Forest

  1,355

  37,547

  3.6

  South East

  40,173

  1,312,345

  3.1

  Bracknell Forest

  464

  18,011

  2.6

  Brighton and Hove

  1,445

  35,361

  4.1

  Buckinghamshire

  2,428

  83,711

  2.9

  East Sussex

  2,326

  74,490

  3.1

  Hampshire

  4,705

  192,205

  2.4

  Isle of Wight

  873

  20,401

  4.3

  Kent

  8,030

  228,836

  3.5

  Medway

  1,631

  46,726

  3.5

  Milton Keynes

  1,343

  36.070

  3.7

  Oxfordshire

  2,431

  99,345

  2.4

  Portsmouth

  757

  29,539

  2.6

  Reading

  612

  20,959

  2.9

  Slough

  676

  20,858

  3.2

  Southampton

  831

  32,983

  2.5

  Surrey

  5,344

  176,782

  3.0

  West Berkshire

  1,103

  27,670

  4.0

  West Sussex

  3,662

  116,591

  3.1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  606

  24,908

  2.4

  Wokingham

  906

  26,899

  3.4

  South West

  25.425

  783,314

  3.2

  Bath and North East Somerset

  721

  29,679

  2.4

  Bournemouth

  675

  23,049

  2.9

  Bristol, City of

  2,436

  60,354

  4.0

  Cornwall

  3,341

  76,095

  4.4

  Devon

  3,750

  105,086

  3.6

  Dorset

  1,814

  60,385

  3.0

  116W

  All schools: Number of pupils with statements of Special Educational Needs (SEN)—January 2000

  Local education authority area

  Number of pupils with statements

  Total number of pupils

  SEN as a percentage of all pupils1

  Gloucestershire

  2,681

  93,395

  2.9

  Isles of Scilly

  4

  266

  1.5

  North Somerset

  906

  28,647

  3.2

  Plymouth

  1,513

  42,768

  3.5

  Poole

  703

  21,090

  3.3

  Somerset

  2,257

  79,711

  2.8

  South Gloucestershire

  1,292

  41,819

  3.1

  Swindon

  961

  29,886

  3.2

  Torbay

  689

  20,065

  3.4

  Wiltshire

  1,661

  70,962

  2.3

  1 Excludes dually registered pupils in Special Schools and Pupil Referral Units

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure statements under Part 3 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill[Lords] quantify provision. [158121]

  Jacqui Smith
  Section 324(3) of the Education Act 1996 requires that statements specify the special educational provision to be made for individual children. We have no plans to change this. The existing Special Educational Needs Code of Practice recognises that, in many cases, specific provision should be quantified, while in other cases flexibility should be retained. The revised Code of Practice, which will shortly be placed before Parliament for approval, will expand on this guidance. It will make it clear that a statement should describe clearly all of the child's special educational needs in full; set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet; specify clearly and detail the provision required to meet each of the child's needs; describe the arrangements for setting shorter-term objectives for the child and any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement. The revised Code will recognise that there may often be a need for provision to be expressed in terms of hours, equipment or personnel, and it will also state clearly that authorities must not, in any circumstances, have blanket policies not to quantify provision in statements.

  School Curriculum (Environmental Issues)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Government have taken since May 1997 to ensure that environmental issues form part of the school curriculum. [158710]

  Jacqui Smith
  Sustainable Development Education (SDE), which includes learning about environmental issues, has been part of the National Curriculum since September 2000.

  Speech Therapy
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many hours of speech therapy will be provided to children under the provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill[Lords]. [158122]

  Jacqui Smith
  This matter does not come within the provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. Specific provision for speech and language therapy might be set out in a statement of special educational needs (SEN) maintained in relation to a particular child. In the draft revised SEN Code of Practice
  117W
  we have indicated that addressing speech and language impairment should normally be recorded as educational provision unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so.

  Local education authorities receive support under the Standards Fund to enhance speech and language therapy services in conjunction with the NHS and the voluntary sector. Of the £82 million available for SEN under the Standards Fund 2001–02, we envisage that about £10 million will be spent on improving speech and language therapy provision.

  In addition, I announced on 27 March a £10 million initiative to provide communication aids for children with SEN and disabilities. This expenditure will be incurred over the period 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Second Language Teaching
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many primary schools teach a second language. [158397]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not hold information centrally on the number of primary schools currently teaching a second language, but it is estimated that one in five do so. The National Curriculum contains guidance for teaching 7 to 11-year-olds, covering skills, knowledge and understanding, together with attainment targets. We have also published a scheme of work for primary French, and further materials for primary German and Spanish.

  I recently announced further funding of over £200,000 for the Early Language Learning initiative, through which we are piloting approaches to extend language teaching in primary schools, gathering good practice and developing classroom materials. In our formal response to the Nuffield Languages Inquiry we set out our intention to build on existing links between primary schools and specialist language colleges. The increasing number of colleges and the developing focus on their roles as 'hubs' of excellence will enhance opportunities for primary schools to access languages expertise.

  Specialist Schools Programme
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his plans are for the expansion of the specialist schools programme. [158537]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of specialist schools has increased threefold since May 1997, from 181 to 536, with a further 73 designated to start operating from September 2001. Our target of 1,500 specialist schools by 2006 proposed in the Green Paper "Schools: Building on Success" is an increase of 1,000 on our original target of 500. As a result of the 2000 Spending Review, the Government will be providing an additional £33 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund over the next three years to make it possible to expand the specialist schools programme at a faster rate to reach 1,000 specialist schools by 2003. This will enable us to introduce all three of the new specialisms (Science, Engineering, and Business and Enterprise) in September next year.

  Harassment (Disability)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made 118W
  of the number of people with learning disabilities who have experienced bullying and harassment at work in the last year. [158077]

  Ms Hodge
  People with learning disabilities can take cases under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) where they believe they have faced harassment or bullying which amounts to a "detriment" on account of their disability. My Department monitors Employment Tribunal decisions and emerging case law on all aspects of the DDA, including complaints made by disabled people about harassment and bullying. In its final report, "From Exclusion to Inclusion", the Disability Rights Task Force commented that the DDA is effective in its treatment of harassment but proposed strengthening the Employment Code of Practice. In our response to the Task Force, entitled "Towards Inclusion" and published on 5 March, we explain that we have asked the Disability Rights Commission to ensure that the current section in the Code of Practice on harassment is reviewed and strengthened, as necessary.

  Pipework Insulation
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what standard of heat insulation is specified for pipework in PFI projects in his Department. [151655]

  Mr. Wicks
  There are no PFI heating or building projects in the Department.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) of 9 February 2001,Official Report, column 764W, if he will estimate the nominal rate of interest required to hold the net present value of student loans at £590 million if the threshold of student loans repayment were increased to £15,000. [157872]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The net present value of the estimated £982 million income contingent loans issued in 1999–2000 to students domiciled in England and Wales is estimated to be £590 million. The nominal rate of interest required to maintain this net present value with a threshold for repayment of £15,000 per year is estimated to be around 4½ per cent.

  National Training Organisations
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what account he will take in conducting the review of national training organisations' employees of the coherence of the sector in question as well as its size defined by the number of employees. [155865]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]: We will consider a number of issues in relation to the future direction of the National Training Organisations network raised during the consultation, which concludes on 12 April. These include the coherence of the sector, as well as work force coverage.

  Modern Apprenticeships (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many modern apprenticeship and advanced modern apprenticeship starts there were in the(a) City of Newcastle upon Tyne and (b) Newcastle upon Tyne, Central constituency in each financial year from 1996–97 to the most recent date in 2000–01 for which figures are available. [157103]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: Since 1 April 1996, we know of 3,475 starts on Modern Apprenticeships in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne local authority district and 978 in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central parliamentary constituency as at 30 November 2000. Broken down by financial year these are:

  Financial year

  Foundation modern apprenticeships1

  Advanced modern apprenticeships2

  Total

  Newcastle upon Tyne local authority district

  1996–97

  3—

  357

  357

  1997–98

  3

  482

  485

  1998–99

  140

  392

  532

  1999–2000

  749

  483

  1,232

  2000–014

  559

  310

  869

  Total

  1,451

  2,024

  3,475

  Newcastle upon Tyne Central parliamentary constituency

  1996–97

  3—

  85

  85

  1997–98

  1

  149

  150

  FEFC funded

  Non-FEFC funded

  16–18

  Adult

  16–16

  Adult

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1996–97

  1,471

  1,601

  1,223

  18,233

  71

  116

  336

  212

  1997–98

  1,301

  1,720

  1,100

  17,626

  98

  146

  348

  347

  1998–99

  1,251

  1,652

  1,232

  17,641

  101

  318

  446

  915

  1999–2000

  1,302

  1,600

  833

  18,804

  106

  324

  412

  1,132

  Notes:

  1. All data are whole-year data.

  2. Figures for 1999–2000 are provisional.

  3. Includes data from all FEFC funded institutions (including Specialist Designated Institutions).

  4. Excludes Higher Education Institutions.

CABINET OFFICE

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many officials, at what grades, have been transferred to(a) MAFF, (b) the Rural Task Force and (c) other relevant bodies working on the foot and mouth outbreak from other Government Departments. [157718]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Information is not held in the form requested. Over 100 staff from central and regional government are assisting MAFF. Around 15 further staff are working within the Rural Task Force.

  Workforce Development Plan (Civil Service)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if the Central Government National Training Organisation has completed a work force development plan for the Civil Service. [158422]
  120W

  Financial year

  Foundation modern apprenticeships1

  Advanced modern apprenticeships2

  Total

  1998–99

  39

  99

  138

  1999–2000

  218

  134

  352

  2000–014

  170

  83

  253

  Total

  428

  550

  978

  1 Foundation Modern Apprenticeships, formerly known as National Traineeships, were introduced nationally in September 1997.

  2 Advanced Modern Apprenticeships, formerly known as Modern Apprenticeships, were introduced nationally in September 1995.

  3 Not applicable.

  4 April to November.

  Source:

  WBTYP trainee database.

  Students (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many full and part-time students there are(a) aged 16 to 18 years and (b) over 18 years with home postcodes in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne at Further Education Funding Council-funded institutions, broken down between FEFC-funded courses and other courses, in each year since 1996–97. [157105]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The numbers of students with home postcodes in the local authority district of Newcastle-Upon Tyne split by age, mode of attendance and funding category is contained in the table:

  Mr. Stringer
  I am pleased to confirm that the Central Government National Training Organisation completed a work force development plan for the Civil Service. The plan is called "Developing 21st Century Skills" and sets out the priority skills needs for the Civil Service and actions that will be taken to address these needs. The plan focuses on equipping Civil Servants to deliver the Modernising Government agenda. Copies of the plan have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in her Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis is for this limit. [158116]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government are committed to equality of opportunity and to increasing the diversity of
  121W
  those appointed to public bodies. In general, no age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies for which the Prime Minister or I are responsible.

  There is one exception. Candidates for appointment to the Civil Service Appeal Board must be either recently retired or about to retire from the Senior Civil Service or a recently retired (or about to retire) Civil Service Trade Union official. They are appointed for an initial period of three years with a possibility of re-appointment. This is explained in the advertisement. To ensure that board members are up to date with civil service/trade union practice and procedures, they are not allowed to serve beyond age 70. In practice, however, appointees normally complete their full period of office before reaching that age.

  It should also be noted that although there is no age limit to appointments made to the Advisory Committee on Advertising, each appointee must be "currently employed" as a media or marketing professional.

  Departmental Publications
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will instruct Departments that Internet-only publications that are no longer current should continue to be made publicly available in an archival subset of departmental websites. [158118]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Guidelines for UK Government websites are currently being revised and will in future emphasise the importance of retaining archival electronic master copies of all publications published on websites.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the meetings and conferences organised by his Department and agencies of his Department which have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed owing to foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [155361]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The information requested is not held centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times(a) the Minister for Europe and (b) other Ministers from his Department have met with Nadhmi Auchi, of General Mediterranean Holdings Ltd.; and if he will list the (i) dates and (ii) locations of all such meetings. [156873]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: Neither I nor any other Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have had any official meetings with Mr. Auchi.

  China
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the EU made an announcement of its position on a China 122W
  resolution at the 57 UN Commission for Human Rights prior to seeing the text of the resolution which the USA was drafting. [157450]

  Mr. Battle
  EU partners felt it was important to send an early and clear message to those concerned, including China and member states of the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), about the EU's approach towards the US resolution on China, and the expected Chinese no-action motion at the current UNCHR session. EU Foreign Ministers agreed a common position at the General Affairs Council on 19 March, after receiving informal briefing from the US authorities. It was agreed not to co-sponsor the US resolution on China at the UN Commission on Human Rights, but to strengthen the EU common position by actively lobbying against the expected Chinese no-action motion, for the first time since 1996.

  Visas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will provide a breakdown, by entry clearance post, of the number of family visit visa applications(a) received, (b) determined, (c) allowed and (d) refused in March; [157971]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown, by entry clearance post, of the number of family visit visa refusals in relation to which (a) an appeal was received, (b) the refusal was overturned by an entry clearance manager after receipt of an appeal and (c) an appeal was despatched in March. [157972]

  Mr. Vaz
  The information requested is not yet available. Once it is I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Kazakhstan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest assessment is of the state of human rights and democracy in Kazakhstan; and what conditions are included in EU agreements to provide for progress on these matters. [158197]

  Mr. Vaz
  Kazakhstan's human rights record since independence is mixed. In August 1998 the Government acceded to four UN Conventions: the Convention Against Torture; the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; the Convention on the Eradication of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Foreign Secretary pressed President Nazarbaev, during the latter's visit to Britain last November, for Kazakh accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and abolition of the death penalty.

  Serious problems remain. The UK, with its EU partners, has recently issued demarches to the Kazakh Government expressing concern about proposed amendments to the Law on the Mass Media and to the Law on Religion, which threaten to restrict media and religious freedoms.
  123W
  Democracy and respect for human rights underpin the EU-Kazakhstan Partnership and Co-operation Agreement (PCA) which came into effect in July 1999. Progress towards democratisation and human rights norms is regularly discussed at high-level PCA meetings between the EU and Kazakhstan. The PCA also provides for co-operation and technical assistance to aid progress in these areas.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the taking over by the EU of continuing WEU deployments. [158311]

  Mr. Vaz
  The mandate of the Western European Union's Multi-national Advisory Police Element in Albania (MAPE) will expire on 30 May. From 1 June, the European Union will assume direct responsibility for advice, training and the institution building activities of the Albanian police. This will be done through a co-operation project under the Community assistance programme for the Western Balkans.

  At the request of the Croatian authorities, the Western European Union has agreed to extend the mandate of the Western European Union's de-mining assistance mission (WEUDAM) with European Union financial support until 30 November when the mission will come to an end.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future role of(a) the WEU Satellite Centre and (b) the Institute for Security Studies, under the CFSP. [158310]

  Mr. Vaz
  Following earlier statements at the Cologne European Council, Ministers agreed in principle at the Nice European Council to incorporate the relevant functions of the Western European Union's Satellite Centre and Institute of Security Studies into the European Union by January 2002.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the consultations with Russia on security and defence issues, raised in section (2)(vi) of the Nice Presidency report on the European Security and Defence Policy. [158313]

  Mr. Vaz
  EU Heads of Government discussed the European Security and Defence Policy with President Putin at the Stockholm European Council. Senior officials of EU member states have also discussed ESDP with Russia in preparation for the EU/Russia summit on 17 May 2001.

  Chagos Islanders
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to receive the report on the feasibility study of allowing the Chagos islanders to return; and if he will make a statement. [158650]
  124W
  Mr. Battle
  In accordance with the recommendations for further study in the preliminary report Phase 2A, the procurement and installation of measuring equipment on the islands is now complete and the collection of data has begun. At least six months of data are required before the next phase, 2B, can start. A project manager for Phase 2B has been appointed and terms of reference are currently being drawn up. We hope to have let the tender for this phase within 5–6 months. It is too early to say when the report will be ready but we would expect Phase 2 to take about one year. Phase 3 studies will depend on the findings of Phase 2.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what payments have been made by the USA for the use of Diego Garcia in each year since 1971. [158651]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1077W.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many personnel are employed by the British Indian Ocean Territories administration in(a) the UK and (b) the Territories; and how many are posted on Diego Garcia in each category. [158652]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 403W.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the USA concerning the future resettlement of Diego Garcia by the Chagos islanders since the 2000 court judgment on the right of return. [158649]

  Mr. Battle
  In our regular meetings with US officials they have made no formal representations to us but in our discussions with them about the implications of the court judgment. They have stressed the importance they attach, as we do, to the relevant treaty obligations.

  British Indian Ocean Territories
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) capital and (b) revenue expenditure for each of the past 10 years on the British Indian Ocean Territories. [158654]

  Mr. Battle
  We do not yet have the figures for the financial year 2000–01. The approximate figures for(a) Capital and (b) Recurrent expenditure for the previous six financial years are as follows. For the years prior to that the information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  £

  Financial Year

  (a)

  (b)

  1999–2000

  42,000

  1,850,000

  1998–99

  0

  1,325,000

  1997–98

  33,000

  1,530,000

  1996–97

  22,000

  1,225,000

  1995–96

  49,000

  1,391,000

  1994–95

  49,000

  825,000

  Lockerbie Trial
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official reports he has received from UN observers about the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist; and if he will make a statement. [158132]

  Mr. Battle
  There were no UN observers at the Lockerbie trial. There were several international observers, representing five organisations, nominated by the Secretary-General. We understand that one of these observers has written a report in a private capacity. The Registrar of the Lockerbie trial was sent a copy of the report and has made the report available to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Embassy Representation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance was provided by the Embassy for the First Minister for Scotland during his recent visit to Washington; and what advice the First Minister received from the UK Ambassador about representation of UK regions in the embassy. [158133]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The British Embassy in Washington provided the First Minister for Scotland with the usual assistance they would offer to visiting Ministers. They provided a full programme of calls and the First Minister was accompanied during his visit which included a call on the White House.

  The Ambassador and the First Minister discussed the possibility of a secondment of a Scottish Executive official to the Embassy. Additionally, the embassy has been in touch with each of the devolved administrations about their representational activity in the United States.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on providing representation in the Embassy in(a) Washington and (b) Tripoli for constituent parts of the United Kingdom. [158134]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  In respect of Washington, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to his previous question. Embassy staff in staff in all our posts overseas continue to represent all the constituent parts of the UK.

  Moluccas
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what communications he has had with the Indonesian authorities concerning the situation of Christians in the Moluccas; [158484]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the situation of Christians in the Moluccas; [158483]

  (3) what measures he has taken to end violence in the Moluccas. [158485]

  Mr. Battle
  We have been and continue to be very concerned about events in Indonesia, and especially in Maluku. The second anniversary on 19 January of the outbreak of intercommunal unrest was marked by renewed violence in Ambon: at least 14 people died in clashes between Muslims and the security forces. This illustrated the fragility of the situation in Ambon at a time 126W
  when there had been some recent improvements; the Muslim and Christian holidays in December passed without serious incident.

  Both the Secretary of State for International Development and I visited Indonesia in October 2000 and discussed the situation in Maluku with President Wahid and senior Ministers. We urged tolerance and restraint and made clear to them the Indonesian Government's responsibility to maintain law and order and take immediate steps to bring the perpetrators of the violence to justice. I also discussed events with Alwi Shihab, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, in the margins of the EU-ASEAN meeting in Vientiane on 12 December. I further discussed the situation in Indonesia with the Indonesian Ambassador in London on 4 April.

  Our Ambassador to Indonesia has visited the Moluccas twice this year. The visits provided an opportunity to assess the situation at first hand. Together with other international partners, we are working with the Indonesian authorities and UNDP to promote reconciliation and begin wider reconstruction work.

  We welcome the commitment of the Indonesian Government to resolve the country's regional conflicts through dialogue and reconciliation. The challenge for Indonesia is to build on the foundations laid by the recent democratic process and to deliver human rights that benefit everybody. We will play a full part in helping towards that goal.

  Sudan
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to promote human rights in the Sudan. [158487]

  Mr. Wilson
  We remain concerned about the human rights of all in Sudan and we regularly urge all sides in the civil war to respect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. We make representations about our human rights concerns to the Government of Sudan, both bilaterally and with our EU colleagues through the EU/Sudan critical dialogue. The dialogue provides a forum for strong criticism of the Sudanese Government, and allows for a co-ordinated EU assessment of the human rights situation.

  We also work with our EU colleagues in the UN fora to keep our concerns on the international agenda. For example, the EU recently sponsored a UN General Assembly human rights resolution on Sudan and we are currently working on a similar text at the UN Commission on Human Rights.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning violence in the Sudan. [158486]

  Mr. Wilson
  We receive numerous representations from members of the public, NGOs, and Members of Parliament, demonstrating the immense strength of feeling about the situation in Sudan. Indeed, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary recently received a petition organised by the Sudanese-British Human Rights Forum containing 18,000 signatures.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Vacancies
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies there were for police officers in the Devon and Cornwall constabulary in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [155738]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information has been provided by the Chief Constable and is set out in the table. It compares the actual number of officers in post with the police authority's budgeted provision. The number of funded police posts has not been increased due to civilianisation of support posts that were previously filled by police officers. Between December 1992 and 31 January 2001 civilian support staff numbers in Devon and Cornwall Constabulary have increased by 380 to 1,428.

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  Year

  Number of funded police posts

  Actual number of police officers1

  Vacancies

  December

  1992

  2,928

  2,915

  13

  March 1997

  2,929

  2,865

  64

  January 2001

  2,928

  2,927

  1

  1 Before 1 April 1995 police numbers were counted on head basis. Since April 1995 they have been counted on a full-time equivalent basis.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies for policemen and policewomen there were in Hampshire in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [157821]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information for the years in question is set out in the table. The data for 1992 are taken from Home Office records. Following the abolition of

  Police recruits beginning residential training

  Region

  Force

  Recruits starting residential training 1999–2000

  Recruits starting residential training 2000–01

  Change (Number)

  Change (Percentage)

  East Midlands Region

  253

  530

  277

  109.5

  Derbyshire

  59

  100

  41

  69.5

  Leicestershire

  83

  107

  24

  28.9

  Lincolnshire

  24

  115

  91

  379.2

  Northamptonshire

  16

  75

  59

  368.8

  Nottinghamshire

  71

  133

  62

  87.3

  Eastern Region

  318

  628

  310

  97.5

  Bedfordshire

  33

  74

  41

  124.2

  Cambridgeshire

  24

  126

  102

  425.0

  Essex

  68

  180

  112

  164.7

  Hertfordshire

  148

  110

  -38

  -25.7

  Norfolk

  30

  82

  52

  173.3

  Suffolk

  15

  56

  41

  273.3

  London

  988

  1,281

  293

  29.7

  City of London

  0

  28

  28

  N/A

  Metropolitan police

  988

  1,253

  265

  26.8

  North East Region

  193

  377

  184

  95.3

  Cleveland

  43

  79

  36

  83.7

  Durham

  45

  76

  31

  68.9

  Northumbria

  105

  222

  117

  111.4

  North West Region

  441

  825

  384

  87.1

  Cheshire

  23

  80

  57

  247.8

  Cumbria

  19

  30

  11

  57.9

  GMP

  273

  386

  113

  41.4

  Lancashire

  87

  164

  77

  88.5

  Merseyside

  39

  165

  126

  323.1

  128W
  police establishments in 1995, it became a matter for police authorities and chief constables to decide on police numbers. For 1997 and 2001 the information on vacancies has been provided by the Chief Constable.

  Between 31 March 1992 and 31 January 2001 civilian support staff numbers in Hampshire Constabulary increased 352 to 1,404 (88 of the increase has been since March 1997).

  Hampshire Constabulary

  Year

  Budgeted police strength1

  Actual strength1

  Vacancies

  31 March 1992

  3,202

  3,206

  0 (+4)

  31 March 1997

  3,486

  3,452

  34

  31 January 2001

  23,573

  3,451

  122

  1 Before 1 April 1995 police numbers were counted on head basis. Since April 1995 they have been counted on a full-time equivalent basis.

  2 The Budgeted police strength figure for January 2001 includes Crime Fighting Fund posts (82 posts).

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officer recruits in England and Wales began residential training during(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and if he will provide figures for each police force area. [156870]

  Mr. Straw
  Figures provided by National Police Training (NPT) and by the Metropolitan police record that 3,963 new recruits began residential training during 1999–2000 and 7,009 new recruits began residential training during 2000–01, an increase of 76.9 per cent.

  The table provides a breakdown by police force, by region.
  129W

  Police recruits beginning residential training

  Region

  Force

  Recruits starting residential training 1999–2000

  Recruits starting residential training 2000–01

  Change (Number)

  Change (Percentage)

  South East Region

  718

  1,080

  362

  50.4

  Hampshire

  119

  178

  59

  49.6

  Kent

  152

  262

  110

  72.4

  Surrey

  181

  231

  50

  27.6

  Sussex

  85

  180

  95

  111.8

  Thames Valley

  181

  229

  48

  26.5

  South West Region

  293

  529

  236

  80.5

  Avon and Somerset

  87

  146

  59

  67.8

  Devon and Cornwall

  70

  170

  100

  142.9

  Dorset

  61

  81

  20

  32.8

  Gloucestershire

  57

  73

  16

  28.1

  Wiltshire

  18

  59

  41

  227.8

  Wales

  266

  456

  190

  71.4

  Dyfed-Powys

  35

  58

  23

  65.7

  Gwent

  58

  64

  6

  10.3

  North Wales

  57

  91

  34

  59.6

  South Wales

  116

  243

  127

  109.5

  West Midlands Region

  298

  780

  482

  161.7

  Staffordshire

  18

  59

  41

  227.8

  Warwickshire

  37

  85

  48

  129.7

  West Mercia

  7

  89

  82

  1,171.4

  West Midlands

  236

  547

  311

  131.8

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  195

  523

  328

  168.2

  Humberside

  40

  95

  55

  137.5

  North Yorkshire

  9

  61

  52

  577.8

  South Yorkshire

  85

  161

  76

  89.4

  West Yorkshire

  61

  206

  145

  237.7

  Total

  All Forces

  3,963

  7,009

  3,046

  76.9

  The Prince's Trust
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to involve the Prince's Trust in working with young offenders in custody. [158183]

  Mr. Boateng
  In addition to existing work with the Prince's Trust in several young offender institutions, I am pleased to announce a new joint initiative, running for 12 months between the Prison Service and the Prince's Trust.

  We plan to run the Trust's Volunteers programme for young adult offenders in six prisons—Chelmsford, Gloucester, Leeds, Liverpool, New Hall, Norwich and at Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution, Reading.

  The purpose of the Volunteers programme is to assist in the personal development of young people. The aim of this initiative is to replicate the scheme's current record, as assessed by the Trust, of moving 70 per cent. of unemployed participants on the programme into full-time employment, training or education within three months of completing the programme for this challenging group of young people.

  Voting Procedures
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to inform blind and visually impaired people of the new procedures to assist independent voting for blind and partially sighted people. [158072]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I was joined on 22 March by the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) representatives to launch publicly the availability of the 130W
  voting device and the large print display ballot paper at polling stations. The device was featured on the BBC Radio 4 "In Touch" programme on 3 and 10 April, including an interview I gave on the subject.

  The braille and audio tape versions of a leaflet on postal voting, "Make your voice heard", also contain information about the new voting procedures at polling stations for blind and partially sighted voters.

  Electoral administrators have been encouraged to make contact with local organisations representing the visually impaired to organise demonstrations of the voting device. The RNIB has been closely involved in the development of the device and has assisted in publicising the new voting procedures.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the full-time equivalent number of officers was who(a) transferred out of Metropolitan police and (b) were seconded to other forces as a result of the major boundary changes in 2000; and if he will provide a figure for the number of officers in the Metropolitan police, taking the changes into account, immediately prior to the boundary change which is comparable with subsequent equivalent figures. [157779]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that between 1 January 1999 and 6 April 2001, 108 officers transferred to the Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey forces.
  131W
  I am also told by the Commissioner that 466 police officers were seconded to the forces of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey when the boundary change took effect on 1 April 2000. These officers will return to the Metropolitan police over the following two years as and when replacements are recruited by the three county forces.

  The effects of the boundary change were incorporated into the police funding formula and the overall transfer was in terms of financial resources, not of officers. Where data on police numbers are used in the formula, a notional transfer of 887 from the Metropolitan police to the three county forces was applied. Because it is for police authorities and Chief Constables to decide how resources are utilised, it is not appropriate to convert the notional transfer directly into a full-time equivalent strength for the Metropolitan police immediately prior to the boundary changes.

  Between 31 March and 30 September 2000, the strength of the Metropolitan police fell by 790, to 24,695. This will have been due to a combination of boundary change resources and the temporary secondments to Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. By 31 January 2001, the numbers of officers in the Metropolitan police had risen to 24,861, 166 more than on 30 September 2000.

  Illegal Trafficking (Prostitution)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to prevent the trafficking of women and girls in to the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation and prostitution; and what action is being taken at international level to combat such exploitation. [157527]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The Sex Offences Review recommended to Government in "Setting the Boundaries" that there should be a specific new offence of trafficking for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation for reward. The Government are considering that recommendation in the light of the responses to the report. The Home Office is also co-ordinating a wide range of work by various Government Departments in relation to establishing trafficking offences. These measures support and supplement work being done internationally both in the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN). The United Kingdom has already signed the UN Protocol on Trafficking in Persons, especially women and children; and is taking part in discussions within the EU on proposals to establish common offences and penalties in relation to preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, paying particular attention to the sexual exploitation of women and children.

  The EU funded STOP programme exists to encourage, support and reinforce practical co-operation to tackle trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation in children. The International Organisation for Migration, of which the United Kingdom is a full member, is also engaged on work in this field.

  Apart from prosecution for other offences, traffickers who attempt to facilitate the illegal entry of their victims may be prosecuted for the offence of facilitation which now carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
  132W
  Alternatively, or in addition, such traffickers who are also foreign nationals may also be refused leave to enter the United Kingdom.

  Apart from prosecuting traffickers, the National Crime Squad, National Criminal Intelligence Service, Immigration Service, Police and Europol are all actively involved in the gathering and dissemination of intelligence on trafficking and people smuggling. This work has been co-ordinated through a multi-agency taskforce entitled Project Reflex. The establishment of a network of Immigration Liaison Officers at strategic locations will further facilitate the exchange of information. The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his reply to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) on 5 April 2001, Official Report, column 256W, of an additional £90 million over three years to combat organised crime includes an additional £22.5 million in support of Project Reflex. This new money will enable further work to be carried out to combat trafficking and people smuggling, including the establishment of a joint team drawn from the National Crime Squad and Immigration Service. The EU is working closely together, drawing upon existing co-operation, to tackle the criminals responsible for this horrific trade.

  Departmental Policies (Cannock Chase)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Cannock Chase constituency, the effects on Cannock Chase of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158067]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Home Office Annual Report 2000–2001", is available in the Library.

  Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Cannock Chase constituency or the immediate locality:

  Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI)

  Under round one of the RBI Staffordshire Police were awarded £529,000 for a project to deal with prolific offenders in Staffordshire.
  133W
  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Cannock district council received approximately £488,000 for two schemes submitted under round one of the CCTV initiative. The Benion Road Estate scheme was awarded £322,000 for a 13 camera system covering a housing estate that suffers from incidents of burglary, violence against the person and anti-social behaviour. Hednesford Town Centre Car Parks was awarded £165,000 for a scheme covering the main shopping street, four car parks, the bus station and Hednesford railway station.

  Cannock Chase council have two schemes to a capital value of £211,000 shortlisted for further consideration under round two of the CCTV initiative.

  Youth Offending

  The Youth Justice Board are contributing approximately £55,000 to a Bail Supervision Scheme being run in Staffordshire which covers the Cannock Chase area. The main objectives of this scheme are: to identify and target prior to court those young people who are at risk of being remanded to custody or secure accommodation; to present programmes to the court at first and subsequent appearances, for alternative options to secure remand for young people.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Cannock Chase to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,690 by the end of February 2001; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.
  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Jay Abatan
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the Essex police review's finding about the Sussex police's decision that the fatal assault on Jay Abatan was not racially motivated; [157145]

  (2) following the conclusions of the review by Essex police into the investigation by Sussex police following the death of Jay Abatan, if he will (a) write again to Bindman and Partners Solicitors and (b) reconsider the request by the family of Jay Abatan for a meeting to discuss their concerns. [157144]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Essex police conducted a review of the initial criminal investigation by Sussex police, which considered their treatment of the possibility that the assault on Jay Abatan was racially motivated. Although the Essex review did raise a number of concerns with regard to lessons which could be learnt from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, it does not specifically criticise Sussex police for not treating the assault on Jay Abatan as racially motivated.
  134W
  In the light of the findings of the Essex review, Sussex police have now asked Avon and Somerset constabulary to undertake a further Inquiry to establish whether any disciplinary offences have been committed. Sussex police voluntarily referred this Inquiry to the Police Complaints Authority for supervision in December 2000. The terms of reference are: to investigate the handling by Sussex police of the assault on Jay Abatan on 24 January 1999 which led to his death on 29 January 1999 with specific reference to:
  the initial response by Sussex on the night of the assault;
  the management of the scene of crime and associated forensic issues;
  family liaison;
  the conduct and management of the inquiry;
  the investigation of the lines of inquiry;
  the racist aspects of the attack;
  the reviews of the inquiry;
  other matters arising from the investigation;
  any other specific complaints subsequently made by or on behalf of Jay Abatan's family.
  As this Inquiry is still on-going, I do not believe that it would be appropriate or helpful for me to comment further or meet with the family of Jay Abatan at this stage.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total gross running costs were to his Department in the 12 months ending
  30 April 1997 of(a) stationery and (b) printing and publishing. [157620]

  Mr. Straw
  The total gross running costs to my Department in the 12 months ending 30 April 1997 were(a) £2,449,710 for stationery and (b) £1,614,168 for printing and publishing.

  Consultancy Payments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total gross running cost to his Department was of fees and disbursements paid to consultants in the 12 months ending 30 April 1997. [157618]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. In order to provide the hon. Member with as full an answer as possible the combined total running costs of fees and disbursements to my Department paid to consultants in the 12 months ending 31 March 1997 amounted to £11,804,984 (exclusive of VAT).

  Departmental Travel Costs
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's total gross running costs were for travel, including fares, subsistence, accommodation and other expenses met from public funds, but excluding such cost for journeys and stays exclusively within the United Kingdom, in the(a) three years ending 30 April 1997 and (b) 12 months ending 30 April 1997. [157622]
  135W
  Mr. Straw
  Information regarding expenses met from public funds for periods prior to April 1996 is not readily available. The amount met from public funds for the 12-month period ended 30 April 1997 was £2,602,103.29.

  Departmental Policies (Tiverton and Honiton)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, the effects on Tiverton and Honiton of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157809]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Home Office Annual Report 2000–01", is available in the Library.

  Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Tiverton and Honiton constituency or the immediate locality:

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  Under round two of the Targeted Policing Initiative Devon and Cornwall Constabulary have been awarded £81,000 for a project in the East Devon area. The project aims to focus on offender targeting for anti-social behaviour. This involves employment of a researcher/co-ordinator who would utilise existing Information Technology (IT) and resources to identify prolific criminals to be tackled by a "joined up" targeted approach.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Mid-Devon district council were awarded £18,000 under round two of the CCTV initiative for a six-camera system covering Cullompton Town Centre.

  Youth Offending

  The Youth Justice Board (YJB) are contributing funding towards four intervention Schemes and one Bail Supervision Scheme in Devon that cover Tiverton and Honiton. The Parenting Skills Project is receiving approximately £43,000. The project aims to contribute to the prevention of offending by young people, by providing a range of up to 120 parental support packages annually. The Devon Mentoring Project aims to provide a swift intervention to young offenders so that they confront the consequences of their offence as close as possible to its commission. This project is receiving £52,000 from the YJB. The YJB are providing £52,000 towards the Devon Making Amends Project. The
  136W
  objectives of this project are to prevent offending by providing various opportunities for young offenders to confront the consequences of their offending. £151,000 is being funded towards the Devon Intensive Supervision and Support Programme. This aims to develop life-skills and cognitive behavioural programme to help young offenders to survive independently within the community and to develop self awareness of the consequences of their offending on themselves, their victims and the wider community.

  Approximately £75,000 is being contributed towards a Bail Support Scheme. This project aims to reduce re-offending among high risk/level offenders who are on bail or remand to courts.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Tiverton and Honiton to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,690 by the end of February 2001; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.
  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Departmental Policies (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ribble Valley constituency, the effects on Ribble Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157845]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Home Office Annual Report 2000–2001", is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. 'Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000' and 'Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000' can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are some examples relating to the Ribble Valley constituency or the immediate locality:

  Youth Offending

  One Intervention Scheme and one Bail Supervision Scheme are being funded by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in Lancashire that includes coverage of the Ribble Valley. The Lancashire Restorative Justice Project has

  137W
  been awarded a contribution of approximately £37,000. Youth Justice Mediation is a victim/offender mediation service provided by Blackpool borough and Lancashire county council's Youth Offending Teams who are working together to offer this service to children and young persons who offend and their victims and young offenders with the opportunity to communicate with one another in a safe environment in order that the offender may make amends for their inappropriate behaviour and assist the victim to come to terms with the harm they have suffered.

  The Bail Support Scheme has been awarded £191,000 and the main objectives are to provide a practical alternative to magistrates' courts for remands to custody, secure accommodation remands to local authority accommodation.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Ribble Valley to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,690 by the end of February 2001; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

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

  Burglary
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has assessed on the effect of mandatory prison sentences for burglary on the incidence of burglary. [157761]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is, as yet, too soon to evaluate the impact of section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (previously section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997), which introduced mandatory minimum sentences for repeat burglars. The effects of the provisions, which were brought into force in December 1999, will take some time to be felt because section 111 applies only when all three offences are committed after implementation and one of the two previous offences is committed after the offender has been convicted of the other.

  An evaluation is, however, planned and will take place in two main stages. The first stage will take place in 2003–04 and will be an evaluation of the costs and benefits of the measure across the criminal justice system, including changes in the incidence of burglary. By then, there should be enough evidence to form a more soundly based view of its effects.

  The final evaluation is planned for 2010 when the full effects should have worked their way through.

  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mandatory sentences for burglary have been passed each year since such sentences were first introduced; what proportion of all sentences for 138W
  burglary mandatory sentences represent in each of those years; and how many burglaries were reported to the police in each of those years. [157762]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (as re-enacted by the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000) which came into effect on 1 December 1999, a mandatory prison sentence of three years' minimum duration was introduced for third-time domestic burglary offenders.

  The Home Office's Court Proceedings Databases for 1999 and for 2000 (which are provisional) show that no such sentences have yet been recorded.

  An offender would have to be apprehended, prosecuted and convicted on three separate occasions since 1 December 1999 to be subject to the mandatory sentence. Such action is likely to take some time to get to court.

  There were 442,600 offences of domestic burglary recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1999–2000 and 16,800 persons were sentenced for this offence in 1999.

  Ground Control Technologies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 68W, what advice was given to the DSAC on (a) the social impact of the use of plastic baton rounds and (b) the views of victims' organisations. [158045]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None. The Defence Scientific Advisory Council considered the scientific and technological issues in relation to this equipment.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 68W, how many police forces and other bodies are to be equipped with the L21A1 plastic baton round; what his estimate is of the cost of re-equipping each force; how many L21A1 baton rounds have been ordered in each force and at what cost; how many L104 anti-riot guns have been ordered and at what cost; how many XL18E3 optical sight mechanisms have been ordered for each force and at what cost; and what is his estimate of the cost of retraining each unit to be equipped with new equipment. [158037]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Twenty-four police forces in England and Wales presently have baton guns. No additional baton guns have been ordered, but new sights to adapt the weapons which already exist have been ordered. Those forces which have the weapon will have already been training in its use and no additional training costs are known to have arisen as a result of the new equipment.

  I wish to consider further, in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, whether information on the holdings of individual forces can be released without prejudicing operational effectiveness.

  Lewes Prison
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent report by the Board of Visitors into conditions at Lewes Prison. [158340]
  139W
  Mr. Boateng
  This report is currently under consideration and I will be replying shortly to all the issues raised by the Board. When I have done so, I will ensure that a copy of my reply is placed in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers in 2000(a) left voluntarily and (b) were involuntarily deported. [158272]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of failed asylum seekers who were removed in 2000 was 8,980. This figure includes 550 people who left under the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme (VARP). It also includes people who left voluntarily in accordance with arrangements notified to the Immigration Service following the commencement of enforcement action. It is not possible to quantify the latter group. However, with the exception of those leaving under VARP, all recorded removals are enforced to some extent, either by escorting to the final point of destination or by the Immigration Service arranging or monitoring the departure. Information is not available on people who leave voluntarily without informing the Immigration Service.

  Football Policing
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what income police authorities in England received from premier league football clubs in 1999–2000. [158273]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not available.

  The decision whether to charge for costs of policing at local events is for the local police authority and the Chief Constable. Under Section 25 (1) of the Police Act 1996
  "the Chief Officer of Police may provide, at the request of any person, special police services at any premises or in any locality in the police area for which the force is maintained, subject to the payment to the police authority of charges on such scales as may be determined by that authority".
  Home Office guidance is that where police charge for special services arrangements should be made for full recovery of costs. This should include the total cost of a police officer including pay, overtime, national insurance, notional pension charges, rent allowance, compensatory grant, uniform, administration costs, and overheads such as costs of travel to and from the ground etc. This is reflected in the Audit Commission report "Taking care of the coppers" (November 1990) which sets out methodology for charging.

  Prison Inspections
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to ensure that the recommendations for reforming conditions at the Stoke Heath Young Offenders' Institution made by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons following his visit to Stoke Heath last October are fully and promptly carried out; and if he will ensure that frequent, irregular spot checks without prior warning are carried out in future. [158374]

  Mr. Boateng
  A new Governor and Deputy have been appointed and an action plan addressing all the recommendations is required to be produced within 140W
  30 working days of publication. This is monitored by line management with progress reports to Ministers nine and 15 months after publication.

  In the 2000–01 financial year, the Area Manager made 16 visits to the establishment; Area Managers are normally expected to make eight visits per year to each establishment. There is clear evidence of improvement in regime delivery and management under the new Governor and Deputy. The Area Manager is satisfied that his normal visiting arrangements, which may include unannounced visits, will now be sufficient to monitor the implementation of the action plan.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to ensure that the safety and proper treatment of young offenders and adult prisoners are not entrusted to the former governor and deputy governor of the Stoke Heath Young Offenders' Institution in Shropshire. [158373]

  Mr. Boateng
  The former Governor of Stoke Heath young offender institution has retired from the Prison Service. There is no evidence that the former Deputy Governor is not capable of performing an operational role under the supervision of a suitable governing Governor.

  Election Mailshots
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the amount necessary to be made available to the Post Office to cover the delivery of post-free election material in 2001. [158216]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  If there is a general election in 2001, we estimate that the delivery costs of candidates' election mailings for that election will amount to around £17.6 million at current rates, though this is dependent on the number of candidates taking advantage of this entitlement. If there were by-elections, the costs would depend on their number and the number of candidates participating.

  Test Purchasing
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussion he has had with other Government Departments on the use of children of compulsory school age in undertaking test purchasing on behalf of local authority trading standards departments during school hours; and if he will make a statement; [158493]

  (2) what advice his Department issues on the use of children of compulsory school age in undertaking test purchases on behalf of local authority trading standards departments during school hours; and if he will make a statement. [158495]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Home Office Circular 17/1992 on the provisions of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 included guidance on the use of children to make test purchases. A copy of the Circular is in the Library. We are aware that the Association of London Chief Trading Standards Officers subsequently published a code of practice for use in the London area, covering the enforcement of legislation concerning the sale of age-restricted goods which drew on the guidance in the Circular. The Home Office has not
  141W
  subsequently had discussions with other Departments with a view to issuing further guidance. It is, however, our intention to do so, and to consult the Local Government Association, in relation to the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, once enacted, which authorise the test purchasing of alcohol.

  Departmental Policies (Plymouth)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency and (c) South-West Devon constituency, the effects on the Plymouth unitary authority area of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158030]

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

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Plymouth unitary authority area or the immediate locality:

  Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI)

  Under round one of the RBI Devon and Cornwall constabulary in partnership with Plymouth city council have been awarded approximately £171,000 for projects focusing on Houses of Multiple Occupancy in the seven central wards in Plymouth. Interventions include: analysis of burglary patterns and methods of entries relating to multiple occupancy dwellings; improving the standards of security in city-centre and university multiple occupancy dwellings; provide security publicity and advice, and through establishing a Certificate of Home Security and an accompanying inspections regime (through training existing property inspectors). It will encourage the formation of neighbourhood watch schemes among residents in multiple occupancy dwellings and identify and target vulnerable properties through the existing Homesafe target hardening scheme.

  Under round two, £70,000 has been awarded to various areas. The main interventions proposed in these areas are target hardening, education and improved detection methodology in an area covering 20 high-crime streets.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Plymouth city council was awarded approximately £114,000 for a scheme to upgrade existing equipment covering the car parks and surrounding areas of Derriford
  142W
  Hospital. Plymouth city council have two bids to a total capital of almost £855,000 shortlisted for further consideration under round two of the CCTV initiative.

  Youth Offending

  The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is currently funding several schemes to tackle youth offending that cover the Plymouth area. The YJB are currently providing funding for five Intervention Schemes, one Bail Supervision scheme, a Youth Inclusion project and Easter and Summer Splash schemes. The Easter and Summer Splash schemes aim to address offending by young people (especially 13 to 17-year-olds) during school holiday periods. The results have been extremely encouraging. The five areas traditionally associated with youth crime—burglary, motor crime, criminal damage, street robbery and juvenile nuisance all showed significant reductions compared with the corresponding period in the previous year. In the Plymouth area, the Barne Barton and Honicknowle areas have been involved in this scheme.

  The Youth Inclusion programme seeks to reduce offending, truancy and exclusion on disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The project aims to do this by providing targeted assistance and support to the 13 to 16-year-olds most at risk of offending, truancy or exclusion. The Barne Barton neighbourhood has received £68,500 from the YJB for each year the programme is fully operational. A further £6,500 per project is paid direct to local evaluators. In return the project must match this grant funding with minimum local (partnership) funding in cash or in-kind of £75,000 per full year.

  There are five Intervention Schemes being run in the Plymouth area. The FIVE Project (Education, Training and Employment) is a partnership of the Prince's Trust with the Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) and local education authorities in five cities of England and Wales. It works with young offenders and those at risk of offending, aged 14–17, through the provision of two Prince's Trust programmes. These mentoring and education programmes can be used in support of Final Warnings to young offenders. The YJB have contributed approximately £340,000 to this scheme. The YJB are also contributing almost £248,000 to Plymouth Community Justice Project. This restorative justice project includes Family Group Conferencing, Victim Offender Mediation, direct and indirect reparation to the community where possible. The project will involve young people at all stages of the Criminal Justice System (Final Warning, Action Plan Orders, Supervision Order, Detention and Training Orders).

  Plymouth Community Justice Project—Mentoring is aimed at Persistent Young Offenders and those on Bail Support programmes, together with other young offenders at risk of further offending or harmful behaviour. The objectives of this project include reducing offending, reducing the risk of offending, increasing the numbers on bail attending court and not offending while on bail, demonstrating an improvement in the young person's self esteem/confidence and contributing to the target Behaviour Support Plan to reduce school exclusions. The YJB are contributing £176,000 to this project.

  Plymouth Community Justice Project—Education and Employment Inclusion Programme is receiving £78,000 from the YJB. This targets a wide group of young people, particularly those excluded or at risk of exclusion. The

  143W
  project seeks to address young people who fall outside of the employment and benefits system. Links have been developed with other appropriate services and also with those professionals responsible for Looked After Children to ensure they access the service. CARA (Children and Adolescent Risk Assessment) is a project providing assessment and basic therapeutic interventions for those children and young people who have committed offences of a sexual nature or who are considered to be at risk of doing so with the objective of preventing further offences. This project has been awarded approximately £104,000 by the YJB.

  The YJB are contributing approximately £134,000 to a Bail Support Scheme in the Plymouth area. This scheme aims to reduce re-offending by 10 per cent., to reduce remands in custody by 10 per cent. and to reduce secure remands by 10 per cent.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of the Plymouth unitary authority area to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,690 by the end of February 2001; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.
  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Deputy Lieutenants
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what criteria are used to ensure propriety in appointments; [158363]

  (2) what powers he has to ensure that appointments of deputy lords lieutenant are not subject to political bias. [158362]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Lieutenancies Act 1997 requires the lord lieutenant of a county or area to notify to Her Majesty the name of any person whom he proposes to appoint as a deputy lieutenant. A commission as deputy lieutenant is not granted to that person until the lord lieutenant has been informed by the Secretary of State that Her Majesty does not disapprove of the granting of the commission. Appointments are not based on political affiliation, but on place of residence and service to the community. Lords lieutenant are advised to stand aloof from politics in their counties.

  Assuming the second question relates to this issue, appointments are made on merit to satisfy these criteria.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deputy lieutenants there are in Lancashire; to what extent they are representative of all parts of Lancashire; if they are all members of one political party; how many are Lancastrians by birth; and what steps he is taking to reform the system of appointing deputy lords lieutenant. [158365]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are 41 lieutenants in Lancashire. They come from all parts of the county. The deputy lieutenants of a county or area are appointed by 144W
  the lord lieutenant, subject to the Queen not disapproving of the granting of the commission. When considering the appointment of deputy lieutenants, the lord lieutenant looks at the geographical spread, to ensure that all parts of the county are represented. No information about the political affiliation of deputy lieutenants is held, though appointments are based not on political affiliation but on place of residence and service to the community. Information about how many of the county's deputy lieutenants are Lancastrians by birth is not held. Lords lieutenant are specifically advised that within each county or area, deputy lieutenants should be widely representative of its life in social range, gender, ethnic mix and service to the community.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what measures he judges the success or failure of his policies on the use of illegal drugs. [158221]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  For the first time Departments and agencies nationally and locally have been brought together to work in partnership towards joint performance targets. The Home Office has been at the fore of the 10-year strategy launched in May 1998 to break the link between drugs and crime. The strategy was underpinned with an additional £217 million over three years for anti-drugs activity from the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review. This is in addition to the £1.4 billion spent annually on anti-drug work. The targets for the 10-year strategy as set out in "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain" are:halving the numbers of young people using illegal drugs, especially heroin and cocaine;
  halving the levels of re-offending by drug misusing offenders to protect our communities from drug-related anti-social and criminal behaviour;
  doubling the numbers of drug misusers in treatment; and
  halving the availability of drugs, especially heroin and cocaine, on our streets.

  The Government's anti-drugs strategy clearly recognises that law enforcement continues to be vital in tackling the drugs problem in the United Kingdom. The police service at all levels will continue to concentrate on targeting drug dealers and traffickers and bringing them to justice. There is a particular emphasis on Class A drugs, as these cause the greatest harm. The strategy encourages the police to work with other agencies to disrupt local drug markets and to force drug dealers off our streets, thereby reducing the harm to our communities and the exposure of young people to drugs. The strategy builds on the existing work by the police with the aim of reducing levels of street dealing and the availability of drugs in communities.

  The Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO), a community sentence aimed at serious drug misusing offenders, has been available to courts in England and Wales since 1 October 2000. Its main aim is to get offenders to stop re-offending, with the longer-term aim of getting them off drugs for good. The decision was made to roll-out the DTTO in the light of an independent evaluation of three pilot schemes which found that on average there were significant reductions in the spending on illegal drugs and number of crimes committed by

  145W
  offenders subject to DTTOs. A reconviction study will be undertaken in due course to establish the longer-term impact of the order.

  The Government are well on the way to ensuring that all police forces in England and Wales have Arrest Referral Schemes in place to help drug-misusing arrestees to access the treatment they need ahead of our 2002 target. While it is too early to properly measure the success of this scheme, initial feedback from October to December 2000 suggests that half of arrestees seen by arrest referral workers had not accessed treatment previously, which suggests a positive impact on crime.

  In the Prison Service, in the short term we look at measures such as the random mandatory drug testing (MDT) rate or the take up of drug treatment. Both show extremely encouraging results with the random MDT rate falling from 20.8 per cent. in 1997–98 to a projected figure of 12.5 per cent. in 2000–01. We expect over 37,000 CARATs (Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare services, the new drug package of treatment services) assessments to have been completed in 2000–01. In the long term, the Prison Service is establishing independent research to measure the effectiveness of its drug strategy in reducing both drug misuse and reoffending rates.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes dated 22 March regarding Ms Olga Maiboroda's application to his Department, made on 20 January; for what reasons the completion of her passport application has been delayed; and if he will explain the loss of her papers. [158282]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 20 April 2001.

  Prison Governors
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer on 14 February 2001,Official Report, column 176W, on prison governors, when he will write to the hon. Member for Wellingborough concerning changes of governor in prison establishments in the last five years. [158745]

  Mr. Boateng
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 20 April 2001.

  Lord Birt
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which sections of "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead", Cm 5074, Lord Birt contributed in his capacity as an adviser on crime; and if he will make a statement. [158241]

  Mr. Straw
  Lord Birt's advice spanned the full range of issues tackled in "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead".

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) to which Government policies on crime Lord Birt has contributed personally; [158350]

  (2) if Lord Birt continues in his role as a Government adviser on crime; what the duration of his appointment is; and if he will make a statement; [158243]
  146W
  (3) pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2001, Official Report, column 206W, on Lord Birt, what firm conclusions have emerged from Lord Birt's work; and how they have been reported to the House. [158271]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Taunton (Ms Ballard) on 27 March 2001,Official Report, column 594W.

  Monica Masiti
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds the Zimbabwean war veteran Monica Masiti is making her application for asylum in the United Kingdom; where she is resident in the United Kingdom; and in what capacity within the NHS she is employed. [158322]

  Mrs. Roche
  At present we can find no trace of a Monica Masiti but in any event information about an individual's immigration status is treated as confidential.

  Electoral Commission
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whom he has consulted, and what representations he has received, about the amount specified in the Electoral Commission (Limit on Public Awareness Expenditure) Order 2001. [158420]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The limit of £1.5 million specified in the Electoral Commission (Limit on Public Awareness Expenditure) Order 2001 reflects the estimate for expenditure under this heading, for 2001–02, proposed by the Commission and approved by the Speaker's Committee in accordance with paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. As required by section 13(6) of the Act, the Order was made with the consent of the Treasury. We have received no representations about the amount specified in the Order. Consideration will be given to making a further Order in due course to take effect from 1 April 2002.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the Electoral Commission's rules for making grants under section 13(4)(b) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. [158421]

  Mr. Beith
  I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Speaker's Committee, which is responsible for overseeing the exercise of the Electoral Commission's functions.

  Section 13(4)(b), in common with the other provisions of section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, does not come into force until 1 July 2001. I understand from the Chairman of the Electoral Commission that no decisions have yet been made as to how the Commission will exercise its grant-making powers under section 13. No rules have been prepared for this purpose, nor is there any requirement under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act for the Commission to make such rules.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Expenditure (Scotland)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) personal computers, (b) laptops, (c) servers, (d) printers and (e) fax machines his Department in Scotland owned in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01.[155087]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The information is in the tables. The office machinery concerned is used to support work done on behalf of claimants not only in Scotland but also in the rest of the UK. Similarly, office machinery located outside Scotland is used to support work done on behalf of Scottish claimants.

  Benefits Agency

  The number of laptops in place is included in the figure provided for PCs.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  PCs

  5,209

  6,016

  Printers

  1,144

  1,427

  Servers

  140

  140

  Faxes

  359

  377

  Child Support Agency

  The number of laptops in place is included in the figure provided for Pcs.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Pcs

  480

  490

  Printers

  52

  52

  Servers

  21

  21

  Faxes

  40

  40

  The Child Support Agency (CSA) in Falkirk services the whole of Scotland and a substantial part of the north of England. The figures provided by the CSA are inclusive and cannot be separated.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent to which the benefits system discourages people with disabilities from taking up work. [158087]

  Mr. Bayley
  We know that many disabled people would like to return to work if they are given the right assistance. They may, however, be discouraged from taking up work by lack of awareness of the benefits system, by difficulty in finding suitable employment, and by the fear that they will not be able to return to benefit if their attempt at work is unsuccessful.

  We are determined to help people with an illness or disability who want to work to do so. We have put a number of measures in place to remove barriers to work for disabled people. These include higher earnings disregards in the Independent Living Funds and improvements to the linking rules in incapacity benefits. We have extended the linking period from eight to 52 weeks for people who leave Incapacity Benefit to go into paid work or training. From April 2002 we are
  148W
  replacing the therapeutic work rules with new permitted work provisions which will allow all people in receipt of incapacity benefits to try a small amount of work without the fear of losing their benefit entitlement. We have abolished the limit on the number of hours of unpaid voluntary work that can be undertaken. We are also piloting Capability Reports as part of the Personal Capability Assessment, which we introduced in April 2000.

  We are extending the New Deal for Disabled People across Great Britain From July 2001 a national network of Job Brokers will be rolled out jointly by the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment to offer people receiving incapacity benefits the support, guidance and preparation they need to find paid work and move off benefit dependence, continuing to test and assess what works best.

  Alongside the national extension, in early 2002 we will be starting New Deal for Disabled People Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots jointly with the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. These pilots will test the relative effectiveness of different employment and health interventions in reducing the number of people forced to give up work through prolonged illness or disability.

  The national extension and Job Retention and Rehabilitation pilots draw on lessons learned from the pilot phase of the New Deal for Disabled People which, by the end of February 2001, had helped over 6,800 people into work.

  We have also introduced the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC) to help make work pay. In the Budget the Chancellor announced an increase in DPTC from June and this, combined with increases in the National Minimum Wage in October, will raise the guaranteed minimum income for a disabled person moving into work of 35 hours per week or more to £170 a week for a single person, and £257 a week for a couple with one child.

  Departmental Policies (Cannock Chase)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Cannock Chase constituency, the effects on Cannock Chase of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158065]

  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" (Cm 4865, 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

  149W
  following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Cannock Chase 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 is worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from this April: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Cannock Chase 12,714 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 Cannock Chase the number has reduced from 2,100 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; in Cannock Chase the number has decreased from 1,400 to 1,200.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. Last winter (2000–01), the payment was £200 for households who qualified. Around 16,200 older people in Cannock Chase received a Winter Fuel Payment.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 15,800 pensioners in Cannock Chase 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 5,700 in Cannock Chase. 2,300 pensioner families in Cannock Chase are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. They are now at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  To help tomorrow's pensioners, we have introduced the new stakeholder pension which is designed to help those on moderate to higher earnings who do not have access to an occupational pension; lower to moderate earners will benefit when we introduce the State Second Pension in April 2002; and from 2003, the Pension Credit will mean that pensioners will for the first time be rewarded, not penalised, for saving.

  Departmental Policies (Plymouth)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency and (c) South-West Devon constituency, the effects on the Plymouth unitary authority area of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158024]
  150W
  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 Plymouth, Sutton, Plymouth, Devonport, South-West Devon and the Plymouth unitary authority area 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 is worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from this April: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, in Plymouth, Sutton 9,631 families benefit, in Plymouth, Devonport 13,143 families benefit, in South-West Devon 11,376 families benefit and in the Plymouth unitary authority area 29,365 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 Plymouth, Sutton the number has reduced from 4,600 to 1,900, in Plymouth, Devonport from 3,700 to 1,400, in South-West Devon from 1,300 to 500 and in the Plymouth unitary authority area from 9,000 to 3,700. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally; in Plymouth, Sutton the number has reduced from 2,400 to 1,800, in Plymouth, Devonport from 2,800 to 2,600, in South-West Devon from 700 to 600 and in the Plymouth unitary authority area from 5,600 to 4,800.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. Last winter (2000–01), the payment was £200 for households who qualified. Around 16,100 older people in Plymouth, Sutton, 18,700 in Plymouth, Devonport and 18,600 in South-West Devon received a Winter Fuel Payment. Information on the number of Winter Fuel Payments received is not available by local authority area.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 16,000 pensioners in Plymouth, Sutton, 17,500 in Plymouth, Devonport,

  151W
  17,200 in South-West Devon and 44,000 in the Plymouth unitary authority area 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 Plymouth, Sutton, 6,600 in Plymouth, Devonport, 7,100 in South-West Devon and 18,400 in the Plymouth unitary authority area. 3,200 pensioner families in Plymouth, Sutton, 2,800 in Plymouth, Devonport, 1,700 in South-West Devon and 7,000 in the Plymouth unitary authority area are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. They are now at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  To help tomorrow's pensioners, we have introduced the new stakeholder pension which is designed to help those on moderate to higher earnings who do not have access to an occupational pension; lower to moderate earners will benefit when we introduce the State Second Pension in April 2002; and from 2003, the Pension Credit will mean that pensioners will for the first time be rewarded, not penalised, for saving.

  Maxwell Pension Schemes
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the expenditure incurred by the National

  Scheme name

  Amount paid (£)

  Amount outstanding (£)

  Progress

  Minor Group Pension Scheme

  2,825,000

  70,377,280

  The SSP bill has been capped at £66 million. A phased and gradually accelerating payment schedule has been agreed. Final payment due in 2020

  Maxwell Communications Works Pension Scheme

  20,000,000

  10,467,802

  It is expected that the scheme will make a final payment for the amount outstanding in the next two months

  Headington Pension Plan

  727,109

  49,236

  Remaining balance is expected to be paid by the scheme

  Victoria Works

  0

  313,456

  These three schemes have merged. Some SSPs may be paid

  AGB

  0

  10,012,704

  AGB Research

  —

  1,338,787

  Maxwell Communications Pension Plan

  0

  10,168,744

  The scheme is unlikely to make any SSP payment

  Maxwell Media Pension Plan

  0

  409,002

  There is no prospect of this scheme making any SSP payment

  Totals

  23,552,109

  103,137,011

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the expenditure incurred by the National Insurance Fund in paying the guaranteed minimum pensions of members of Maxwell scheme pensions who suffered as a result of the theft of pension funds has been repaid. [158199]

  Mr. Rooker
  A total of £23.6 million of State Scheme Premiums (SSPs) has been paid to the National Insurance Fund by Maxwell schemes. Further substantial payments will be made.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of occupational pension schemes which have pensioners whose pensions do not meet the guaranteed minimum pension. [158201]
  152W
  Insurance Fund was in paying the guaranteed minimum pensions of members of Maxwell scheme pensions who suffered as a result of the theft of pension funds. [158198]

  Mr. Rooker
  The value of State Scheme Premiums payable to restore members' rights in the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme is £126.6 million. The Department initially deferred collecting the premiums, but £23.6 million of the debt has been collected to date.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the agreements between his Department and Maxwell pension schemes for the recovery of national insurance loans and, in each case,(a) what the agreed sum to be recovered is, (b) how much has been recovered to date and (c) what the deadline for repayment is. [158438]

  Mr. Rooker
  The agreement reached with all of the Maxwell pension schemes in the early 1990s was that no scheme would be required to pay any State Scheme Premiums (SSPs) until members' pensions have been secured and there were residual funds available to meet these liabilities.

  Information on the agreed sum to be recovered and how much has been recovered to date is in the table.

  No deadlines have been set for collecting the outstanding premiums for schemes, where they have become payable.

  Mr. Rooker
  Of the 120,000 occupational pension schemes, around 7,000 are required to pay pensions at least to the value of the Guaranteed Minimum Pension in respect of service between April 1978 and April 1997.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representation he has received from ITNet covering their administration of housing benefit; and if he will place all correspondence in the Library. [158585]

  Angela Eagle
  I am aware that ITNet have made a number of representations to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, one of which was copied to me. It is not normal practice to place such correspondence in the Library.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to receive the results of the current inquiry into the Independent Living Fund; and if he will publish the submissions made. [158587]

  Mr. Bayley
  The consultation period for the review of the Independent Living Fund closed on March 16. The results of the review will be announced in the summer. Over 1,800 submissions were received from current individual fund clients and their families and carers and over 60 from organisations including those of, and representing, disabled people. Many of the former contain personal details and full publication would not be appropriate. However an anonymised summary of these comments, together with the full text of other submissions, will be placed in the Library when the results of the review are announced.

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in his Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. [158104]

  Mr. Rooker
  For non-judicial public appointments made in the Department no age limits apply. Age is not a criterion of the job or person specification and advertisements make no reference to age. The Department follows the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and does not discriminate on the ground of age.

  For part-time judicial office-holders, which includes the Pensions Ombudsman and members of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, an upper age limit of 70 applies. This is now referred to in advertisements for posts. This upper age limit was introduced following the Lord Chancellor's review of the terms of service of part-time judicial office-holders.

  Widows Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the effect is on(a) entitlement to a widow's pension of a woman aged under 60 and (b) entitlement to retirement or widows pension of a woman aged over 60 based on a late husband's contributions, of a woman having paid national insurance contributions at the reduced rate for married women. [158281]

  Mr. Rooker
  None.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 17, if he will list the assumptions behind his statement that 9 per cent. more pensioners will be on means-tested benefits in 2003 compared with today. [158695]

  Mr. Rooker
  The primary reason for the increase in overall numbers receiving means-tested benefits between 1999 and 2003–04 is that more people become eligible to the Minimum Income Guarantee as a result of the 154W
  generous increase in the rates. In May 1999 some 3 million pensioners were in receipt of means-tested benefits. By 2003–04 the number of pensioners forecast to be receiving means-tested benefits is 3.2 million.

  Notes:

  1. Pensioners are defined as where either the claimant or the partner is aged 60 or over.

  2. Means-tested benefits for pensioners comprise Minimum Income Guarantee, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (the latter cases involve men between 60 and 65)

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and represent benefit units rather than individuals.

  4. Whereas the historical figures represent a certain point in time in the year, forecast figures represent an estimated annual average caseload for the year in question.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the magistrates courts covering the Greater London area. [158577]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information on the magistrates courts in the Greater London area available for use in December 2000 is in the table.

  Acton

  Balham

  Barking (East street)

  Barnet

  Belmarsh

  Bexley

  Bow Street

  Brent

  Brentford

  Bromley (London road)

  Camberwell Green

  City of London

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Feltham

  Greenwich

  Harrow

  Hendon

  Highbury Corner

  Highgate

  Horseferry road

  Inner London Children and Family Proceedings Court

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Marylebone (181 Marylebone road)

  Marylebone (185 Marylebone road)

  Redbridge

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Seymour Place

  South Western

  155W

  Stratford

  Sutton

  Thames

  Tower Bridge

  Uxbridge

  Waltham Forest

  West London

  Wimbledon

  Woolwich.

  Fines
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much money was collected by the Treasury via the Consolidated Fund in respect of all court and police imposed fines in each year since 1997 for(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) the United Kingdom. [158528]

  Jane Kennedy
  Figures for fines alone could be obtained for England, Wales and Northern Ireland only at disproportionate cost. Questions concerning fines imposed in Scotland are outside the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction and should be referred to the Scottish Executive.

  The police do not impose fines.

  Figures available for total amounts of fines, fees, confiscation orders, contributions to legal aid and other amounts collected by the courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and remitted to the Consolidated Fund are set out in the table.

  £

  Amounts collected by courts in

  England

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  April 1997-March 1998

  1—

  1—

  6,382,000

  April 1998-March 1999

  1—

  1—

  6,089,000

  April 1999-March 2000

  226,175,023

  15,606,246

  6,464,000

  April 2000-December 20002

  157,863,584

  11,062,441

  2—

  April 2000-March 2001

  3—

  3—

  46,235,000

  1 Not available

  2Latest actual figures available for England and Wales based on three quarters worth of data

  3 Not yet available

  4 The Northern Ireland figure for the year April 2000-March 2001 is an estimate

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in his Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. [158130]

  Jane Kennedy
  For appointments as members of the Law Commission in England and Wales, no mention is made of any age limit in the advertisement, but in the information pack sent to applicants it states that the Lord Chancellor will consider applications from candidates up to the age of 65. Law Commissioners work full-time and this is the normal age of retirement.

  For the Lord Chancellor's non-departmental public bodies administered by the Northern Ireland Court Service, there is no age limit for appointment to the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. For the other advisory
  156W
  committees, save in exceptional circumstances, a member will not be appointed over the age of 65 and the retirement ages are as follows:
  Chairman and members of Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax (GCIT) in Northern Ireland: 75 if a Lord Lieutenant, if not a Lord Lieutenant 75 if appointed prior to 1996, 70 if appointed after then.
  Chairman of an Advisory Committee on JPs in Northern Ireland: 75.
  For the other appointments in Northern Ireland the retirement age is 70.
  For the equivalent advisory committees on JPs and on GCITs in England and Wales, appointments cannot normally extend beyond a person's 70th birthday.

  Otherwise, no age limit is placed on the non-judicial appointments the Lord Chancellor makes to his non-departmental public bodies. However, where the appointment is to be held by someone who is a serving member of the judiciary, including JPs, the retirement ages for judges will be borne in mind.

  Tony Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason his Department advertises part-time appointments with an age limit for applicants of 62. [158061]

  Mr. Lock
  A normal upper age limit of 62 for applicants to part-time judicial posts is principally set to take account of the retirement age for judicial offices, which for part-time judicial office holders is 65. In setting the upper age limit at 62 the Lord Chancellor has taken into account the expectation that office holders should be able to complete a reasonable period of service before reaching the compulsory retirement age.

  However, in exceptional circumstances the age limits set for appointment may be relaxed at the Lord Chancellor's discretion. The Lord Chancellor's discretion may be invoked, for example, where an otherwise well-qualified candidate has had a career break or started his or her career later than usual. Other factors that the Lord Chancellor would take into account, in considering whether or not to exercise his discretion, would include evidence of a previous judicial appointment, or that the applicant was particularly well qualified for the post applied for.

  Homelessness (Appeals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received in relation to the time limit for homeless applicants to appeal to the county court under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996; what research his Department has commissioned relating to this issue; what its findings were; and if he will make a statement. [158071]

  Mr. Lock
  I have received correspondence from both Shelter and the Law Society about this. Although this research has not been specifically undertaken into this issue, it was considered in this Department's Research Report No. 9/99, "A Regional Study of Local Authority and Court Processes in Homelessness Cases", which was published in 1999 and recommended that further consideration should be given to the time limit. We are considering issues a arising out of the research in the context of the Homes Bill, which is currently in another place.

  Adults with Learning Difficulties
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what specific assistance is available within the legal system to adults with learning difficulties.[158079]

  Jane Kennedy
  Court Service staff have been given training on helping people with learning difficulties. This includes explaining terminology and jargon in simpler terms; and advising the judge of any known effect the learning difficulty may have on a hearing. The Court Service also operates a free helpline providing advice on how disabled customers can be helped to use the courts.

  Training seminars for judges include dedicated sessions and case studies on disability issues, of which learning disabilities form a part. A new section of the Equal Treatment Bench Book for judges, entitled "Disability", was published in January 2001. This section includes material on learning disabilities and a chapter on the provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 relating to witnesses with learning disabilities.

  These measures in this Act include new powers to clear the court when the witness is giving evidence. The timetable for implementation in the Crown court and the magistrates courts is under consideration.

  The criminal law recognises that those with severe mental impairment require protection from sexual offences. The report of the Review of Sexual Offences makes several recommendations to Government for changes in the law to improve this protection. Responses to public consultation on this report are now being analysed.

  The Police and Criminal Act 1984, and Code of Practice C made under that Act, also provide specific protections for adults with learning difficulties who may be suspected of committing a criminal offence. The interests of justice test for determining applications for criminal legal aid takes account of the inability of the defendant to understand proceedings.

  The Official Solicitor provides assistance in litigation for an adult with such severe learning disabilities as to be unable to manage his or her property and affairs and there is no other person suitable or able to do so.

  Departmental Policies (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ribble Valley constituency, the effects on Ribble Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157853]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for the administration of the courts and for legal services. We have taken steps to improve the management and effectiveness of the services we provide and to meet customer needs, including working closely with other agencies to provide a fair, swift and effective system of justice, improve the availability of affordable and good quality legal services and to improve the lives of children and help build and sustain strong families.
  158W
  In particular, the Ribble Valley constituency is covered by the East Lancashire Community Legal Service Partnership. As at 11 April 2001, the Legal Services Commission had let Community Legal Service contracts to 42 solicitors' offices and three Not for Profit (NfP) organisations. The expected expenditure value in the financial year 2001–02 of solicitor-type contracts is £1,385,000; for the NfP-type contracts it is £290,000. The contracts cover a range of categories, including family, welfare benefits, debt and immigration.

  As at 18 April 2001, 25 firms in Ribble Valley had signed Criminal Defence Service contracts for 2001–02. During the year, the total value of payments for work done under these contracts is expected to be approximately £4,633,000.

  Departmental Policies (Tiverton and Honiton)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, the effects on Tiverton and Honiton of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157815]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for the administration of the courts and for legal services. We have taken steps to improve the management and effectiveness of the services we provide and to meet customer needs, including working closely with other agencies to provide a fair, swift and effective system of justice, improve the availability of affordable and good quality legal services and to improve the lives of children and help build and sustain strong families.

  In particular, Tiverton and Honiton constituency is covered by the Devon Community Legal Service Partnership. As at 11 April 2001 the Legal Services Commission had let Community Legal Service contracts to 17 solicitors' offices and one Not for Profit (NfP) organisation in the constituency. The expected expenditure value in the financial year 2001–02 of the Solicitor-type contracts is £315,000; for the NfP-type contracts it is £45,000. The contracts cover a range of categories, including family, housing, consumer issues and mental health.

  As at 18 April 2001, 10 firms in the constituency had signed Criminal Defence Service contracts for 2001–02. During the year, the total value of payments for work done under these contracts is expected to be approximately £744,000.

  Family Visit Appeals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) oral and (b) paper only family visit appeals were received by the Immigration Appellate Authority in March. [157969]

  Jane Kennedy
  In March 2001, the Immigration Appellate Authority received 136 cases for oral hearing and 144 cases for paper-only hearing.
  159W
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many family visit appeals were(a) determined, (b) allowed and (c) dismissed by the Immigration Appellate Authority (i) at an oral hearing and (ii) on the papers only in March. [157970]

  Jane Kennedy
  The breakdown of family visit appeals determined, allowed and dismissed by the Immigration Appellate Authority in March 2001 is shown in the table.

  Determined

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Oral cases

  65

  39

  26

  Paper cases

  138

  35

  103

  Family Graduated Fees Scheme
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Family Graduated Fees Scheme will be reviewed; and what form it will take. [157967]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor has agreed to an overall review of the Family Graduated Fees Scheme after a fixed period of operation. It is intended that the review will take place 12 to 18 months after implementation, to allow sufficient time for data collection. It will assess the impact of the scheme and will include a review of the level of rates paid within the scheme, on a cost per case basis, to determine the actual percentage reduction in fees.

HEALTH

  German Beef
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recent discovery of contaminated shipments of German beef in Northern Ireland. [147859]

  Ms Stuart
  I am advised on questions of food safety by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The shipments of German beef in question were found to include a small number of beef forequarters to which pieces of spinal cord remained attached. Under the European Union-wide rules on specified risk material (SRM), the spinal cord should have been removed from the carcases at the abattoir at which the animals were slaughtered.

  The presence of SRM on imported meat is clearly unacceptable. I have raised the issue personally with the Federal German Minister of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture on several occasions to stress the importance of effective implementation of the SRM rules and to press for remedial action at the abattoirs concerned. The FSA has also raised the matter with the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, who also expressed his concern to the German authorities. I am satisfied that the German authorities fully recognise the importance of effective SRM controls and are taking appropriate steps when breaches of these controls are discovered.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Weston-Super-Mare of 10 May 2000 and subsequent reminders regarding waiting times for neurological tests at Frenchay hospital. [150796]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 February 2001]: A reply to the hon. Member's letter was sent on 9 April 2001.

  I apologise for the unacceptable delay in replying to the hon. Gentleman's correspondence and previous parliamentary question. I know the Department's Permanent Secretary/Chief Executive of the National Health Service has written to the hon. Member apologising for the unacceptable delay in replying to his correspondence.

  Departmental Policies (North-East Derbyshire)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the North-East Derbyshire constituency, the effect on North-East Derbyshire of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150886]

  Yvette Cooper
  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 Derbyshire health authority and Derbyshire county council social services.

  The increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for North Derbyshire HA are set out in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  Cash (£ million)

  70.1

  Real Terms (£ million)

  44.2

  Cash (Percentage)

  37.43

  Real Terms (Percentage)

  21.76

  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.

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

  161W

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  5,063

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership Grant2

  —

  3,590

  3,135

  4,350

  Prevention Grant2

  —

  268

  404

  Carers Grant3

  —

  272

  628

  884

  Children's Grant3

  —

  604

  957

  2,476

  MH Core Grant

  662

  1,117

  1,397

  41,735

  Training Support Grant

  450

  514

  658

  4534

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

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

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

  4 Indicative allocation

  North Derbyshire health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes:
  £155,000 for accident and emergency modernisation between 1997–98 and 2000–01.
  £71,000, £138,000, £194,000 and £125,000 for improving cancer services (breast colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively.
  £4,804 million to reduce waiting lists and times between 1997–98 and 2000–01.
  £641,000 to expand critical care services in 2000–01.
  £810,000 to deal with winter pressures and delayed discharges in 2000–01.
  £139.000 for heart disease services between 1997–98 and 2000–01.
  £139.500 invested into dentistry between 1997–98 and 2000–01.
  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the centralisation of waiting list management processes at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust. This project, which is an NHS Beacon, provides a whole systems approach to waiting list and waiting time management.

  £235,000 was provided from the New Opportunities Fund in January 2001 for the Holmewood and Heath Healthy Living Centre Project.

  Derbyshire county council'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

  118.872

  —

  —

  2001–02

  118.717

  -11.6

  -0.1

  Note:

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

  Departmental Policies (High Peak)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the High Peak constituency of his Department's policies and actions since May 1997. [156783]

  Yvette Cooper
  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.
  162W
  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 Derbyshire Health Authority and Derbyshire county council social services.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for North Derbyshire Health Authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  70.1

  £ million (real terms)

  44.2

  Percentage (cash)

  37.43

  Percentage (real terms)

  21.76

  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 Derbyshire Health Authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £155,000 for accident and emergency modernisation between 1997–98 and 2000–01; £71,000, £138,000, £194,000 and £125,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £4,804 million to reduce waiting lists and times between 1997–98 and 2000–01; £641,000 to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £810,000 to deal with winter pressures and delayed discharges in 2000–01; £139,000 for heart disease services between 1997–98 and 2000–01; and £139,500 invested into dentistry between 1997–98 and 2000–01.

  Derbyshire county council'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

  118.872

  —

  —

  2001–02

  118.717

  -11.6

  -0.1

  Note:

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

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Derbyshire county council 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

  5,063

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  3,590

  3,135

  4,350

  Prevention grant2

  —

  268

  404

  —

  Carers grant3

  —

  272

  628

  884

  Children's grant3

  —

  604

  957

  2,476

  Mental Health core grant

  662

  1,117

  1,397

  41,735

  Training Support Grant

  450

  514

  658

  4534

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

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

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

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Eccles)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [157283]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed information on the impact of Department policies nationally is set out in the Department's 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 Salford and Trafford health authority and Salford and Trafford social services authorities.

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

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  95.0

  £ million (real terms)

  60.0

  Percentage (cash)

  37.5

  Percentage (real terms)

  21.8

  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.

  Salford and Trafford health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.35 million for accident and emergency modernisation between 1997–98 and 2000–01; £35,000, £155,000, £259,000 and £191,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £3.1 million recurrently in 1999–2000 and £2.6 million recurrently in 2000–01 to reduce waiting lists and times; £70,000 in 1997–98, £3.7 million in 1998–99, £214,000 in 1999–2000 and £172,000 in 2000–01 non-recurrently to reduce waiting times and lists; £1.1 million to expand critical care services in 2000/01; £1 million in 1997–98, £1.7 million in 1998–99, and £2.2 million in 2000–01 to deal with winter pressures; £0.8 million in 2000–01 and £0.9 million in 2001–02 for developing intermediate care services; £165,000 was allocated for earmarked additional heart disease services in 2000–01. For 2001–02, the authority plans to spend an additional £1.8 million on heart disease services, including drugs, from the real terms funding increase highlighted above; £46,700 was made available through investing in dentistry grants. £574,000 has been allocated for additional expenditure in the personal dental service in 2000–01. A further £110,900 has been paid to dentists to reward their commitment to the general dental service.
  164W
  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the £114 million redevelopment of the Hope hospital.

  Salford 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

  40.341

  —

  —

  2001–02

  53,402

  17.3

  32.4

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Salford 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

  2,183

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,544

  1,303

  1,753

  Prevention grant2

  —

  113

  167

  Carers grant3

  —

  112

  282

  390

  Children's grant3

  —

  426

  669

  1,722

  MH Core grant

  398

  478

  552

  4652

  Training Support Grant

  313

  335

  336

  4333

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99.

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

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

  4 Indicative allocation.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS vacancies there were for(a) doctors, (b) health visitors, (c) professions allied to medicine and (d) nurses and midwives; and how many such posts in each category have been vacant for three months in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [151300]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 26 February 2001,Official Report, columns 426–30W.

  GP Referrals
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in enabling GPs to refer patients to the hospital or specialist of their choice. [153479]

  Mr. Denham
  Regional specialised commissioning groups comprised of representatives from health authorities, National Health Service acute trusts and regional offices and increasingly primary care trusts meet quarterly and ensure the effective commissioning of specialised services for particular locales. NHS trusts and health authorities draw up service agreements covering specific specialised services. This systematic approach facilitates equitable access to clinically effective, first class services.

  Primary care trusts and health authorities are free to set up service level agreements with any secondary care provider of their choice based on discussion at local level and which they believe provides the most appropriate services.

  Long-term Sickness
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many long-term sick people returned to work during the last 12 months. [153761]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data for long-term sick absence are not collected centrally but held at a local level by employers.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total waiting list for the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital was on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.[154703]

  Yvette Cooper
  In 1997 waiting list data were collected quarterly, rather than monthly, and therefore figures for May 1997 are not available. The table shows the in-patient waiting list figures for the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital National Health Service Trust, for March 1997 and the most recent available figures (February 2001).

  Date

  Patients on waiting list

  March 1997

  4,245

  February 2001

  4,294

  Source:

  KHO7 quarterly return/monthly waiting times returns.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many imported carcases containing specified risk material were identified in each of the last 12 months. [155289]

  Total

  Con

  Lab

  Lib Dem

  Other

  None

  Bournemouth1

  Appointed—Chair

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Appointed—Non-officer member

  5

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  North Dorset1

  Appointed—Chair

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Appointed—Non-officer member

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Poole Bay1

  Appointed—Non-officer member

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Poole Central1

  Appointed—Chair

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Appointed—Non-officer member

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  South and East Dorset

  Applications received—Chair

  29

  2

  0

  3

  0

  24

  Applications received—Non-officer member

  37

  3

  3

  7

  0

  24

  Shortlisted for interview—Chair

  5

  0

  0

  3

  0

  2

  Shortlisted for interview—Non-officer member

  25

  2

  1

  6

  0

  16

  Appointed—Chair

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Appointed—Non-officer member

  4

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  South West Dorset

  Applications received—Chair

  15

  1

  1

  2

  0

  11

  Applications received—Non-officer member

  36

  1

  1

  3

  0

  31

  Shortlisted for interview—Chair

  4

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  Shortlisted for interview—Non-officer member

  24

  0

  2

  1

  0

  21

  Appointed—Chair

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Appointed—Non-officer member

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  1 Information about candidates considered for these appointments is no longer available as they were destroyed in an administrative error

  166W
  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer sent 23 March 2001]: The number of consignments of imported beef found to contain carcases with specified risk material still attached, and the number of carcases involved, in each of the last 12 months, is set out in the table.

  Month

  Number of consignments

  Number of carcases

  2000

  April

  1

  1

  May

  0

  0

  June

  0

  0

  July

  0

  0

  August

  1

  1

  September

  1

  3

  October

  0

  0

  November

  0

  0

  December

  0

  0

  2001

  January

  3

  5

  February

  2

  3

  March

  9

  65

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in respect of each primary care trust in the Dorset health authority area how many(a) applied for, (b) were shortlisted and (c) were appointed for the posts of (i) Chairman and (ii) non-executive board members broken down by party of political activity indicated in each case. [155833]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the countries from which the import and sale of beef is considered unsafe on human health grounds; and if he will make a statement. [156383]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: Fresh meat, including beef, may be imported into the European Union only from specific third countries which have been approved by the EU on the basis of compliance with a range of animal health and public health criteria. Moreover, fresh meat imported from such countries must have been produced in plants specifically approved for the purpose by the EU. The list of approved countries and approved meat plants (by category) is published by the European Commission on its website. Fresh meat may not, therefore, be imported from meat plants and/or countries not appearing on the approved list.

  All consignments of fresh meat imported from third countries must be accompanied by appropriate veterinary certification confirming that the meat has been produced in accordance with EU animal health and public health requirements.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if beef over 30-months-old from(a) Argentina, (b) Australia, (c) Botswana, (d) Brazil, (e) Mauritius, (f) Namibia, (g) New Zealand, (h) Paraguay, (i) Poland, (j) South Africa, (k) Switzerland, (l) Uruguay, (m) USA and (n) Zimbabwe is considered safe for importation into and sale in the United Kingdom on human health grounds; and if he will make a statement. [156380]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: The hon. Member is referring to the list of countries that are exempt from the generally applicable ban on the sale for human consumption of beef from cattle aged over 30 months at slaughter. They are countries that traditionally supplied the United Kingdom and in which there was no history of BSE. There have been no confirmed cases of BSE in any of them and I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that any risk to public health from over 30-month beef from these sources would be very small.

  However, the FSA is currently reviewing the list of exempt countries in the light of recently strengthened European Union BSE controls, including assessments of geographical BSE risk. A further statement will be made when I receive the FSA's advice.

  NHS Student Support Arrangements
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review NHS student support arrangements; and if he will make a statement.[156856]

  Mr. Denham
  As a result of the review we considered a range of options for change to the existing arrangements taking full account of representations received from students, their representative bodies and others. Following the announcement in the Budget of a substantial package of additional funding for the National Health Service over the next three years, the decision was made to provide additional help for students using an across the board increase in the NHS Bursary. From September 2001 student nurses studying at diploma level will receive a £500 (10.4 per cent.) increase in their bursary, the biggest increase since introduction of bursaries in the late 1980s.
  168W
  This increase contrasts sharply with practice through much of the 1990s when the bursary was frozen, before the present Government introduced a policy of annual uplifts in 1998.

  My ministerial colleagues and I continue to take a close interest in the effective operation of student support arrangements, including the NHS Bursary scheme.

  Pharmaceutical Pricing
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the prevalence in the pharmaceutical sector and the cost to the NHS of the practices criticised by the OFT following its investigation of Napp Pharmaceutical's pricing policies; and if he will make a statement; [157089]

  (2) what steps he proposes to take to reduce the costs to the NHS which arise from pricing practices of drug companies which have been condemned by the Office of Fair Trading following its investigation of the conduct of Napp Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [157400]

  Ms Stuart
  The investigation carried out by the Office of Fair Trading relates to one product from one company, which was the subject of a specific complaint. Ministers are examining closely the implications of the decision of the Director-General of Fair Trading and of the direction which he may give to correct the practices which he has criticised, taking into account any appeal which the company may make.

  The Department keeps the level of competition in the pharmaceutical sector under review, and has mechanisms in place to prevent profiteering. It secures value for money through the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) which controls the profits which companies make from the supply of branded medicines to the National Health Service. Under this scheme a high price for one product may be balanced against a low one for another, provided that the company's overall profits remain within the limits permitted by the scheme.

  European Food Authority
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when proposals to establish a European Food Authority were published and by whom; what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to publicise this decision; when it agreed to it; what consultations it has had; and on what Treaty base the Authority is expected to be established.[157326]

  Ms Stuart
  The European Commission introduced a proposal, dated 8 November 2000, for a "Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing a European Food Authority (EFA), and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (COM (2000) 716 final)."

  In December 2000 the Food Standards Agency began a formal consultation on the EC's proposal. This consultation is open and ongoing and details may be found on the FSA's website www.foodstandards.gov.uk. The FSA has held meetings with stakeholders and sends out letters reporting on negotiations in Brussels.
  169W
  The establishment of the EFA is not yet agreed. Negotiations on the EC's proposal are continuing in Brussels.

  As drafted, the EC's proposal gives the Treaty base for the establishment of the EFA as Articles 37 (Common Agricultural Policy), 95 (internal market), 133 (common commercial policy) and 152(4)(b) (public health).

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into the links between fuel poverty and excess winter deaths; and if he will make a statement on links between the level a winter deaths and the number of households in fuel poverty since 1997. [157453]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is estimated there were some 5.5 million fuel poor households in the United Kingdom in 1996. Further analysis suggests this may have fallen to around 4.5 million by 1999. In 2000 every pensioner household received £200 winter fuel allowance providing further help to cut fuel poverty. In the UK from December to March, there are on average between 20,000–50,000 excess deaths compared to the rest of the year. We are committed to ending the blight of fuel poverty for vulnerable households by 2010 and launched our fuel poverty strategy as a consultation document on 23 February 2001.

  Links have been established between cold, damp housing and increased ill-health. However, the relative contributions of cold homes, outdoor temperatures and other factors to excess winter deaths are complex and not fully understood.

  The Department has commissioned a systematic review of the effect of cold on otherwise healthy individuals, particularly older people. It will address: 1) the effect of cold exposure on mortality and morbidity; and 2) the effect of cold exposure on physiological changes and risk factors associated with coronary heart disease.

  Additionally, the Department, together with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, has funded a pilot project to look at the impact of cold homes on health. This will help determine what further research may be considered.

  The Department of Health has already initiated a number of measures to help combat excess winter deaths. The "Keep Warm, Keep Well" campaign, which runs from October to March each year, gives advice to the public and health professionals on staying warm in winter. Additionally, this winter the 'flu vaccine on the National Health Service was extended to include everyone aged 65 and over. The vaccine can prevent complications from influenza. There is also a vaccine against pneumococcal disease which can be given at the same time as the 'flu vaccine to people in high-risk groups which can help prevent pneumococcal pneumonia among other conditions.

  General Dental Council
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent to which the composition of the General Dental Council reflects the interests of patients.[157448]
  170W
  Mr. Hutton
  We have welcomed proposals from the General Dental Council for increasing its lay membership. Amendments to the Dentists Act 1984 would be required which we plan shortly to submit for scrutiny and debate by Parliament under section 60 of the Health Act 1999.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the General Dental Council's decision not to allow dental patients access to professionals complementary to dentistry, with particular reference to clinical dental technicians. [157447]

  Mr. Hutton
  Currently only two groups of professionals complementary to dentistry are registered by the General Dental Council (GDC): Dental therapists and dental hygienists. The GDC has agreed that additional groups should be registered including clinic dental technicians whom the GDC proposes should be allowed to work remote from the dental practice, but to the prescription of a dentist. Amendments to the Dentists Act 1984 would be required which we plan, in due course, to submit for scrutiny and debate by Parliament under section 60 of the Health Act 1999.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact the proposed EU directive on food supplements will have on the availability of(a) herbal and vitamin remedies and (b) information about the properties of such remedies; and if he will make a statement. [157774]

  Ms Stuart
  The draft directive would not change the status of products which are regulated by medicines legislation. Its purpose is to establish a framework for regulation of supplements, including those containing herbal substances and vitamins, sold under food law.

  Our view is that, in the interests of consumer choice, the market should be open to all products which are safe and properly labelled. The Food Standards Agency, which is representing us in discussions on the proposal, is pressing this case in negotiations.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to compensate present and former part-time employees of the NHS who were excluded from the NHS Pension Scheme; and on what date part-time employees were accepted into the scheme. [157955]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no proposals to make compensation payments. Part-time National Health Service employees who become entitled to backdated membership of the NHS pension scheme will be expected to pay their share of the arrears of scheme contributions.

  Between 1 April 1973 and 31 March 1991, part-time employees, working at least half the standard number of whole-time hours for their grade, were entitled to scheme membership. From 1 April 1991, all part-time employees have been able to join the scheme, irrespective of the number of hours worked.

  GP Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued on the ability of GPs to charge residential care and nursing homes for GP services; and if he has that guidance under review.[157104]
  171W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: General practitioner services are, and must be, free for patients, including residents of nursing homes. All patients in nursing homes should be registered with a GP practice.

  GPs sometimes contract with nursing 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 will investigate any allegations of abuse within the system.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into any association there is between drug use and misuse by those with the care of children and the placing of children on (i) risk of neglect and (ii) child protection registers.[157836]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Children's needs—parenting capacity", published by the Department in 1999, draws on a wide range of research, and examines how factors such as drug misuse may impact on children and may affect parental capacity to respond to children's needs.

  In addition, a number of studies in the programme of research on the Children Act 1989 have explored the link between drug misuse by those caring for children and the risk of abuse and neglect, in particular "Family support in cases of emotional maltreatment and neglect" and "Making care orders work: A study of their implementation". These two studies will be summarised in a forthcoming Department overview of contemporary research, entitled "The Children Act now: Messages from research". They are being used to inform our key initiatives to improve children's services, in particular quality protects.

  We have also recently commissioned research to explore the reasons why increased numbers of children are being looked after by local authorities. This study will provide an opportunity to explore in greater depth the link between drug misuse by those with the care of children and children experiencing neglect and entering local authority care. It is about to start and plans to report by the end of the year.

  District Nurses
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will review the mileage allowances paid to district nurses; and if he will make a statement. [157822]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on 5 February 2001,Official Report, column 396W.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) 5 March 2001,Official Report, column 115W, on digital hearing aids, when the proposed modernising hearing aid services project will commence. [157950]
  172W
  Mr. Hutton
  The timing to roll-out the "modernising NHS hearing aid services" project and announcements on funding are being kept under review until the results of the Institute of Hearing Research evaluation of the project can start to be taken into account. The Department anticipates £25 million will be available for National Health Service hearing aid services in 2003–04.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ensure that audiology departments are implementing the NICE guidance on hearing aids. [157949]

  Mr. Hutton
  All National Health Service bodies and clinicians are expected to give due weight to guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and to the evidence on which it is based. Initial monitoring of the implementation of NICE's guidance will take place through the established Quarterly Monitoring Review, supplemented through other data sources available to the Department. We will be looking to the Commission for Health Improvement to provide some authoritative information in due course.

  NHS Administration
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many managers and administrators were employed by the NHS in each of the last five years; at what cost; what the total cost to the NHS was of management and administration in each of those years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [157322]

  Mr. Denham
  holding answer 9 April 2001]: The available information is contained in the tables.

  Numbers of managers and administrators: National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Managers within the administration and estates staff group in England as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  Senior Manager

  Manager

  1996

  7,310

  13,960

  1997

  7,530

  14,640

  1998

  7,990

  14,710

  1999

  8,880

  15,410

  2000

  8,890

  16,370

  The apparent increase is partly accounted for by the fact that managers in primary care groups and primary care teams were not previously recorded in the figures when working for general practitioner fundholders. Even so, nursing numbers have increased by far more than these figures.

  Costs

  Paybill costs of staff in senior management, management and administrative and clerical grades are not a reliable indicator of overall administration costs because for example, they do not include the non-staff costs of management, such as health authority accommodation.

  Expenditure against the published definition of NHS management costs is the most reliable indicator of the cost of management and administration in the NHS. The

  173W
  definition of management costs includes the staff costs of managers in health authorities, Primary Care Groups and NHS Trusts, as well as non-staff costs of HAs and PCGs.

  Management costs at 1999–2000 prices

  £ million

  1996–97

  1,981

  1997–98

  1,857

  1997–981

  1,935

  1998–99

  1,874

  1999–2000

  1,799

  1 Rebased

  Note:

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

  Source:

  Health authority and NHS trust annual accounts

  Shared Clinical Services
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if shared clinical services can continue between two NHS trusts; [157455]

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure the NHS trusts with separate identities but integrated services remain as separate trusts. [157456]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The overarching requirement in providing services is to ensure that they are configured to meet the needs of the local population. The Chorley and South Ribble National Health Service Trust and Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust have an excellent record of providing a range of acute services to their locality. However, it is recognised that there is a need for more specialised services to be provided to a larger population through managed clinical networks. Organisational arrangements must reflect the most effective way of providing access to the full range of acute services. Sharing and integrating the services of the two trusts should be encouraged and built upon.

  Chemically Dependent Patients
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary State for Health how many doctors have been prevented from prescribing to long-term chemically dependent patients by the Interim Orders Committee of the General Medical Council; and how many are awaiting hearings. [157954]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently 14 doctors with conditions imposed on their registration by the General Medical Council (GMC) which relate to the drugs which they can prescribe, or which prevent them from treating chemically dependent patients. On 10 April 2001 there were two cases awaiting hearing by the GMC's Interim Orders Committee which involved issues relating to prescribing.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what alternative procedures he has put in place to provide treatment for long-term chemically dependent patients whose doctor is prevented from prescribing to them by the Interim Orders Committee of the General Medical Council. [157951]
  174W
  Mr. Denham
  It is the responsibility of health authorities to assess the health care needs of their population, to draw up strategies and commissioning plans in collaboration with local people and other organisations, and to secure a range of health services to meet those needs, with contingency planning and alternative operational procedures where necessary.

  Drug Patients
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that community drug teams and drug dependency units are capable of coping with a substantial and sudden influx of patients.[157953]

  Ms Stuart
  We have set up a new national treatment agency to set standards for the provision of drug treatment services in England. The performance of local agencies will be monitored against these standards, and we expect that contingency planning for variations in demand would be one measurement of their efficiency.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled in each of the last five years(a) nationally and (b) in North Durham Trust, Dryburn. [157825]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department collects information on the number of operations cancelled at the last minute for non-medical reasons, and breaches of the standard to readmit patients within one month following such cancellations. This information is collected on a quarterly basis at health authority level only and the results are routinely placed in the Library. The latest figures cover the five quarters up to Quarter three (October to December 2000) of the 2000–01 financial year.

  The specific information requested relating to Dryburn Hospital, Durham should be available from the Chairman of the North Durham National Health Service Trust.

  Durham Health Authority
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the per capita expenditure by Durham health authority was in each of the last six years. [157826]

  Mr. Hutton
  The total expenditure by weighted head of population for County Durham and Darlington health authority for 1996–97 to 1999–2000 can be found in the table.

  £

  Year

  Expenditure

  1996–97

  591.82

  1997–98

  564.10

  1998–99

  602.19

  1999–2000

  688.56

  Note:

  The expenditure per weighted head figures in the table do not reflect real changes in the resources available for spend on healthcare locally over the period or provide robust comparisons between health authorities.

  Sources:

  The accounts of health authorities for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  The summarisation schedules of health authorities 1999–2000. Weighted population estimates for 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  GP Incomes
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average earnings of a general practitioner in England and Wales was in(a) 1992, (b) 1996 and (c) 2000. [157840]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows General Practitioners' (unrestricted principals) intended average net income for the provision of general medical services. Figures are for Great Britain.

  Intended average net income

  £

  Year

  Average GP (full and part-time)

  Average GP (full-time)

  1992–93

  40,010

  1—

  1996–97

  244,483

  246,808

  2000–01

  54,220

  57,940

  1 Not available.

  2 The 1996–97 pay award was staged. The figure shown is the weighted average for the year.

  GPs also received additional earnings from higher target payments, as follows: 1992–93 £2,338 (gross), 1996–97 £3,330 (gross), and 2000–01 £3,975 (gross).

  Consultants
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hours per week on average consultants who work both in the NHS and the private health sector spend on(a) NHS work and (b) private work; [157819]

  (2) what percentage of consultants in 2000 worked in both the NHS and the private health sector.[157841]

  Ms Stuart
  Information is not held centrally on the number of hours worked by consultants in either the National Health Service or for the private sector. Information on the types of contract held by consultants is available and is set out in the table.

  Hospital, public health medicine (PHM) and community health service (CHS) medical and dental consultants by nature of contract England at 30 September 2000

  Numbers and percentage

  Consultant

  Percentage of all consultant contract

  All contracts

  24,306

  100

  Whole time

  13,877

  57

  Maximum part-time

  5,750

  24

  Part-time

  3,005

  12

  Honorary

  1,674

  7

  Source:

  Department of Health 2000 medical and dental workforce census

  Definition:

  Maximum part time contract—means that the consultant foregoes one eleventh of whole-time salary, in return for the removal of restrictions on private practice earnings. However, there is still a clear contractual obligation to devote "substantially the whole" of their professional time to their NHS duties.

  Residential Care
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average weekly spending money given to people living in residential care is. [158086]
  176W
  Mr. Hutton
  When assessing a person's ability to pay for residential or nursing home accommodation, councils are required to ensure that they retain an amount for personal expenses. The current amount allowed is £16.05 per week.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if doctors are required to consult parents and carers before making decisions affecting people with a severe learning disability. [158080]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has recently issued guidance to health professionals on the legal and good practice requirements for seeking valid consent from patients for proposed examinations or treatment—"Reference Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment". Where an adult patient is mentally able to give or withhold consent to proposed treatment, consent must always be sought directly from the patient himself or herself. It is good practice to involve those close to the patient, such as family, carers and friends, in the decision-making process if the patient wishes for such involvement.

  In some cases, patients may be so severely disabled that they are not able to give, or withhold, consent for a proposed examination or treatment. In such cases, health professionals may legally provide the treatment if it is in the patient's best interests to receive it. Although the health professional concerned is ultimately responsible for the decision as to whether or not treatment is in the patient's best interests, those close to the patient (parents, carers and others) should be fully involved in any discussions, unless the patient has made clear that particular individuals should not be involved in their care.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of women with learning difficulties over the age of 50 are eligible to receive breast screening services; [158093]

  (2) what percentage of women with learning difficulties receive cervical cancer screening.[158092]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally. We recognise that in the past women with a learning disability may not have had the information and support they needed to decide whether or not to attend for breast or cervical screening. This is why the Department published good practice guidance for women and their families, supporters and health care professionals. The guidance was developed in consultation with women with a learning disability and was published in November 2000.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many day centres for people with learning difficulties have been closed in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01.[158084]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on closures of day centres is not collected centrally. Set out in the table are the numbers of day centres for people with learning disabilities during a survey week in September for 1995 to 1998 for England. Collection of data on numbers of day care centres ceased in 1998.
  177W

  Year

  Day centres for people with learning disabilities

  1995

  1,030

  1996

  1,020

  1997

  1,270

  1998

  12,600

  1 For 1998 the figures also include the number of residential care homes which provide day care to non-residents.

  Source:

  DH form DC3

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been undertaken on the assistance that people with severe learning difficulties and their carers receive in order to take short-term breaks. [158090]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is not currently funding any research in this area.

  The White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability in the 21st Century", published on 20 March, confirmed that the Department will be funding a £2 million research initiative, "People With Learning Disabilities: Services, Inclusion, and Partnerships" starting later this year and lasting for four years. Research proposals are currently being considered; support for carers is a possible area of research.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with learning disabilities are resident in long-stay hospitals. [158094]

  Mr. Hutton
  Approximately 1,500 learning disabled people remain in long-stay places. Our recent White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" includes a commitment to enable all people currently living in long-stay hospitals to move into more appropriate accommodation in the community by April 2004.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with severe learning difficulties live with their parents.[158088]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the precise number of people with severe learning disabilities who live with their families is not held centrally. It is estimated that some 60 per cent. of all adults with learning disabilities live with their parents.

  During 2001–02, the Department will commission a national survey of people with learning disabilities in contact with social services to improve our knowledge and provide a stronger baseline against which to evaluate the impact of the recently published White Paper, "Valuing people, a new strategy for learning disability for the 21st century".

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with learning difficulties do not have a day centre placement for(a) all and (b) part of the week. [158083]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 31 March 2000 an estimated 49,600 adults with learning disabilities were in receipt of day care services. Information is not available about how many people do not receive services.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimate he has made of the proportion of people with learning difficulties that have been sexually abused. [158078]
  178W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the proportion of people with learning disabilities who have been sexually abused is not held centrally. The White Paper, "Valuing People, A new Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" says that local councils will need to ensure that learning disability services are represented on the local adult protection management committees, and that information about incidents of abuse of people with learning disabilities is gathered and recorded. This will improve our knowledge about the incidence of abuse.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parents over the age of 60 years care for children with severe learning difficulties.[158089]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the precise number of parents over the age of 60 who care for their sons and daughters with severe learning disabilities is not held centrally. It is estimated that a third of people with learning disabilities living in the family home are living with an older carer (aged 70 or over).

  In the recently published White Paper, "Valuing people, a new strategy for learning disability for the 21 century" we announced our intention to introduce a performance indicator, percentage of carers aged 70 or over for whom a person centred plan, which has been agreed. This will be monitored as part of the arrangements for monitoring the White Paper.

  Departmental Policies (Camden)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effects, with statistical information on(a) Hampstead and Highgate and (b) the London Borough of Camden of his Department's policies since 2 May 1997.[158013]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington North (Ms Buck) on 6 April 2001, Official Report, column 335W.

  Mid Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish for the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area the most recent figures for(a) those waiting for inpatient treatment and (b) those waiting 13 or more than 13 weeks to see a consultant. [158192]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Patients waiting for hospital treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service trust in February 2001

  Month

  Total number of patients waiting

  February 2001

  9,288

  Source:

  Monthly waiting list returns

  Patients waiting 13 weeks or more for an out-patient appointment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service trust in Quarter 3 2000/01(December 2000)

  Month

  Number of patients waiting Month over 13 weeks

  December 2000 (Q3 2000–01)

  2,349

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly return

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the advice given by his Department on the method of calculation of local authority payments to those also assisted by the Independent Living Fund. [158586]

  Mr. Hutton
  Local councils may make direct payments to people whom they have assessed as needing support, whether or not the individual also receives assistance from the independent living extension fund or the 1993 independent living fund. Copies of the policy and practice guidance on direct payments have been widely distributed and are also available on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk. In determining the extent of a user contribution to the cost of social services support, councils should treat alike those receiving direct payments and those receiving council-commissioned services. The Department has recently consulted on draft guidance for local councils, "Fairer charges for home care and other non-residential social services", which includes advice on any assessment of ability to pay charges for people who are also assisted by the independent living fund.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for treatment in(a) 1996–97 and (b) March 2001; and what the percentage change was. [158519]

  Mr. Denham
  On 31 March 1997 the total number of patients awaiting admission to hospital in England was 1,158,004. This is the waiting list we inherited. At the end of February 2001, the latest month for which information is presently available, there were 1,032,755 patients awaiting admission to hospital. This is a reduction of 10.8 per cent. and is over 25,000 more than our election promise to reduce waiting lists by 100,000.

  Remicade
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the availability of Remicade is on the NHS. [158466]

  Mr. Denham
  Remicade is currently being appraised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Until NICE has completed its appraisal, National Health Service bodies have been advised to use their existing arrangements to determine local policies on the publicly available evidence.

  Nutriprem 2
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from(a) right hon. and hon. Members, (b) medical practitioners and (c) others about the prescription status of Nutriprem 2. [158191]

  Ms Stuart
  We have had fewer than 15 representations, including nine from right hon. and hon. Members.

  Endometriosis
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about NHS services available to women suffering from endometriosis. [158188]
  180W
  Mr. Denham
  Endometriosis is the second most common gynaecological condition in this country, affecting about 2 million women. The prevalence of endometriosis is such that managing and treating it should be part of the routine work of every gynaecology department. Treatments range from managing the symptoms to surgery. The right treatment will be that which suits a particular woman's condition and needs. This will be achieved only by a woman discussing her needs fully with her doctor.

  The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has produced clinical guidelines on "The Investigation and Management of Endometriosis". These bring together the latest evidence-based knowledge and best practice on the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis, and examine options for treatment in the light of the presenting symptoms. The guidelines have been distributed to all of the Royal College's Fellows and members working in the health service.

  MRSA
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what MRSA infections occurring in NHS hospitals are reportable to his Department. [158291]

  Mr. Denham
  Until April this year reports of incidents of MRSA came only through specimens submitted voluntarily by trusts for specialist microbiological tests. From April 2001 all acute trusts will be required to collect data on MRSA blood stream infections and the information will be published from April 2002. Work is under way to extend the national surveillance system to cover other areas such as surgical site infections focusing initially on orthopaedic surgery.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS hospitals carry out MRSA screening and which do not. [158288]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally Policy on appropriate screening arrangements will vary from hospital to hospital depending on local circumstances, the nature of any infection, risk and other factors. These decisions are best determined locally.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many legal cases arising from infections by MRSA while in hospital have been brought against the NHS in each of the past five years; [158286]

  (2) how much compensation has been paid by the NHS to patients who have been infected by MRSA in each of the past five years. [158287]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service litigation authority received reports of 70 claims between April 1995 and July 2000 where MRSA is mentioned in the incident details. The outcome of those claims is not known and so the cost of claims to the NHS cannot be quantified. Information on compensation paid specifically as a result of infect on with MRSA is not held centrally.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on current research into developing new drugs that will combat MRSA and on the extent of Government funding in such research. [158290]
  181W
  Mr. Denham
  Considerable funding is provided for research to develop new drugs by the pharmaceutical industry, including work contracted to the Public Health Laboratory Service. The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC). In order to encourage research in the broad area of antimicrobial resistance, the MRC has issued a highlight notice welcoming proposals. My Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the National Health Service and will shortly publish its own call for research in the antimicrobial resistance field for which there is central funding of £2.5 million.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of antibiotics that are effective against MRSA. [158289]

  Mr. Denham
  Different strains of MRSA vary in the pattern of resistance shown to other anti-staphylococcal antibiotics. Therefore, there is no definitive list of antibiotics that are effective against MRSA.

  Most MRSA that occur in the United Kingdom are still sensitive to, and may be treated with, vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid, or quinupristin/dalfopristin. They may also be sensitive to rifampicin, fluoroquinolone antibiotics (such as ciprofloxacin), chloramphenicol and to some other antibiotics. Decisions on the antibiotic(s) appropriate for the treatment of any one patient must, therefore, depend on microbiological laboratory testing of the individual bacterium.

  Formula Milk
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the provision on prescription to low income mothers of special nutritional formulae for pre-term infants once they are discharged from hospital. [158318]

  Ms Stuart
  Our current policy is that infant formulae are not prescribable except for children with carbohydrate intolerances. If a product is prescribable, it is prescribable regardless of the income of the child's parents or carers.

  Cancer
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the standardised morality ratio for all cancers in(a) England, (b) the north west, (c) north Cheshire and (d) Halton was in the last year for which figures are available. [157820]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Derek Twigg, dated 23 April 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what the standardised mortality ratio for all cancers in (a) England, (b) the North West, (c) North Cheshire and (d) Halton was in the last year for which figures are available (157820).
  These figures are given in the table below. They are presented for the combined years of 1997 to 1999, using England and Wales death rates as the standard of comparison.
  182W

  Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMRs) for deaths from cancer
  ICD9 140–2081 for 1997–992

  Area of usual residence

  SMR

  England and Wales

  100

  England

  100

  North West Health Regional Office

  109

  North Cheshire Health Authority

  115

  Halton Unitary Authority

  132

  1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes 140–208—all malignant neoplasms

  2Pooled deaths registered in years 1997–99

TREASURY

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what consideration he has given to(a) postponing the census for the duration of the foot and mouth outbreak and (b) having census forms delivered by post in rural areas at risk from foot and mouth disease; [158416]

  (2) what instructions are being given to census personnel on precautions to minimise the risk of the spread of foot and mouth disease by the distribution of census forms in rural areas. [158417]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Michael Fabricant, dated 23 April 2001:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on what consideration has been given to postponement of the Census and delivery of Census forms by post during the foot and mouth outbreak, as well as the instructions being given to Census personnel to minimise the risk of spread of the disease (158416,158417).
  The impact of delaying the Census because of current outbreak of foot and mouth was assessed against the public concerns expressed about conducting the census in affected areas. I have been very conscious of the distress and difficulty the disease is causing, but I am certain that we shall do nothing in conducting the Census that might contribute to its spread.
  People in rural England and Wales have responded particularly well in past Censuses, and this makes it possible to introduce a much more flexible approach to counting people in these parts of the country, in response to the outbreak.
  On 2 April I released a statement outlining our plans for conducting the Census in affected areas. I attach a copy of the statement.
  This explains that the Census-takers working in the countryside have been instructed to respect all foot and mouth restrictions, and the wishes of the farming community. New arrangements are in place so that Census forms can be delivered to farms and households by mail, or, where practical, to an agreed point such as a farm boundary. Completed forms will be returned by mail.
  Specific guidance for enumerators has been drafted in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and has been endorsed by the National Assembly for Wales, as well

  183W
  as by the National Farmers Union. Details of the procedures have been delivered to area and district managers, and are incorporated in the training of census-takers.
  Census and foot and mouth statement—Monday 2 April 2001
  National Statistician Len Cook today expressed confidence that the Census in England and Wales scheduled for 29 April can be conducted safely and efficiently despite the restrictions imposed to combat foot and mouth disease.
  Census-takers working in the countryside have been instructed to respect all foot and mouth restrictions, and the wishes of the farming community. New arrangements are being put in place so that Census forms can be delivered to farms and households by mail, or, where practical, to an agreed point such as a farm boundary. Completed forms will be returned by mail.
  The special instructions, drafted in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have been endorsed by the National Assembly for Wales, as well as by the National Farmers Union. Details of the procedures have been delivered to area and district managers, and are incorporated in the training of census-takers.
  Mr. Cook said today "Senior Census officials last week visited teams in the regions worst affected by foot and mouth. They confirmed the practicality of the special arrangements for delivering Census forms in rural areas where there are restrictions.
  I am certain that. with these arrangements in place, the Census can be carried through without danger of contributing to the spread of the disease.
  I am very conscious of the distress and difficulty foot and mouth disease is causing and we shall do nothing that might contribute to its spread".
  Census Director Graham Jones, who on Tuesday visited the North of England and met field staff from Cumbria, Northumberland and Yorkshire, today said: "The people at the sharp end say the revised procedures are entirely practical, and can be applied sensibly and flexibly by census-takers in the countryside".
  Alex Clark, Deputy Census Director, had meetings with field staff in Wales and Devon, and reported a similar positive reaction. In many places, area managers are liaising with local authorities to ensure compliance with local restrictions.
  Forms are scheduled for delivery to households between 9 and 20 April. Delivery in areas where there are restrictions may be delayed by a few days, but forms will reach households in time for the Census on 29 April.
  If necessary the deadline for returning forms will be extended.
  "The information made available by the Census is essential to the planning activities of a whole range of private and public sector bodies", Mr. Cook said, "It will help determine resource allocation decisions on billions of pounds of public expenditure, which will be vitally important for the rural community and the rural economy. In these extremely difficult circumstances we are delighted by the co-operation we are receiving".

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if compensation payments to farmers in respect of foot and mouth disease will be subject to income tax. [157374]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir. M. Spicer) on 6 April 2001, Official Report, column 301W.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) private sector and (b) public sector enterprises are eligible to pay the climate change levy in the Salisbury constituency. [157788]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: We do not hold the information requested. The climate change levy is payable on all business use of energy, except
  184W
  energy covered by the domestic exemption, non-business use by charities, and by exemptions such as those applying to renewable energy and energy supplied from a good quality combined heat and power plant.

  Outsourcing (VAT Ruling)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications of the recent VAT tribunal ruling in respect of the outsourcing of investment management by Prudential Assurance on the outsourcing of vehicle repairs by insurance companies; and if he will make a statement. [157900]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Tribunal's decision that the management of an authorised unit trust scheme is exempt, whoever provides the services has no implications for suppliers of other services to insurance companies.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of VAT refunds to be paid to the financial services industry following the VAT tribunal ruling against Customs and Excise in respect of the outsourcing of investment management; and if he will make a statement. [157899]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No refunds are being paid as Customs have appealed the VAT Tribunal's decision to the Court of Session.

  National Audit Office
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to extend the powers of the National Audit Office to examine accounts and records of contractors to central Government; [158299]

  (2) if he will seek to extend the powers of the National Audit Office to audit all organisations which are completely owned by the Government, with special reference to (a) research and development organisations, (b) art galleries, (c) museums, (d) Remploy, (e) the Student Council Trust and (f) the Student Loan Company; [158300]

  (3) if he will seek to extend the powers of the National Audit Office to audit all non-departmental public bodies, with special reference to (a) the Housing Corporation, (b) the Environment Agency and (c) regional development agencies. [158301]

  Mr. Timms
  These matters are being considered in the context of the Government's forthcoming response to Lord Sharman's recent Review of Audit and Accountability for Central Government, "Holding to Account".

  Foundation Schools
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effects of corporation tax on the income from(a) school letting and (b) interest on school bank accounts on foundation schools. [157957]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such estimate has been made. But income received by schools will usually be exempt from corporation tax.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the(a) cost,

  185W
  (b) absolute gains and (c) relative gains by income decile of increasing the amount of income subject to basic rate tax by £1,000; and if he will make a statement. [158073]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year cost of increasing the income tax basic rate limit by £1,000 in 2001–02 is estimated to be £½ billion. All gainers would be in the top income decile. They would gain £175 on average, which represents a 1 per cent. reduction in their tax liability.

  These estimates are based on the survey of personal incomes and consistent with the March 2001 Budget.

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish details of the proposed scheme for the provision of relief against business rates for amateur sports clubs; when he intends to commence the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [158120]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the light of representations received following the introduction of the package of enhanced tax reliefs for charities in Budget 2000, Budget 2001 announced that the Government would consider the best way for tax relief to help community amateur sports clubs that a make a positive contribution to their local communities. The Government will work with key organisations from sport and the voluntary sector to draw up detailed proposals over the next few months, which we will then publish for a period of wider consultation later this year. The Government will announce firm proposals in the light of consideration of the responses we receive.

  Motorcycle Excise Duty
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay his decision to raise motorcycle excise duty by £5. [158407]

  Mr. Timms
  The Chancellor announced in Budget 2001 that rates of vehicle excise duty for motorcycles would be frozen until at least 2002.

  Budget 2000 announced that the general rate of vehicle excise duty for cars would rise by £5 to £160, but deferred the increase until 1 March 2001. Alongside this, the rate of vehicle excise duty for motorcycles with engines over 400 cc rose by £5 per annum. This was the first increase, since the Government were elected, for motorcycles of this engine size. There was no increase in vehicle excise duty for motorcycles below 400 cc.

  Audio Books and Newspapers
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual cost would be to the Exchequer of zero-rating audio books and audio newspapers from VAT. [157533]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No accurate estimate is available.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what year of income is being used as the basis for assessing people's entitlement to the children's tax credit. [155434]
  186W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: The children's tax credit to which an individual is entitled is based on his or her income for that tax year.

  Commemorative Coins
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers of each commemorative coin issued since May 1997 and the cost of minting each such coin. [156975]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of UK standard commemorative coins issued since May 1997 is set out. The cost of minting each coin is commercially sensitive.

  million pieces

  Coin design

  Purchases

  1997

  Golden Wedding £5

  0.834

  1998

  Prince Charles £5

  0.775

  UK's EU Presidency 50p

  5.048

  50th Anniversary NHS 50p

  5.001

  1999

  Princes Diana £5

  1.796

  Rubgy World Cup £2

  4.900

  2000

  Millennium £5

  1.932

  Queen Mother £51

  2.744

  Public Libraries 50p

  11.263

  2001

  Queen Victoria £5

  2—

  Marconi £2

  2—

  1 The number of coins sold has not yet been confirmed and may be subject to change over the next few months.

  2 These coins have only just been issued and no sales figures are currently available.

  Cancer Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the five year survival rate was for each main group of cancer sufferers in each region and nation of the United Kingdom for each of the years from 1990 to 1996. [156911]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 23 April 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the five year survival rates for each main group of cancer sufferers, in each region and nation of the United Kingdom for each of the years 1990 to 1996 (157036). I am replying in his absence.
  For England, the latest available data on the survival of patients diagnosed with cancer, which are for cases diagnosed in the three year period 1992–94 and followed up to 31 December 1999, were published on the National Statistics website, www.statistics.co.uk on 31 January 2001 for eight common cancers.
  The most recent published figures by health regional office area are for cancers of the female breast, lung, cervix and colon diagnosed in 1991–93. These were published in Quality and Performance in the NHS: NHS Performance Indicators which can be found at www.doh.gov.uk/nhsperformanceindicators. Comparable figures for

  187W
  cancers of the stomach, prostate and bladder were made available in the House of Commons Hansard of 28 November 2000 (Number 169, Volume 357, Column 594 W).
  The latest available data for Wales are available in the publication Cancer Registration and Survival in Wales 1985–1994 and are for patients diagnosed in 1985–89.
  The Scottish Cancer Intelligence Unit published their latest survival data for patients diagnosed in 1991–95 by cancer in Trends in Cancer Survival in Scotland 1971–1995.
  Comparable information is not available for Northern Ireland.

  Earnings
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the average hourly earnings were of female part-time employees as a percentage of(a) total female full-time hourly earnings and (b) total male hourly earnings in each year from 1975 to 2000; [157697]

  (2) what the median hourly earnings were of female part-time workers as a percentage of (a) female full-time workers and (b) male full-time workers at the latest date for which figures are available. [157698]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician.
  I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Barbara Follett, dated 23 April 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions about the average and median hourly earnings of female part-time employees. (157697, 157698)
  The tables attached provide information on average and median hourly earnings of female part-time employees as a percentage of both female and male full-time hourly earnings, drawing upon the New Earnings Survey (NES). Percentages based on total male earnings, (as opposed to full-time male earnings), are not available on a consistent basis back to 1975.

  Table 1: Average hourly earnings of female part-time employees as a percentage of:

  Female full-time hourly earnings

  Male full-time hourly earnings

  1975

  83

  58

  1976

  81

  59

  1977

  82

  60

  1978

  81

  59

  1979

  81

  58

  1980

  81

  58

  1981

  79

  58

  1982

  79

  57

  1983

  79

  57

  1984

  78

  57

  1985

  78

  57

  1986

  76

  57

  1987

  76

  56

  1988

  75

  56

  1989

  75

  57

  1990

  75

  57

  1991

  75

  58

  1992

  74

  59

  1993

  74

  59

  1994

  74

  59

  1995

  75

  60

  1996

  72

  58

  1997

  73

  59

  1998

  73

  59

  1999

  74

  60

  2000

  75

  61

  188W
  Notes:

  1. 1984–2000 full-time females and full-time males aged 16 and over.

  2. 1975–1983 full-time females aged 18 and over and full-time males aged 21 and over.

  Table 2: Median hourly earnings of female part-time workers as a percentage of:

  Female full-time hourly workers

  Male full-time hourly workers

  2000

  69

  58

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey

  Motorcycling (VAT)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer, 10 April 2001,Official Report, column 527W, on VAT, if he will list the EU statutory provisions on which his response was based.[158576]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The list of supplies of goods and services which may be subject to reduced rates of VAT is at annexe H of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1997 (77/388/EEC) as amended.

  Departmental Policies (Plymouth Unitary Authority)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency and (c) South-West Devon constituency, the effects on the Plymouth Unitary Authority area of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158031]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Plymouth, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, the levels of claimant, youth and long-term unemployment in the three constituencies have changed as follows:

  Percentage changes: April 1997 to March 2001

  Constituency

  Claimant unemployment

  Youth unemployment

  Long-term unemployment

  Plymouth, Sutton

  -58

  -91

  -77

  Plymouth, Devonport

  -59

  -88

  -81

  South-West Devon

  -62

  -88

  -85

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and make work pay. To the end of January 2001, the total number of young people who have started the New Deal for 18–24-year-olds and found employment in each of the three constituencies was as follows:

  Constituency

  Total starts

  Total into employment1

  Plymouth, Sutton

  1,807

  1,006 (56)

  Plymouth, Devonport

  1,454

  824 (57)

  South-West Devon

  460

  284 (62)

  1 Percentage of starts in brackets.

  189W
  The working families tax credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In November 2000, 2,000 families in Plymouth, Sutton, 3,500 in Plymouth, Devonport and 1,300 in South-West Devon constituencies were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies that enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 16,000 in Plymouth, Sutton, 17,500 in Plymouth, Devonport and 17,200 in South-West Devon, have received an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners receive an extra £5 a week, and couples receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 7,600 in Plymouth, Sutton, 6,500 in Plymouth, Devonport and 7,200 in South-West Devon.

  MRSA
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many death certificates have given MRSA as(a) the primary and (b) a contributory cause of death in each of the past five years. [158285]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Wilshire, dated 23 April 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of death certificates which have given MRSA as the primary and contributory cause of deaths in each of the last five years (158285).
  I refer you to the answer given to a question from Tony Wright in Hansard of 10 January 2001 (Number 15, Volume 360, Column 571).

  Public Spending
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) limits and (b) restraints are placed upon UK (i) public spending and (ii) public capital expenditure by arrangements with the European Union:, what formulae apply; what are the total sums in each case; and what are the actual planned spending totals in each case. [158349]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under Council Regulation (EC) No.1467/97, the UK should"endeavour to avoid excessive deficits".

  European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff employed by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products are eligible for Chapter II funding. [158327]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Details of the staff of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) can be found on its website: www.emea.eu.int.

  Euro
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue guidance to businesses on the legal status of the euro in the UK after 1 January 2002. [158393]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  On 29 March the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, in consultation with business, the Government were authorising an enhanced small business information campaign, to include an updated website, so that British business is prepared for the introduction of euro notes and coins in 2002. The material available includes case studies and factsheets, all available through the website: www.euro.gov.uk.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what position he will adopt on the Solidarity Initiative During the Changeover to the Euro Currency (European Parliament Session Document BS-0029/01) in the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement. [158325]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Solidarity Initiative is a motion for a European Parliament resolution, and is a matter for the European Parliament.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department was warned before Equitable Life Assurance Society closed itself to new business that the company was potentially unable to meet its contractual commitment to its policy holders; and if he will make a statement. [158567]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Financial Services Authority made it clear when the Equitable Life Assurance Society closed to new business that the society continued to meet statutory solvency requirements. The FSA is continuing to monitor closely the operations of Equitable Life.

  Annuity Pension Arrangements
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards annuity pension arrangements; [158423]

  (2) what discussions he has had recently with groups seeking reform of annuity pension arrangements. [158424]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to Section 5.66 to 5.69 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report published on Budget day, copies of which are in the Library. This sets out the Government's views on annuity pension arrangements.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the figures for each year since 1985 for the numbers of Customs and Excise officers specialising in border control operations.[158447]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise does not collect data in the form specified. Figures are, however, available for the number of staff years spent by Customs and Excise Officers undertaking Customs duties (which would include a range of both frontier and inland activity). These figures are available in the annual reports of the Board of Customs and Excise in the Library of the House.

  IR35
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Professional Contractors Group since the recent court judgment on the IR35 case. [158446]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A meeting is currently being arranged between the Inland Revenue and representatives of the Professional Contractors Group to discuss practical issues arising out of the application and operation of the IR35 legislation.

  European Commission (Tax-raising Powers)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals have been made by the Belgian Government through(a) the Council, (b) the Finance Ministers of the European Community and (c) otherwise, for providing powers to the Commission to raise tax revenue by direct levy, (A) as part of and (B) additional to existing means of providing resources for the Union. [158394]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have received no such proposals.

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in his Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. [158114]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no upper or lower age limits for appointments to public bodies of the Chancellor's departments. Appointments are made on merit by matching the abilities, experience and qualities of applicants with the needs of the bodies concerned. The Chancellor's departments have set plans with goals and objectives for increasing the representation of under-represented groups on public bodies as part of the Government's commitment to equality of opportunity and to increasing the diversity of those appointed to public bodies.

  Illegally Imported Foodstuffs
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of Customs and Excise officers who enforce border inspection rules, with particular reference to illegally imported meat and other foodstuffs. [158448]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are two main aspects to Customs role at the UK's border: processing declarations of commercial consignments being moved into and out of the country; and detecting attempts to evade the prohibitions and restrictions on items being moved either commercially or privately.

  Commercial imports and exports of goods from or to locations outside the European Union must be declared to Customs to help ensure any revenues due are properly accounted for and that restrictions are complied with. Declarations of meat and meat products are identified from Customs systems and referred to a MAFF approved border inspection post. The goods are only released from Customs control on receipt of notification from the border inspection post that any necessary checks are complete.

  Customs detection activity at the border is focused on finding and dealing with irregularities across the full range of contrabands; these include controlled drugs, high revenue items such as alcohol and tobacco, cash linked to drug trafficking, paedophile pornography and illicit weapons. When the detection systems find travellers carrying meat products outside the MAFF allowance (one kilogram of cooked meat products in a sealed container) the material is seized and disposed of in accordance with procedures agreed with MAFF and the local port health authority.

  Church Repairs (VAT)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will zero-rate church repairs for VAT. [158224]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor announced in his Budget that he is introducing a UK-wide grant scheme to help with the cost of repairing listed places of worship. The effect of the grant will be to reduce the VAT cost to 5 per cent. for new work undertaken from 1 April 2001.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

Tributes to the Late Lord Harris of Greenwich
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be aware that during the Easter Recess we heard the sad news of the death of Lord Harris of Greenwich, the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. I hope that your Lordships will not object to my taking a few moments, as the Government Chief Whip, to express the sympathy of these Benches to the colleagues and family of Lord Harris.
I got to know John Harris well in my four years as Government Chief Whip. In that time I found him a doughty defender of Liberal Democrat interests, a tough but scrupulously fair negotiator, and a thoroughly decent person with whom to do business.
He had a distinguished career on the left of centre of British politics, and recent obituaries have indicated the crucial role that he played behind the scenes and in many important political issues over the past four decades. British politics have lost someone who was a good servant to political life and the House has lost a Member who contributed greatly to its standing. I know that I speak for all noble Lords when I express our deep sympathy to his wife, Angela, and to his children.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Henley: My Lords, as another member of the usual channels, perhaps I may associate myself very
2
warmly with the remarks of the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms. We on this side of the House also had a great respect for the services that Lord Harris of Greenwich gave to this country as a Minister, to this House and to the Liberal Democrat Party.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, he was a strong defender of his party's corner, but he always behaved with integrity when he reached a clear understanding in the usual channels. He and I did not necessarily always agree—particularly when he was pursuing a line different from my own—but on those occasions when we were acting in concert I could always rely on his robustness in argument and on the iron discipline with which he marshalled his troops on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Many Peers, on all sides, will have admired the immense and often moving courage with which John Harris faced up to his final illness and his determination to end his days in harness and, dare I say it, with cigar in hand. We will long remember him.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in expressing our sympathy, above all, to his wife, to his family and to his many party colleagues in this House, who will feel a great sense of loss today when they look to his accustomed place on the Front Bench and find him gone.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, John Harris was a notable Member of your Lordships' House for 27 years. I was fortunate enough to work very closely with him for even longer—for 36 years, to be precise. He was to me a counsellor of buoyancy, humour, flair and instinctive political wisdom, whose presence in any moment of bafflement—and there were many moments of bafflement in ministerial and political life—not only shone a clear light of good sense but made vicissitudes more bearable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has touched upon, more vivid to most of your Lordships will be his extraordinary courage during his last years and,

3
indeed, days. He got the most out of life even when he was under sentence of death. He is a loss to us all and he was a model to us all in that respect.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, obituaries can often reveal far more about their subject than many of us are ever likely to know. For me, that was certainly true of Lord Harris. He had a wide and involved career in the political mainstream and clearly loved it, as he came to love this place too. Outstanding in his final years here were his courage and fortitude. He continued to the last to give of his time and energy. The words used in one obituary—never flinch, never weary, never despair—very aptly describe his tenacity of purpose.
The House has lost another fine Member and parliamentarian. On behalf of all Cross-Bench Peers and myself, I extend our sincerest condolences and sympathy to his wife and family.

European Union Reaction Force
2.41 p.m.
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
What part members of British Armed Forces will play in the separate planning staff proposed for the European Union reaction force, independent of NATO.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, as I made clear in answering questions on 28th February, there will be no separate operational planning staff. There will be a military staff of about 135, of whom some 13 are expected to be British. They will advise on strategic options for a political decision. If a political decision to intervene is taken, operational planning will either be through SHAPE, which has a core staff of 950, or, for less demanding operations, national facilities such as our PJHQ, which, for example, has a staff of approximately 450.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can she tell the House what automatic right of entry NATO planning chiefs will have into the councils of the European Union rapid reaction force?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in view of his responsibilities for the European pillar of NATO and his potential role for EU-led operations, DSACEUR will when necessary—and in particular where the capabilities and expertise of the alliance are concerned—be invited to the meetings of the EU military committee. He would normally attend, as would the chairman of the NATO military committee, but there is no automatic right to do so. There may be occasions—for example, the election of a new EU military chairman—when they would not attend. The EU must, like NATO, have a right to its own decisions.
4
It will be usual for DSACEUR to attend the meetings, but there is no automatic right. I hope that makes the matter clear.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the number two in the new military staff is a British major general and that we are heavily engaged in this alternative? Will she confirm also that the idea of the independence of NATO is a non sequitur, given that Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and others are members of NATO, that NATO is a collective alliance and the EU reaction force is part of NATO, either intrinsically or as a European part?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can confirm much of what the noble Lord says. There has been some confusion on this point. There has been confusion between the planning stages—between what might be described as the strategic decision points before a political decision to intervene—and the stages thereafter where an operational capability would be either through SHAPE or, for lesser operations, a matter for the individual countries concerned; for example, for our own PJHQ. I agree largely with what the noble Lord says but I should not want there to be any misunderstanding as to the detail.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the planning staff of the European organisation, whether strategic or tactical, will be composed exclusively of military personnel?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we envisage that the strategic planning staff will be largely military personnel. It is certainly true that the United Kingdom's contribution will be some 13 to an overall figure of 135. When we look to the operational capability, again it is likely to be largely military if, for example, it is being done through SHAPE, which presently has 950 personnel. I cannot guarantee that there will be no civilian input, and the noble Lord would not expect me to do so. There will be civilian input in the source of advice that will come, for example, from MoD headquarters.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, would the Government like to comment on the fact that the French Government apparently have an entirely different view of all this? According to the statements of French political leaders, it is essential that the new set-up should have a planning capacity, including an intelligence output, that is totally separate from and independent of NATO. Do the Government have a view on that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is labouring under something of a misapprehension. That is not surprising if he took at face value everything that was written in the Daily Telegraph in March. I am happy to say that the French chief of defence staff, commenting on the remarks attributed to him in that article—which caused

5
many people to draw the conclusions that the noble Lord has drawn—said on the "Today" programme on 29th March:
"We do not intend to set up a European planning staff in Brussels".
Remarks by President Chirac, M. Vedrin and M. Richard have confirmed that all believe that NATO is the cornerstone for European defence.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, further to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, how will the part played by our forces in planning be effective without NATO pooled intelligence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as we have discussed previously in this House, intelligence matters are not likely to operate any differently from the way in which they operate in NATO at present. The way in which intelligence is used, or indeed shared, will be a matter for the countries from which the intelligence emanates—a matter for the capitals of those countries. So I do not believe that we are entering any different or unknown territory in the European dimension of which we are now talking.

Arts Boards Merger: Consultation
2.48 p.m.
Viscount Falklandasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will maintain the principle of decentralisation of arts development and funding within the proposal to unite the 10 existing regional arts boards into a new Arts Council of England.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Secretary of State is looking forward to receiving further details from the Arts Council of England about its proposed merger with the regional arts boards. He has, however, made it clear that his approval of the changes will be conditional on the Arts Council being able to demonstrate that the proposals will indeed deliver a genuinely simpler funding mechanism, lower administration costs and enhanced decentralisation.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, he has not quite answered my question about the principle of decentralisation. Whatever the merits of the Arts Council's prospectus for these sweeping and radical changes, it seems that little consultation took place with the local arts boards, which are to disappear under the plan. Did consultation take place with the noble Lord's department any more than it did with local arts boards? Does the matter not give rise to concern?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, consultation is taking place now; this is a consultation document. There was a feeling, I understand, among some regional
6
arts boards and others that they had received less than adequate notice of what was being proposed by the Arts Council of England. However, the fact that the Arts Council is taking consultation seriously is evidenced by the extension of the consultation period from the end of April to the end of June. The Secretary of State was indeed consulted before the announcement was made, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was informed.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Economic Impact
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domerasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they believe that the impact of foot and mouth disease upon the rural economy can be alleviated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the most important way to help rural businesses adversely affected by foot and mouth is to bring back their customers and restore confidence. The Government are stressing that Britain is open for business and encouraging the reopening of attractions and footpaths in line with MAFF guidance and veterinary advice on risk assessments. In addition, tourist boards are strongly promoting what attractions are open.
The Government have also introduced a range of measures to alleviate the impact in rural areas. That initiative is being rigorously pursued by the agencies responsible. The Rural Task Force, upon which a Statement will be delivered later today, is monitoring the results and considering measures to help kick-start the rural economy once the outbreak of foot and mouth has been eradicated.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept, however, that the rural economy was already in crisis before the foot and mouth outbreak? If the noble Lord visited some rural parts of the South West over Easter—I visited Cornwall and Devon—I am sure that he would agree that the rural economy in the region is in melt-down, not only because of the lack of tourists but also because local people in the area are forced into more inactivity than is usually the case. Does the noble Lord also agree that small businesses, which make up 90 per cent of rural businesses, are suffering most? Do the Government really believe that they are doing enough in the face of this crisis which comes on top of an already extremely severe period for the rural economy?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that there were a significant number of problems in the agricultural sector prior to the outbreak of foot and mouth and that the latter has obviously very drastically

7
exacerbated such problems. However, the tourist industry was previously in relatively good shape in most of our rural areas. Like the noble Baroness, I spent some of the Easter break in Cornwall, Devon and Dorset. I noticed that there were a number of tourists in those areas. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness is correct to say that there are serious problems for the rural economy as a whole, especially for small businesses. That is why the package of measures of short-term help we have provided relates primarily to help for small businesses of all sorts within rural areas. Much effort is already being directed towards helping such businesses.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that some businesses will never get back their customers? I have in mind, for example, a local milking machine fitter who was busy installing a very high-tech system for a local farmer. However, as soon as the farm became part of an infected area, the fitter came off the job. The farmer then had his cows killed. So the farmer now has a half-fitted milking machine system; the supplier will never get his money; and, indeed, the original supplier will never retrieve his money. Hundreds and thousands of little businesses all over the country are collapsing because of this crisis. It is not just the tourism industry that is suffering. Can the noble Lord please make clear what help is being given to people like the milking machine fitter I mentioned?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there will inevitably be some very serious problems of that nature. The knock-on effect of the crisis in the agricultural sector will no doubt be severe in many sectors. We have provided help for businesses, which will eventually recover but which are faced with short-term cash flow or demand problems, in the form of hardship rate relief, deferral of rate payments, extended time to pay, and improvements in the small businesses' service and the small business loans guarantee scheme. Therefore, businesses that have a future will find some relief from such pressures. But, inevitably, there will be problems of the kind outlined by the noble Countess. It is very difficult to see how we can deal with all such problems.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, although the measures just outlined by my noble friend are all valuable in their own ways, does he accept that none of them will save some of the small businesses that are essential to the survival of rural communities in areas like the South West where the noble Baroness and I spent the Easter break; for example, many small shops? Will the Government contemplate giving some direct aid to essential local businesses which must survive but will not survive until people return to the countryside? That, realistically, will not happen until the rotting carcasses have gone and the burning has ended. Will my noble friend consider help to keep those essential businesses going for the next three months?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the measures that I mentioned are directed primarily at helping just such
8
businesses. In addition, as noble Lords will know, the Government have announced very substantial rate relief of several different sorts for small businesses in rural areas. Undoubtedly, there is a serious problem here. However, it is not the Government's position that we are able—or, indeed, that we would regard it as sensible—to provide loss of income cover for all such businesses. It is not the Government's business to be the insurer of last resort. Therefore, there are bound to be problems of this nature following such a very severe agricultural crisis. I recognise that that is no great comfort to those businesses to which my noble friend referred, but I believe that many of the measures currently in place will provide at least some comfort for a range of such businesses, and that they will also provide the basis for a rural revival once the disease has been eradicated. We must make it clear to everyone that the prime objective of the Government is the rapid eradication of this disease, which will bring relief to rural areas.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one further burden for those in the rural economy is that many homes, shops, streets and villages are still under water? Those people are suffering most severely from the horrors of finding their properties flooded, so much so that the noble Lord may have noted that an offer of food parcels and help for the suffering British rural towns and villages was received just the other day from Mozambique. Can the noble Lord tell the House what is the Government's strategy—not the tactical details—for ensuring that these appalling floods that have, on top of everything else, caused a great deal of suffering will really be tackled with a new vigour so that they do not continue to recur?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that the Government are in total control of the climatic conditions that cause flooding. There have been inappropriate developments in some areas; indeed, a lack of precautions in some areas both on agricultural and on developed land have aggravated flooding problems. The Government have indicated that they intend to direct major new resources and efforts to restricting the effect of flooding where such measures can be effectively implemented. However, there will inevitably be areas that will continue to be subject to flooding when severe flooding occurs.
Earl Russell: My Lords, further to the Minister's reply to his noble friend Lady Mallalieu, can he confirm that those businesses to which the Government are prepared to extend help include rural post offices and sub-post offices? Will the noble Lord also confirm that to make such help effective it is necessary to give thought to the interleaving of the requirements of the service with the requirements of European competition law? To that intent, will the noble Lord direct members of the Government to pay attention to the extremely helpful opinion offered to Commission 6 of the Committee of the Regions on 30th June 2000, which distinguishes between help for

9
a service and help to any particular competitive business? Does the noble Lord consider that this is a line upon which sensible progress is possible?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret to say that I have not seen the opinion to which the noble Earl refers. I recognise that some European initiatives have been directed towards protecting services in remote and rural areas. It is possible that that opinion would be helpful in that respect. Nevertheless the Government have already made a major commitment to the rural post office network through supporting the Post Office's own priorities and through granting rate relief to post offices. We are putting pressure on the Post Office and the banks to ensure that rural post offices are in a position to provide a wide range of services to people in rural and less accessible urban areas and thereby slow down and, if possible, end the decline in rural post offices.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, is not a clear message on what is or is not open the best help for rural areas at the moment? Apparently in Leicestershire restrictions have been lifted and yet a farm at Hinckley had a confirmed outbreak as recently as 30th March and there were two earlier outbreaks. Therefore, the county council is unsure as to what it can and cannot allow to be opened. In last Friday's Leicester Mercury there were calls for restrictions to be lifted in the whole of the county. At the moment the picture is still confused. As the Minister will know, I have spoken on behalf of rural post offices on many occasions in this House. However, they are still closing at the rate of two a week and the universal banking system is not in place. Can the Minister give us better news on that matter too?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, constructive discussions are taking place with the Post Office and the banks but it will take time to put a system in place. However, the Government are committed to providing a universal ban king service.
As I understand it, restrictions have been lifted in one area of Leicestershire but not in the area to which I believe the noble Baroness referred. The Government try to make clear where restrictions have been lifted. It is for MAFF to decide whether to lift them entirely nationally. The opening of footpaths or other access points is very much a matter for local decision in line with local veterinary and MAFF advice. The opening of rights of way in different counties is decided at that level and therefore varies. I was gratified to note that over Easter in many parts of the country a significant number of rights of way were open to tourists.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that while the agricultural economy has been seriously affected, the tourism and recreational holiday businesses, which are important in many areas, would hardly have thrived over the past eight weeks, given the nature of the English weather?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said earlier, the Government regrettably have not yet achieved control
10
over the English weather. We can mitigate its effects in certain circumstances, but we did not do very well over Easter in that regard.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that rural post offices and rural businesses that are trying to diversify have adequate access to broad band data transmission?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have indicated their commitment to extend broad band access to all areas, including rural areas. Concerns about how the planning arrangements are operated area by area are being addressed.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned that banking facilities in post offices will be available. When will they be available?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I missed the first part of that question.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, when will banking facilities in post offices be available?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, banking facilities are already available in post offices; it is a matter of extending the range of those services. That matter requires detailed and complex agreements with the banks and is under discussion.

Housing Benefit: Landlords and Tenants
3.4 p.m.
Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to reduce the proportion of landlords who are unwilling to accept tenants on housing benefit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, perhaps as many as half of landlords prefer not to let to tenants on housing benefit. One of the reasons for that has been the delays in payment. As your Lordships will know from responses to previous Questions in your Lordships' House, we are working in partnership with local authorities to make the payment of housing benefit more efficient.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She will be aware that all the research, including the Government's own, indicates that the imposition of the single room rent on people under 25 is one reason why many landlords have ceased to accept people on housing benefit. I direct her attention to a reply given by her honourable friend Angela Eagle in another place on 2nd April which indicated the prospect of some relaxation in the single room rent.

11
Will she explain to the House what that relaxation is? I welcome it with a warmth proportionate to the answer which I am about to receive.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I expect warm and robust thanks from the noble Earl, to whom I am grateful for raising this matter. At the moment the single room rent applies only to young people who are in a self-contained unit; effectively, a bedsit. Therefore, young people in a shared house, for example, have no contribution through housing benefit to the cost of the shared living room or the shared bathroom. The proposed extension which will come into effect in July will allow the cost of the accommodation in which most young people live—that is, a shared flat—to be met by housing benefit. Some 65,000 young people should benefit, at a total cost of about £25 million. I hope that the noble Earl will welcome that with enthusiasm.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not just the delay in payment that is causing difficulty, but also the fact that landlords, particularly small landlords, are uncertain whether they will get the payment? Will her department consider introducing a scheme rather like that introduced by building societies under which one is given an indication of the mortgage one can obtain and one then looks for a property? Would it help if people were certified as eligible for a certain level of housing benefit before they approached a landlord?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is a helpful suggestion. We have explored the possibility of accommodation having a predetermined rent level. That would enable anyone seeking that accommodation to know what he or she would be likely to pay in rent and what the appropriate housing benefit might be.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in its report on housing benefit last year, the Social Security Advisory Committee invited the Minister's department to provide a detailed analysis of the impact of the main models for a reformed system for private tenants. Has that analysis been undertaken and, if so, what were the main findings?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the basic problem is that housing benefit has to follow the reform of the restructuring of housing rents. Either you have to control rents or you have to control housing benefit. If you do not do one or the other, landlords will increase rents accordingly and the taxpayer will be left to pick up the bill. The Government made it clear in their housing Green Paper that housing benefit reform in the long term must follow the restructuring of rents, which could take seven to 10 years. But in the short term we are picking up the sort of issues addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner; that is, the speed, effectiveness and verification of housing benefit payments.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the particular difficulties faced by discharged prisoners who cannot enter into commitments to take on a tenancy without the certainty of being able to get housing benefit, but they cannot get housing benefit until after they have been discharged? Will she look into that matter and try to do something about it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is a real problem. Prisoners and their support organisations could press local authorities much harder to use the exceptional hardship payment scheme. In the past year, for example, the Government made available £20 million to local authorities for individuals in exactly the kind of position that the noble Lord has described. Some 10 per cent of local authorities spent not a penny of that money; 60 per cent spent less than 50 per cent of their allocation. Well over half of that allocation is unspent. As a result, people in extreme need such as former prisoners and young women who may be pregnant who could get additional help in high demand areas are not being given it. I hope that your Lordships will join me in pressing local authorities to spend the money they have been allocated for such cases and not to spend it on other things.

Housing Benefit: Landlords and Tenants
  Business
  Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Whitty will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on the work of the Rural Task Force with regard to the foot and mouth crisis.
  International Development Bill
  Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Armed Forces Bill
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Much of the Bill is concerned with the statutory framework for the system of discipline in the Armed Forces. Discipline is an essential ingredient of the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces. Everyone in the Armed Forces fully understands that to be the case.
In this country we properly take pride in the fact that our forces are disciplined. We rightly take pride in their excellence. The connection between sound discipline and excellence is a very real one. It is vital, therefore, for us to ensure that the discipline part of the equation is right.
The statutory basis for discipline in the Armed Forces is the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957—collectively known as the service discipline Acts. They have to be renewed every

13
five years, otherwise they would expire. The single most important purpose of Armed Forces Bills is to effect that renewal.
The service discipline Acts were last renewed by the Armed Forces Act 1996 and will expire at the end of this year. The present Bill, when passed into law, will give them a further five-year lease of life.
I know that the Government's commitment to move towards a tri-service Act is of interest to your Lordships. At Second Reading of this Bill in another place, my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, John Spellar, set out our intentions on that. We intend to have the necessary provisions included as part of the five-yearly Bill that we expect to be introduced in the 2005–06 Session. It was never the intention to use the present Bill for that purpose.
The present legislation has served the Armed Forces well. However, there is scope for improvement, not least to facilitate the administration of discipline in a joint service environment. That will need a new legislative framework, in the form of a single discipline Act.
Developing that is a substantial and important task. The new Act, covering all three services, needs to be more than the sum of the present parts. It will be vital to get it right, and that will take time. Our Armed Forces deserve no less. As Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, told the Select Committee that considered the Bill in another place, we need,
"to make sure that we did not lose the baby with the bathwater".
The Select Committee recommended that the tri-service legislation should be brought before Parliament within three years. The Government will, of course, examine the feasibility of doing so, but it will remain our overriding objective to ensure that the legislation will form an appropriate basis for the services' discipline requirements in the future. I am sure that your Lordships would not expect us to do otherwise.
Returning to the Bill, Clause 1 allows the life of the service discipline Acts to be extended for a further five years, until the end of 2006. As now, that will be subject to annual renewal in the intervening period by the affirmative continuation orders debated in both Houses.
Like previous five-yearly Armed Forces Bills, the Bill before your Lordships proposes a number of changes to existing legislation—the service discipline Acts and other Acts. Those changes are proposed because, in the light of experience, we believe that they will help to make the system operate more effectively.
It has been the policy of successive administrations to aim to keep in step with developments in the civilian system as far as many procedures relating to the investigation, trial and punishment of offences are concerned. That is eminently sensible. Many of those developments are designed to secure the proper balance between the rights and duties of the prosecution and the accused. It is right that, where possible and provided that they are relevant, such
14
developments should be reflected in the Armed Forces' procedures. Much of the rest of the Bill is about that.
The more serious offences under the service discipline Acts are investigated by the service police. I should make it clear here that I am referring to the Royal Navy Regulating Branch, the Royal Marines Police, the Royal Military Police and the RAF Police. We shall come to the Ministry of Defence Police later in the Bill. We are not talking about it now.
The service police generally operate in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, much in the way that civilian police do. Indeed, some provisions of PACE, such as those dealing with fingerprinting, already apply to the service police. However, in certain areas the service police investigate offences on the basis of commanding officers" inherent powers rather than on any statutory basis. We consider that the basis on which service police exercise those functions needs to be clarified by being put on to a statutory footing. That will enable the service police and those with whom they deal to have a clear understanding of the limits of those powers. That is dealt with in Clauses 2 to 16. Clause 2 defines the circumstances in which a member of the service police may stop and search someone subject to service law, or stop and search service and certain other vehicles, such as when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a search will reveal items such as stolen goods or controlled drugs.
Service police are to be found in most major units, but they are not everywhere. It may sometimes be necessary for a search to be undertaken when they are not available. Clause 4 therefore provides residual powers for commanding officers to exercise the powers described in Clause 2 through members of the Armed Forces who are not service police, but only if the timely assistance of the police cannot be secured. Inevitably, the investigation of an offence may call for a search of someone's living accommodation. In such circumstances, Clause 5 will require a member of the service police to apply for a warrant from a judicial officer.
As many of your Lordships know, Clause 6 generated some interest in another place, because it provides powers for the service police in relation to warrants for certain sensitive materials, including journalistic materials. However, it came to be seen as part of the package, reflecting the civilian provisions needed to instil certainty in this general area of service police investigations. In particular, once it was understood that the clause provides the additional safeguards applicable to such materials as are available in the civilian system, the Select Committee in another place noted Clause 6 as, "a positive step".
Clause 7 provides a residual power for a commanding officer to authorise a search of living accommodation by members of the Armed Forces who are not service police, or by service police without a warrant, but only if calling on the service police or obtaining a warrant is not practicable. The power is not exercisable in relation to Clause 6, when a warrant will always be required.

15
Clause 8 makes the exercise of the commanding officer's powers to authorise a search subject to retrospective review by a judicial officer if anything has been seized during the search.
Clause 9 defines the powers to enter premises without a warrant for the purpose of effecting an arrest. Those powers may generally be exercised only by a member of the service police. However, if the arrest is in respect of a serious offence and if the delay in waiting for the police is likely to frustrate the purpose of the entry, the commanding officer may authorise another member of the Armed Forces to enter the premises concerned.
Clause 10 deals with the powers of search exercisable following arrest. It allows an arrested person to be searched if there are reasonable grounds for believing that he or she may be a danger to himself or herself or to others. It also provides for searches for evidence or for things that may aid an escape.
The principles underlying the proposals in Part 2 are clear. They provide a sound basis for an important area of service police activities, modelled on civilian procedures. They define the circumstances in which police powers may be exercised, making them subject to judicial supervision where appropriate. However, they also recognise the realities of service life. An investigation should not be paralysed because the assistance of the service police cannot be secured in time. Instead, there will be a clear framework within which the commanding officer will be able to authorise action.
Part 3 makes a number of proposals for the reform of the procedures for the trial and punishment of offences under the service discipline Acts. Clause 17 will make it possible to deal summarily with relatively minor offences committed by naval officers. Essentially, this will bring the Royal Navy into line with the other two services.
At present within the services only officers may sit as courts-martial members. The Select Committee in another place, which examined the previous Armed Forces discipline Bill, considered whether other ranks should also be eligible. However, it did not reach any firm conclusions. The previous administration subsequently established a review of the issue.
Following that, in 1998 Ministers announced that we wished courts martial to benefit from the wisdom and experience of warrant officers. Therefore, Clause 19 proposes changes to the legislation to allow warrant officers to sit as courts-martial members in cases where the accused is of a lower rank.
Clause 20 provides a power to extend membership of the summary appeal courts to warrant officers. That is in recognition of the views expressed by Opposition Members in another place during the passage of the Armed Forces discipline Act in the previous Session. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to make warrant officers members of the summary appeal courts immediately. Before taking a view in due course as to whether they should be eligible to sit on the summary appeal courts, we want, first, to obtain more
16
experience of those new courts in operation and to gain experience of warrant officers as courts-martial members.
The remainder of Part 3 proposes adjustments to bring certain of our trial procedures into line with those of the civilian courts. Some of those are intended to assist the service courts to operate more effectively. Others aim to help in getting the right balance between the prosecution and the accused and between the wrongdoer and the community. For example, Clause 21 will enable the Attorney-General to invite the Courts-Martial Appeal Court to review a sentence passed by a court martial if he considers that the sentence is unduly lenient. That reflects a similar power in relation to sentences of the civilian courts and, indeed, will apply only to the type of offences dealt with by civilian courts; in other words, the new power will not apply to purely service offences, such as disobedience.
I know that some of your Lordships have expressed concerns about Clause 21. But nothing in this proposal will affect the authority of courts martial any more than do the existing rights of the accused to appeal. However, in the very few cases where we expect the new power to be used, the aim will be to see that justice is done and that the authority and credibility of the system as a whole are upheld.
Also with regard to sentencing, it has always been the intention that courts martial should be subject to the same requirement as the civilian courts to impose mandatory or minimum sentences in certain circumstances. That will apply where such courts are dealing with an offender who has previously been convicted of specified serious offences and who is being sentenced for a further, similar offence. In that respect, Clause 22 puts the service courts on the same footing as civilian courts.
The conduct of courts martial in hearing cases can be impeded if, during the trial, the defence seeks judicial review of a decision of the courts martial. Where that happens, the trial must stop until the High Court has dealt with the application for judicial review. That can, and on occasions does, mean a long delay.
Where cases are tried on indictment in the Crown Court, there is no right to seek judicial review. If the defence is unhappy with any aspect of the way in which the trial has been conducted, it has the right to appeal. Similarly, there can be appeal from the decisions of a court martial. Where appeal is possible, there is no need to have access to judicial review. Therefore, by removing trial proceedings from the scope of judicial review, Clause 23 brings courts martial into line with the Crown Court.
Witnesses who fail to attend courts martial can delay or frustrate the administration of justice. At present, there are no effective means of ensuring the attendance of civilian witnesses. Clause 25 seeks to remedy that by giving judicial officers or judge advocates powers similar to those available to civilian courts. They would be able to order the arrest of witnesses who they have good reason to believe will fail to attend proceedings or who actually fail so to attend.

17
Civilian courts have powers to award costs against parties in a criminal case or against their legal representatives. That applies where the court considers that the case has been conducted in a way that results in the other side incurring unnecessary expenditure. However, there are no corresponding powers available to service courts, and there is now evidence that they are needed. Therefore, Clauses 26, 27 and 28 give appropriate powers to service courts, similar to those which are already available to civilian courts.
Clause 30 will enable procedures to be introduced to allow an accused to apply for bail pending the outcome of an appeal against a custodial sentence awarded by service courts. There is no reason for the services to continue to differ from civilian procedures in that regard.
Before I move on to Part 4, I want to mention Clause 33. This clause is of a piece with much of what has already been discussed in your Lordships' House with regard to the Armed Forces discipline Bill. It aims to bring service procedures further into line with relevant changes in the civilian criminal justice system.
One way in which to do so is to ensure that criminal justice legislation extends to the services where appropriate. Sometimes legislation immediately applies to the Armed Forces, but that is not always achievable. The complexity of much criminal justice legislation and the sometimes substantial differences between service and civilian arrangements can make it difficult to provide the necessary provision for the services in civilian legislation.
Some Acts, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, provide powers which allow certain of their provisions to be extended to the Armed Forces by secondary legislation. In this case, the power is generally couched in terms that the provisions may be modified to cater for the special requirements of the services. However, we still find instances where the civilian procedures have been altered but where we have no powers to follow suit, even though we wish to do so. We must wait for the next five-yearly Bill.
Clause 33 provides a means for enabling us to respond in a more timely manner. It will allow the Secretary of State to use statutory instruments to apply future changes in civilian criminal justice legislation—and only criminal justice legislation—to the services. That will be on the basis of making equivalent provision with modifications.
It is important to bear in mind that the provisions that we shall seek to extend to the services by virtue of Clause 33 will already have been scrutinised by Parliament. Nevertheless, I know that the House will expect the power to be used sensibly, and I can assure your Lordships that that is exactly what we intend.
Part 4 deals with the Ministry of Defence Police. This is a civilian police force, some 3,500 strong, within the Ministry of Defence. Its purpose is to provide effective policing of the defence estate and community. At the risk of labouring the point, I remind your Lordships that the force should not be confused with the service police, whom I discussed earlier.
18
The Ministry of Defence Police is defined in the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. It became an executive agency within the Ministry of Defence in April 1996. The House will wish to note that shortly we intend to announce its formal quinquennial review. The review will examine whether the MDP should remain as an agency and ways in which its performance can be improved. The review will range widely in pursuing that remit and, among other issues, will address the role and composition of the Ministry of Defence Police Committee. That is a matter in which I know that a number of your Lordships are very interested, and it was, of course, considered by the Select Committee of the Bill in another place
MDP officers possess constabulary powers. Their training is very similar to that of Home Office police officers. The force is subject to inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, and the Bill now proposes that it should be put on to a statutory footing. Its officers provide for the security of a range of defence assets, especially where there is a likelihood of contact with the public or with civilian employees.
The image of the MDP as an essentially static force based at defence establishments no longer holds true. The force now includes mobile teams responsible for a number of establishments. Inevitably, transiting from one defence establishment to another brings such MDP officers into greater contact with the public than was the case previously.
That has consequences for our expectations about the way in which members of the force will act. If a member of the public is, for example, the victim of an assault, he or she may expect a passing police officer in uniform to assist. It is of no concern to the victim whether the police officer belongs to the MDP or the local constabulary.
However, the current law does not allow an MDP officer to exercise constabulary powers when intervening in such circumstances, except neat defence land and at the request of a Home Department police officer; otherwise, he or she has the same standing in relation to the incident as any other citizen. That is not at all satisfactory. It can inhibit the officer from assisting effectively, because he or she knows that any actions may subsequently be challenged.
The Bill seeks to remedy that. Clauses 31 and 32 and Schedule 5 make a number of changes to the jurisdiction of the MDP. A key change is that which will enable MDP officers to act on their own authority in an emergency in cases involving violence or the threat of violence, or where there is a risk of death or injury. That addition to individual MDP officers' powers is tightly circumscribed, essentially to cases in which it is clear that the timely assistance of a Home Department police officer will not be available.
The Bill will also broaden the ability of individual officers to respond to requests for assistance from local police officers. At present, that is limited to the vicinity of defence land.
The Bill's proposals will enable individual MDP officers to make a more effective contribution to the policing of the community. Other proposals will make

19
it easier for the force as a whole to co-operate with Home Department forces. They will allow the MDP to enter into standing arrangements if a local police force requests assistance in the longer-term policing of land in the vicinity of defence land. They will also allow the force to meet requests for the provision of personnel or other resources to assist other police forces anywhere in the country, in order to meet special demands on their resources. That would have arisen, for example, during the floods in recent months or in the search for a missing person.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that the reorganisation of what is genteelly known as "MoD Plod" is being done solely for the benefit of the public and that it will in no way benefit the Ministry of Defence Police? That is the implication of her remarks. Serious criticisms have been raised in this regard. I find it hard to believe that we should give legislative time to the consideration of reforms that are solely for the benefit of the public and that might involve, for example, a dog fouling the pavement.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the reason for advancing the changes is to secure better policing. I know that the nomenclature that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, used has common currency but it does not go down terribly well with the Ministry of Defence Police. If the noble Earl can bear to do so, it would be a kindness to refrain from using it.
The changes are being made to secure better policing but not for the benefit, as the noble Earl put it, of the MoD. They will allow the relevant powers to be used to better effect. I have given a couple of examples—helping with missing persons and with the floods that we saw in recent months. I am sure that the noble Earl will debate this matter further during the Bill's later stages.
There are two key provisos in relation to the assistance that I described. First, such assistance will quite rightly be triggered only if there is a request from the relevant chief constable. Agreement to the request will be a matter for the judgment of the chief constable of the MDP. Secondly, we intend that assistance of this nature should be found from within the force's own resources. There will be no additional resources for the MDP simply to enable it to help Home Department constabularies. I hope that that will help to put that aspect of our proposals into perspective and to refute the suggestion that there is an agenda to develop the MDP as some form of national gendarmerie.
I assure the House that there is no intention to duplicate the role of Home Department forces or to turn the MDP into a general police force. Its role will continue to be to police the defence estate and the defence community. The extensions that I have described are tightly circumscribed. In our view, they are the minimum that will enable the force to operate effectively and to collaborate with Home Department forces.
There is one further proposal in the Bill that I wish to discuss in some detail. I refer to Clauses 34 and 35, which deal with testing for alcohol and drugs. The
20
Armed Forces' drug-testing programmes, which are conducted on a random basis, are a useful tool in deterring and combating the use of controlled drugs, which is, of course, unacceptable. There are no provisions to allow testing for alcohol. The services have education programmes that are designed to promote a responsible attitude towards alcohol. However, because alcohol does not have the same unlawful status as controlled drugs, it would obviously be inappropriate to test for it on a random basis.
The Bill seeks to enable the Armed Forces to test for alcohol and drugs in certain specified circumstances. They will involve incidents that have caused death, serious injury or serious damage, or which could have done so. Anyone who is subject to service law and who may have contributed to the incident may be required to provide breath or urine samples to allow testing for alcohol or drugs. It will be an offence to refuse. The results of such tests will be used to assist in establishing the cause of the incident and therefore to inform a subsequent board of inquiry. They will not be usable in a subsequent service prosecution. However, the results could be used as a basis for any administrative action that is aimed at preventing an individual creating similar risks in future. That reflects the intention behind the provision.
The Bill also includes several minor changes to the legislation affecting the Armed Forces, which are intended to rectify anomalies and so on. Changes of some substance are mostly contained in Schedule 7.
I am sure that those noble Lords who have expressed concern about the retirement ages of public servants will welcome the proposal that a Judge Advocate General should not be required to retire until attaining the age of 70. That will bring them into line with members of the civilian judiciary.
A further very positive proposal will amend the Marriage Act 1949. That Act currently requires that, of the children of members of the Armed Forces, only daughters are eligible to be married in service chapels. The Bill proposes that sons and step-children should also be eligible. I hope noble Lords will welcome that small but important liberalising measure.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, like all Armed Forces Bills, this measure is important to the services. I know that noble Lords will give the Bill their customary careful consideration. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
3.38 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will join me in offering our warmest congratulations to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on his appointment as a Knight of the Garter.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, that signal and high honour is very well deserved by the noble and gallant Lord.
I thank the Minister for her customary clear exposition of the Bill's contents. I have just around the corner from the Chamber a large sheaf of amendments, which we are ready to table as soon as we finish today's debate. It cannot be said that she has not told us exactly what is in the Bill, and I thank her for that.
The Bill will continue the parliamentary authority for the Armed Forces under the Bill of Rights 1688. Such a requirement is covered in Part 1. If we table amendments to Part 1, I assure noble Lords that they will not he designed to disturb the balance of the constitution. Rather, they will focus the Government's mind on the urgency of replacing the structure of the service discipline Acts.
The Bill will ensure the continuance of the Armed Forces with the requisite parliamentary authority and it serves to remind us that the Armed Forces are the armed services of the Crown. Members of the Armed Forces serve by reason of their duty to the Crown and not at all in the way that a commercial employee owes a duty to his employer, as was suggested in another place.
As they stand, the Armed Forces are a constitutional compromise. They are the,
"armed forces of the Crown approved by Parliament".
Other countries and other times have tried to do it differently—Cromwell, the Dutch, Hitler, the Russians. All have failed. However, unfortunately, we face the mission creep of the politically correct. My noble friend Lady Thatcher made some robust remarks on that matter when she accepted the Chesney Gold Medal at the Royal United Services Institute recently. She said:
"I notice trends which threaten the core of military culture and the whole ethos which sustains it. The values of a risk averse civilian society are being imposed on a military community to which they are essentially unsuited".
Later, she said:
"A refusal to understand the realities of service life leads to unrealistic ideas taking root about how armed forces should be organised. The British armed forces are one of this country's greatest assets. Through their courage and commitment they defend our freedom. We for our part must give them the framework and the means to do their difficult and dangerous job. They deserve nothing less".
Political correctness and soft beds are not what the Armed Forces are for. John Major recalls in his autobiography, which I am reading at the moment, that when he visited elements of the Army shortly before the land stage of the Gulf War started, they told him, "It is why we joined. It is our job". That is the Army.
We are entitled to hope that the quinquennial Bill will provide the framework that my noble friend Lady Thatcher requires. However, I fear it does not always do so. It portrays the insidious effect of creeping political correctness in undermining the military ethos. It fails yet again to use this opportunity to move positively towards a single tri-service disciplinary
22
statute. My noble friend Lord Attlee will cover that point later in the debate. And it does not address the ability of Parliament to scrutinise effectively the subordinate legislation and quasi-legislation which is essential to give working effect to primary legislation of this kind.
Creeping political correctness tending to undermine the military ethos may take several forms: first, in relation to recruitment and those who may be recruited, of which we have heard much in recent months; secondly, in relation to duties and who should be allowed to do what—grafting into the necessary disciplines of military life the easy-going privileges of civil society. We must accept that in signing on, men or women voluntarily give up many of the rights and freedoms that they possessed before. Military life is different. It is no good pretending otherwise.
Lastly, in relation to the restatement of the laws of war and conflict, the politically correct behave as though those matters can be conducted by negotiation between consenting parties.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, is it possible to define political correctness? It is not a term that I entirely understand in the way that it has been explained.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, unfortunately, I do not have three-and-a-half hours so I do not think that I can even start on such a matter. I am afraid that the noble Lord has his tongue just slightly in his cheek when asking that question.
There is little in the Bill to improve the morale of the Armed Forces. Morale is not just a matter of longer telephone calls, increased pay or better preparation for civilian life. Such tangible steps are good but they leave out of account important intangible difficulties, some of which are of the Government's own making.
Those matters are intangible and difficult. Members of the Armed Forces must respect what they are doing and how they are doing it; and those outside must respect them for doing it, politically correct or not.
The follies that I have enumerated run as a theme, I am afraid to say, through the Armed Forces discipline Bill which we recently debated and the International Criminal Court Bill. We see those matters again in this Bill. Senior officers, by the nature of their appointment, become more and more agents of government rather than advocates for the armed services. Nevertheless, both the current Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Boyce, and the recently retired General Guthrie have warned of the dangers inherent in such policies even though they said—and I shall say this before the noble Baroness says it—that they have so far experienced no difficulties with recent legislation.
Having thus criticised the ethos of the Bill, it is necessary to say that we accept it in general. A number of matters are welcome: the authority to continue to operate, of course; and matters like, as the noble Baroness explained carefully, giving warrant officers the authority to sit on courts martial. I am glad that the

23
Government were robust in another place in their opposition to certain matters in connection with warrant officers proposed by certain of their adherents.
As the noble Baroness explained, the Bill contains a considerable number of detailed changes to military law and its application. None of those is trivial but they are all minor. As I said, we shall undoubtedly move a number of amendments in Committee in the hope that we may be able to improve the Bill and retrieve some of the ground lost in the earlier legislation, to which I referred. We shall probably be looking for a declaration to exclude the Armed Forces from the application of Article 8 of the International Criminal Court statute.
But the main problem with the Bill lies, as the noble Baroness clearly recognised, in Clause 31. It is inconceivable that Her Majesty's Government should have thought it a good thing to include the highly contentious provisions designed to increase the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police in otherwise generally non-contentious—given the acceptance of the creeping political ethos—matters in the Bill. Those matters in Part 4 deserve a Bill of their own, as clearly demonstrated in the evidence given for the special report of the Commons Select Committee—269 pages of evidence.
We might think again about this matter, depending on what we hear from the Government, but we are unlikely to oppose, at least from these Benches, the Question that Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill. I say that it is unlikely because a number of my noble friends may think differently. But we shall have much to say about the clause, as did my honourable friends in another place. They would have had a great deal more to say had the debate not been totally curtailed by the Government.
Clause 31 relates to a detailed and potentially far-reaching enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence Police, which is seen by some, as their evidence to the Select Committee shows, as pointing towards a total redefinition of the role of the force. That was supported in the words of the Minister.
But it is ridiculous to add those police matters to an Armed Forces Bill. The Ministry of Defence Police is a police force, the tenth largest in the country. It is not one of the armed services or part of the armed services, nor is it the same, as the noble Baroness so clearly pointed out, as the Royal Military Police. That is demonstrated by the fact that its members wear blue police-style uniforms, not the red caps and white gaiters of the Royal Military Police, although my noble friend Lord Attlee, who is more up to date, says that the white gaiters are no longer worn.
The activities of the Ministry of Defence Police, as stated, are governed by the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. Yet Her Majesty's Government have chosen to tack amendments to that Act on to this Armed Forces Bill, rather than to bring in a separate Bill to amend the 1987 Act. In evidence to the Select Committee, military authorities, civil police,
24
journalists and others expressed concern about what was proposed. I accept that something has to be done as at present there is considerable doubt about the extent of the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police and who controls them. To put it kindly, the Secretary of State was unclear about the extent of his powers, nor was it at all clear where overall control lay.
For those and other reasons we shall probably not oppose Clause 31, or perhaps I should say Part 4 of the Bill. However, clearly something is wrong if, when the second permanent under-secretary asks the Ministry of Defence Police to escort oil tankers during the fuel crisis, he is told that the force does not have the power to do so. It is also not right that a Ministry of Defence policeman should have to pass by an accident because he has no more powers than an ordinary citizen. In that context I keep muttering to myself, "The Good Samaritan".
The Ministry of Defence Police must not look for trouble, as it is feared they may. The fact that they are usually armed or have arms in their vehicles is bound to cause trouble if they are out and about more, as is likely under the terms of the Bill and as the Minister made clear in her definition of their duties.
I have put a number of questions in writing to the Minister relating to the protocols that govern the activities of the Ministry of Defence Police. Four and a half of the six questions that I asked have been answered. We now know more about what the Ministry of Defence Police should and should not do and how they should behave, but such matters should appear on the face of a Bill—not this Bill—to regulate the force.
However, we have before us a Bill, a significant part of which refers to the Ministry of Defence Police and the House will have to make the best of it. Like Marvell,
"But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near".
We do not know whether there will be time for further stages of the Bill before a general election is held, or whether the next Conservative government will have to take it on. If so, this part of the Bill will be amended heavily or possibly dropped from further consideration. If we carry the matter further now we shall table many amendments. Central to those amendments is one that was moved in another place to limit the occasions when Ministry of Defence Police may become involved in any crime investigation.
In Committee and on Report our amendments to Part 4 will be designed to limit the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police, although clarifying their position which, in my opinion, the Bill fails to do. Today we shall give the measure a Second Reading. There is enough in it that is either essential or good to ensure that. Even if there were not the convention to give all Bills a Second Reading unless they are absolute horrors, we support the main principles of this Bill.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in extending our

25
congratulations to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on becoming a Member of the Order of the Garter. I also congratulate the Minister on taking the occasion of the Easter break to join what I understand from some newspapers is the current trend within Britain and to get married. I offer her my warmest congratulations. I have been happily married for far too long. I am also in the happy situation that for a considerable period my wife has earned more than I have. That seems to me to be entirely as it should be. On that basis I trust that we shall all be able to survive in this remarkably underpaid, unsupported House.
For the first time in several months I find myself taking part in a debate in which there are not only more noble Lords on the Conservative Benches than on the Liberal Democrat Benches—that has not been so in recent debates in which I have taken part—but also more Conservative noble Lords are due to speak. In recent months there have been occasions when I have felt that the Liberal Democrats should ask to be accepted as the Official Opposition because of the sheer absence of noble Lords on the Conservative Benches.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, then why does the noble Lord always vote with the Government?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I do not always vote with the Government. I am conscious that I am about to lose the greatest expert on defence on the Liberal Democrat Benches, my noble friend Lord Roper, who is about to become the Whip. I have told him that I opposed his nomination as our party's Whip on the ground, as several of my colleagues have said, that it is good at last to have someone on our Benches who understands something about defence and that it would be dangerous to lose him. However, I am glad that he will wind up the debate for the Liberal Democrats.
This Bill has had thorough consideration in another place. We may be under some constrained time limits in considering it here, but I hope that we shall be able to find a consensus with the Government on some of the most contentious elements. The Select Committee on the Bill in another place said in paragraph 64 that,
"few of the Bill's clauses are controversial, but those relating to the Ministry of Defence police are".
Clearly it is to those that we shall need to pay most attention.
I want to touch on a number of other points and to reiterate, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, has, that a move towards a tri-service Armed Forces Act is far overdue and that we should not need to wait another five years. The Select Committee suggested that that should take place within the next three years. Perhaps we may ask the Minister for a clear commitment that by the time that the Order in Council comes up—before the year 2003 at the latest—we should have a clear indication from the Government of when we shall have a well and thoroughly drafted tri-service Bill for scrutiny in both Houses.
26
I note that in Clause 2 the interesting and delicate new question of service discipline Acts and civilian contractors under service discipline is flagged. As public private partnerships extend into all three services, I suspect that that will be an area that both Houses will need to look at in more detail over the: next two years. It is the beginning of a widening and complicated set of issues in which the gap between public and private and civil and military becomes more difficult to define.
On these Benches we shall want to look again at the matter of special procedure material and excluded material, and in particular at access to journalist sources touched on in Clauses 5 to 7, particularly in Clause 6. It is extremely important to protect journalists' sources, particularly as journalists can find themselves in conflict areas where there are the extraordinarily complicated problems of peacekeeping and peacemaking which often involve more than two different, antagonistic groups.
I also note that almost every Bill with which we deal in this House has an odd clause that tries to explain which parts of the Bill will apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—Clause 38 in this Bill. At some stage in the next two years I hope that the House or a Select Committee will be allowed to look at the position of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is in this country. The last time I asked a question on this matter in the House the Minister referred me to a statement made in 1204 which I was assured defined the matter correctly. I have looked at that statement and it appears to me to be a little out of date.
On these Benches we welcome the moves to reconcile military procedures with parallel civilian procedures, which is one of the main themes of this Bill, and the need to take into account the European Convention on Human Rights and its incorporation into domestic law. I was slightly puzzled by the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on this subject. I remember a novel that I read as a boy in which it was said of one of the characters that he knew what he thought about progress and he was against it. The mission creep of the politically correct appears to be a statement that says, "I don't like progress and I don't really like modernisation".
Lord Burnham: My Lords, that was not really my intention; I just like the phrase.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we shall leave the definition of political correctness to the Spectator. Clearly, the matter of recruitment for a modern professional army requires emendations of military discipline. We may not have soft beds but individual service accommodation has something to be said for it and it is part of the way in which we keep the services up to date. We will not therefore support any move to exempt the Armed Forces from Clause 8 of the International Criminal Court Bill or any other such measures.
We also welcome the expanded role for warrant officers which appears in several of the clause. However, we on these Benches are most concerned

27
with Part 4 and Schedule 5 to the Bill. We shall want to see what changes to the clauses the Government are willing to accept before we take a final decision on whether we want to agree that the clauses should stand part of the Bill.
It is important not to exaggerate. When reading the Conservative press in recent weeks, I was struck by the paranoia which described the emergence of a national police force in Britain for all kinds of different angles. We were told by the Daily Mail that the Ministry of Defence Police was about to become a CRS of Britain and that its members would dash around the country beating people up. However, some weeks previously we were also told that the police reserve, planned in support of the European Rapid Reaction Force, would force a national police force on Britain. None of us sees that as likely or recognises the fears that expanding the role of the Ministry of Defence Police may raise.
There is a link between the two. At some point, the Minister may want to return to the question of whether the Ministry of Defence Police might provide a particularly large contribution to the international police reserve which we shall need for the long-term re-establishment of order in places such as Kosovo and Bosnia. However, we are greatly concerned about firearms, about the MoD Police extending their coverage of serious offences, about questions of civilian control and about questions of relations with other forces. I am concerned about the exact definition of "in the vicinity of which appears at various points. When I looked back at the 1987 Act on jurisdiction, the Ministry of Defence Police Act, I did not find the matter any clearer.
Last weekend I was driving along the road which leads past Menwith Hill towards Catterick, thinking about the implications of the Bill. Menwith Hill is entirely under non-British jurisdiction. My noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond told me that she had once been shown around Menwith Hill in her capacity as chairman of the North Yorkshire Police Authority but was told nothing whatever about what happened in the building. We must hope that in the next three or four years there will be no public order disturbances "in the vicinity of" Menwith Hill or Fylingdales and that MoD Police from Catterick and elsewhere will not have to travel across Yorkshire in the process of coping with whatever may transpire. But the question of the American response on national missile defence and the request they make to the British to upgrade facilities in those two areas is precisely the kind of issue which may lead to delicate questions about relations between the MoD Police and our other civilian forces.
We on these Benches are strongly committed to the principle of civilian police, locally accountable. We are not entirely happy about the division of police forces into Ministry of Defence forces and Home Department forces, as though they belonged to the Home Office. We like to think that British police forces belong to their counties and to their police authorities as well as to the Home Office.
28
I was happy to see the Minister's response to the Written Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on the publication of protocols between the civilian forces and the Ministry of Defence Police and I look forward to hearing more about that in due time. We shall want to press the Government further about the pursuit of serious crime by the MoD Police and the points at which such investigations are transferred from them to civilian forces.
We are particularly unhappy about, and shall want to explore in more detail, the words which appear in the new Section 2A which appears in Schedule 5. It refers to,
"other assistance for the purpose of enabling that force to meet any special demand on its resources",
anywhere in the country. Those are very broad terms which must be examined carefully.
Finally, as regards new Section 4C in Schedule 5, I understand that the reports of inspectors of constabulary for civilian forces are naturally published in full. Here we are told in an unhappy way that for various reasons the Secretary of State may arrange for publication and may withhold from publication large parts. We shall want to explore in detail the terms and conditions under which those reports may or may not be published in full.
The issue of carrying firearms has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. The Committee in another place examined that matter in some detail and it was also discussed in another place at the Report stage and on Third Reading. We are not entirely happy at the idea of police regularly driving around the country with firearms in their possession and we shall want further reassurances about that.
However, we hope that the Bill goes through. We know that it needs to be passed by August and we wish it good speed. If time is abbreviated during the next two weeks, we shall want to ensure that the Bill is agreed by all Members of this House.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Rural Task Force
4.7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form of a Statement the response made to a PNQ in another place by my right honourable friend Michael Meacher. The Statement relates to the work of the Rural Task Force and reads as follows:
"It became clear quite soon after the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease began that the disease and the restrictions that were introduced to control its spread would have implications for the rural economy going well beyond the agricultural sector. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister therefore asked me to set up the Rural Task Force with the remit,
'To consider the implications of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease for the rural economy, both immediately and in the longer term, and to report to the Prime Minister on appropriate measures'.

29
"The task force includes all the government departments involved, the devolved administrations and experienced members from the private and voluntary sectors, including the rural business and tourist sectors, farmers and representatives of rural communities. It first met on 14th March. There have been four further meetings so far and the next meeting will take place on Wednesday. I am extremely grateful for the hard work and dedication that the members of the task force have put in and for the practical common sense they have shown in discussing the issues.
"The task force's work covers both short-term measures to alleviate the hardship that so many businesses and people are facing and measures to aid the speediest possible return to normality. I remind the House of the measures that have already been announced, starting with measures to assist businesses to weather the immediate problems.
"First, I have announced a number of measures to provide relief from business rates. They include increased government funding (from 75 per cent to 95 per cent) to enable local authorities to offer hardship rate relief to businesses in rural areas, targeted at businesses below £12,000 rateable value, and offering reductions of up to £1,290 over a three-month period.
"A further measure is the deferment by three months of the deadline for business rate appeals in rural areas. Rural businesses will also be helped by the Government's legislation to extend 50 per cent mandatory rate relief to all food shops in small rural settlements. This legislation will also provide a transitional five-year 50 per cent mandatory rate relief for new enterprises on former agricultural land.
"At the same time, recent regulations have extended 50 per cent rate relief to sole village pubs and garages with a rateable value of less than £9,000. We have also arranged that where a rural local authority agrees to defer rates payments, my department will in turn defer the payments which the authority is due to make to the national rate pool.
"Finally on rates, the Valuation Office Agency will consider applications on businesses for a reduction m their rateable value to take account of the impacts of foot and mouth disease.
"Secondly, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are taking a sympathetic approach to requests for deferral or extended time to pay tax and national insurance contributions, particularly for rural businesses in agriculture, transport, tourism and related retail businesses.
"Thirdly, the major banks have made it clear that they will look on a case-by-case basis at mechanisms such as extended lines of credit, capital payment holidays and other measures.
"Fourthly, we have extended the types of businesses that can apply for loans up to £250,000 under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme.
30
"Fifthly, I announced a further £15 million for regional development agencies to help rural businesses in the worst hit areas.
"Sixthly, to help those people who have lost work because of foot and mouth, the Benefits Agency has announced that it will provide quick assessments of applications for jobseeker's allowance from such applicants; and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has announced a skills boost package to ease the impact of foot and mouth disease on jobs.
"Finally, the Government have pledged to match public donations to rural charities to help to address cases of severe hardship and to provide support for organisations which respond to rural stress. The scheme is being administered by the Countryside Agency and will apply to personal donations, including the generous donations of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Westminster.
"Everyone agrees, I believe, that the key to recovering from the serious economic effects of the disease is to get back to normality as soon as possible. That is why the task force has put of lot of effort into ensuring that the message is that most of the country can be safely visited. The work of the task force has led to a number of advertisements under the auspices of both the Government and other key organisations to explain the position to the general public and to encourage people to enjoy the many facilities that are open. The Countryside Agency will also be making grants of £3.8 million available to help local authorities to open their footpaths.
"Further advertising by tourist organisations is being promoted by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced additional support of £6 million for the English Tourism Council and the British Tourist Authority to get the message across that Britain is open for business.
"This adds up to a total package for immediate practical help to the rural economy of over £200 million. This is not the end of the story. There is a great deal more to do, especially to consider longer-term measures to help to get the rural economy moving when the disease has been dealt with. I look forward to further meetings of the Rural Task Force to progress this important work".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating a Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question. There is a danger that one begins to regard this crisis as a chronic state. As the Question relates to the Rural Task Force, it is worth noting en passant that some two years ago the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster established a rural affairs committee of the Cabinet, which I believe has met once. That committee

31
was supposed to promote the interests of rural affairs across the whole spectrum of government. That committee appears to be, at least in its performance, as dead as some of the animals that have had to be slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease. One hopes that as a mark 2 the Rural Task Force will be a more effective body.
The Minister has repeated the announcements made about a month ago as a result of the initial work of the Rural Task Force. What is happening on the ground? Do we know what applications are being made to Customs and Excise for VAT deferral? Have instructions been given by the Government to Customs and Excise as to how it is to handle applications? What is the assessed benefit of this particular relief to the rural community? The noble Lord gave the total, but it would be interesting to know how it is made up.
The same questions apply to rate relief. Pubs and garages in small communities will benefit. Are applications being made to local authorities? If so, do the Government have any idea of the likely benefit? More specifically, can the Minister state in which years these reliefs will apply? Will they apply in 2000–01, in 2001–02, or in both years? Is it to be a continuing form of relief?
We know that the banks have agreed to treat their arrangements with rural clients sympathetically, and that is very welcome. However, one cannot avoid the slightly cynical reaction that, if a business is heading into real difficulties, the banks will stand back and let some other creditor take the requisite action, if that is needed.
What about the tourist industry in the wider sense in rural areas, which is suffering very greatly? The reliefs so far announced are very specific, and, as an initial touch, rightly so. I have no problem with that. But many small country hotels, even boarding houses and restaurants, have undertaken investment in recent years to meet the growing trend for people to spend weekends away from home. In this regard the tourism that we are talking about is not the international industry which causes us so much pain and pleasure in the streets of London but the people in the Midlands or those who want to escape the pressures of the South East and visit the Lake District. In that regard, people who have undertaken new investment in this particular field in recent years must feel that their work and the jobs of those they employ are now at risk.
This crisis goes far wider than simply the impact on the rural community. The British Hospitality Association reports today that half of London hotels estimate that they have lost 10 per cent of their business in the past month; 14 per cent estimate that they have lost 25 per cent, and forward bookings are down by 30 per cent. That is very serious. Fast food restaurants report that in March business was 16.5 per cent down. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the absolute priority must be to overcome foot and mouth disease and remove its wretched effect from our countryside.
32
As to the environmental effects, perhaps the Government have not paid sufficient attention to the Northumberland report on the 1967–68 outbreak. That report clearly recommended that diffuse disposal of carcasses was the preferred option, by which it meant that there should be burial on farm wherever it was possible. If one could not do that, the burning of carcasses on farm was the second best option. At least that has the benefit of spreading pollution, if there is any, in small doses. But there have been so many mass pyres and burials that can concentrate air pollution or the possibilities of leaching that one wonders what is going on. Who was responsible for finding these sites? Was it the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which took the initial action? Perish the thought, was it the armed services which we are debating for the rest of today; or was it the Environment Agency? As the Environment Agency has responsibility for vetting the environmental effects of these sites, perhaps it should have been given the task of finding them in the first place.
Whatever one says about the priorities, it is absolutely clear that the problem will not go away as long as foot and mouth disease continues. That must be the absolute priority.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We welcome the measures which the Statement repeats.
The Minister states that the key to recovery,
"is to get back to normality as soon as possible".
That is fairly depressing because normality was unsatisfactory. If by "normality" the noble Lord means "disease free", that is correct: we hope to be in a disease-free situation. The issue was debated at Question Time. The state of the rural economy is dire. The task force must recognise that the foot and mouth disease has magnified and speeded up the existing economic and agricultural problems. I hope that the Government will speed up their response.
For example, the Statement refers to legislation with regard to mandatory rate relief. I believe that it has begun its passage through the House of Commons. Could this legislation be speeded up? Could the size of business given rate relief be considered? The Government propose a rateable value of up to £9,000. For many rural businesses, those will be the barely viable ones. Surely the task is to keep viable the healthy businesses—the sole pub or garage—which serve a wide geographic area.
The items listed by the Minister in the Statement as "secondly", "thirdly" and "fifthly" would barely count in my book as measures. The Government should take a firmer line with the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. They should not ask them simply to take a sympathetic approach but to alter their performance indicators and targets in order to do so. Those services may be sympathetic to begin with but as the year wears on—we have no idea how long the crisis will last—they may become considerably less so under pressure to collect their revenues.

33
The same consideration applies to the banks. The Government should publish the criteria which demonstrate to the public the sympathetic line that the banks are taking with regard to extended credit and large loans, or small loans on small businesses. We have rightly encouraged businesses to diversify and expand. Those in the forefront of innovation and effort are the worst hit. They have increased borrowing to expand and diversify but their incomes have fallen. I ask the Government to give a true picture of what is happening with regard to the banks.
It is not enough for the Benefits Agency to say that it will provide quick assessments for applicants for jobseeker's allowance who are now out of work. As the latest Countryside Agency report demonstrates, in rural areas many casual and part-time workers are now out of work. We need to know the figures month by month and the way the Benefits Agency deals with them.
We welcome the Government's pledge to match public donations to rural charities. However, while people are grateful for charity money when in need, they want the opportunity to return to work. The Government should consider all the measures debated at length on the rural White Paper, and those produced by the Performance and Innovation Unit in its report on rural economies. They must be speeded up. The rural areas do not want to wait another three years for some of those measures to take effect.
I realise that the Minister is unlikely to comment on unofficial speculation that the Prime Minister will create a department of rural affairs. The Liberal Democrats have been pushing for that for a long time. I am somewhat surprised that the Conservative Benches mention that the rural committee has met only once. That is depressing; but in all their years in government, the Conservatives never provided any measure for joined-up government in rural areas. That will need to be rectified.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will concede that it is possible to have joined-up government without establishing a specific committee. That is what joined-up government really means.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will agree, as many in his party now do, that we need a department of rural affairs with its own minister, not simply a committee. I hope that we can look forward to the next government providing that department forthwith.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank both Front Bench spokespeople for their comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked about the number of applications for relief to Customs and Excise and the tax authorities, and for rate relief and benefits. The figures are not yet in. There is clearly some movement on those fronts but it will be some time before we can make a fuller assessment. It needs
34
to be made clear to everyone who may potentially benefit that such facilities are available and, as the noble Baroness indicated, that the process is in place to ensure that such applications are dealt with rapidly.
The noble Lord referred to the problems for the tourist industry. Indeed, there have been a number of somewhat depressing assertions on the effect on tourism. I believe that the Government have made a major effort to try to turn round, both internationally and domestically, the impression that Britain is closed for tourism. That has clearly had some effect, even over the Easter weekend. But as more footpaths and attractions become open, and as the message becomes clearer, I believe that some of the shortfall in forward bookings will be made up. Nevertheless, I recognise that the smaller, remoter end of the tourist business has been most dramatically affected by the crisis, together with the agricultural sector and those who directly supply that sector.
On the environmental effects, some knowledge has moved on since the Northumberland report with regard to prioritising the disposal of culled beasts. As has been pointed out, no option is risk free. It is a question of effectively managing the system and minimising the risk to human health and the environment. The hierarchy of the Environment Agency's approach is rendering through incineration in purpose-designed and authorised facilities, licensed landfill, on-site burning, and, lastly, burial.
Clearly, in some circumstances all of those options will not be available. It is for those on the ground to decide which disposal sites are appropriate in particular circumstances, taking account of all the expert advice received and, of course, the legal and environmental requirements.
One of the problems of burial on site is the effect on the water table. That is a particular problem in Devon where the water table is high. That is one of the reasons that there is a delay in the disposal of carcasses there.
The noble Lord asked who was in charge of identifying sites. In relation to landfill sites, the Environment Agency has identified suitable sites. We have largely overcome the problems that there were at the beginning. Landfill disposal of carcasses is carried out according to the best practice document agreed between the Environment Agency, MAFF and the Environmental Services Association. It is pursued by all organisations involved in the logistics of disposal of the carcasses, including the welcome help from the Armed Forces. So there is co-ordination there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the state of the rural economy prior to foot and mouth disease. As I indicated in response to her earlier questions, there clearly were agricultural problems in parts of the rural economy, and particularly those most dependent on some sectors of agriculture. But there are also boom areas in the rural economy, both in terms of the tourist industry and diversification of business within rural areas. We should not be too pessimistic about the ability of the rural economy to come through this crisis. We need to provide businesses, and particularly small businesses, rapidly

35
with some relief. I do not dissent from the conclusion of the noble Baroness that we need to speed up the process of delivering relief. That is being addressed by the Government, including the provision of the legislative backing which will be before your Lordships shortly.
The noble Baroness mentioned specifically the provision of loans, both through the banking system and through the small business loans guarantee scheme. We believe that in the immediate circumstances the loans guarantee scheme extension will provide some welcome relief to smaller businesses. The noble Baroness raised the question of why—the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, also referred to this matter—this provision refers only to businesses with a rateable value below £9,000. We have to prioritise. The prioritisation is to those small businesses which are most vulnerable and where rates constitute a high proportion of their total outgoings. We have therefore prioritised on that matter.
There is no implication that the Government can stave off entirely the effects of foot and mouth disease on rural businesses and communities. We are providing relief, deferral and assistance in a number of different ways. But the Government are not able to provide a system, and should not be in the position of being an insurer of last resort and of providing replacement income to the rural economy.
Finally, in response to the point about the department dealing with rural affairs, at this point I usually get a harsh note from the Box saying that this is a matter for the Prime Minister; and, indeed, it is. But as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, "Nothing is that simple". He covered the tax authorities, the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security, the DTI, my own department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. All departments have an interest in this issue, as does the nation as a whole. Whatever the structure of machinery of government, it is everyone's problem. It is not just a rural problem and not just a problem for the department dealing with rural affairs, but one which affects the economy as a whole. The Government are giving the matter priority. The Rural Task Force is addressing this issue with vigour. I hope that is recognised around the House.
4.35 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the Minister comment on the fact that this business would all be over had the recommendations of the Northumberland committee on ring vaccination taken place? The vaccination has increased in power, in effectiveness and has been used in Korea, in the Maghrib, in Macedonia, in Albania and in Taiwan with enormous effect. The Minister says that the Government are not an insurer of last resort. However, if by the Government's own incompetent actions the outbreak has lasted longer than it should have, which according to most of the scientific evidence it undoubtedly has, then surely they are liable for the damage done?
36
Furthermore, why are they trumpeting £200 million worth of relief for the countryside when the damage is estimated at between £12,000 to £20,000 million? That is a factor of 1 per cent relief. I hope that the Government take that matter dearly to heart and listen to what I have said. I may be in a minority of one, even on my own side, on the issue of vaccination. At least I was proposing that to the Ministry of Countryside Affairs when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was Leader of the House.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I always welcome the noble Earl's consistency in these matters, even if he is in a minority of close to one on the issue of vaccination. My recollection is that in previous debates when my noble friend Lady Hayman has dealt with the matter, the burden of advice from the Opposition Benches was definitely against vaccination, as indeed has been the burden of advice throughout from the National Farmers Union and from most scientific and veterinary sources.
Vaccination has always been an option, but as a supplement and not as an alternative to culling. In relation to cattle in certain circumstances it is an option. It is not judged to be the appropriate response in terms of the advocacy of firebreak vaccination and it would be impractical in dealing with sheep. In certain areas vaccination could have taken place as a supplement but it would not have avoided either the spread of the disease or the number of cattle and sheep that have had to be destroyed; nor would it have speeded up the process of eradication of the disease.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister because some of what I shall say relates perhaps more to his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Does the noble Lord appreciate that what was despair in the countryside is, through frustration, rapidly turning to serious anger against not just the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Environment Agency but also MAFF? The anger is directed in two ways: first, so far as concerns some of the agricultural aspects to which he has just referred, the way in which carcasses are not being dealt with and are being left on farms for up to three weeks; and, secondly, the mass and unnecessary slaughter of many animals which are not dangerous contacts but simply happen to be at the far end of a farm which may have as little as a one-field boundary with an outbreak of the disease.
There is the slaughter of animals where the authorities have no way of dealing with the carcasses after they have been culled. That is causing an environment in some areas which is, frankly, unfit for people to live in. That is according to advice from the Environment Agency. While people have every sympathy with the difficulties of balancing the competing claims of burial and burning and transporting, particularly diseased carcasses sometimes through uninfected areas, patience has now worn to a point where people are about to break the law and take matters into their own hands. Friends of mine who have lost cattle have produced their own machines and have their own dry fields on their farms. They have

37
offered to bury their animals but have been told that they will be prosecuted if they do so. The animals are still lying there now, 10 days later.
I turn now to matters that are my noble friend's direct province. Relief from payments that a business cannot make is no help. Many small shops, pubs, hotels and guest houses have faced this crisis with no "rainy day" money. They are dismayed that money that has been given to the rural development agencies to help small businesses is being earmarked for more reports, more studies, more focus groups and more plans when what is needed is direct help to essential local services to keep them going. Can my noble friend give us some hope that money that is given to the regional development agencies may also in certain circumstances be used to give direct help to essential local services so that when tourists return to these areas, which I am sure they will within, I hope, a matter of weeks rather than months, there is something for them to find in terms of places to stay, places to eat and drink, and places to buy things? Unless that money, or some money, goes to those businesses now, they will not be there and the regeneration of the rural economy will be made virtually impossible.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with regard to the first part of what my noble friend said, I recognise that there is a significant degree of frustration in parts of the countryside. However, I hope that her remarks about people taking the law into their own hands—there were murmurs of what I took to be approval for those remarks—do not reflect the view of the House. Everyone wants to achieve as rapid a solution to these problems as possible. That means the slaughtering of the animals as rapidly as possible. That has taken place. In some cases there was then a delay in the disposal of the carcasses. The authorities are now virtually on top of that problem in the vast bulk of the countryside. As was reported yesterday, in Cumbria there is a delay of only one day in the disposal of carcasses. There is a continuing problem in Devon because of the lack of appropriate sites in terms of the water table level. The biggest problem remains in Devon. However, both in terms of the speed with which animals are slaughtered and the speed with which they are disposed of, we have got over the worst of the problem in the bulk of the country.
My noble friend asked about relief. We believe that the best way of providing relief is to avoid the immediate pressures on those businesses. The Rural Task Force is looking at ways in which we can provide more sustained support for rural businesses as we come out of the crisis. That will include consideration of direct help in particular circumstances, both via agencies such as the RDAs and other bodies. But there is no way in which the Government can guarantee that they will restore or even make a significant contribution to the income that is lost across the range of rural industries as a result of the crisis. That is not the Government's role. The Government's role must be to try to sustain in the best way possible a revival of the rural economy once the crisis is over. However, in order for us to reach that point, our main attention has
38
to be on the eradication of the disease itself. Resources, money and administrative effort are primarily directed to that end.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the Yorkshire Dales are now in the grip of this terrible situation. Healthy animals on farms adjoining infected farms are being destroyed. Those infected farms are not set out on the Internet. Does the Minister agree that the problem of this terrible slaughter is far greater than many people realise? Throughout the country there is a growing revulsion at the killings and it is affecting tourism. What can be done about that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there may be revulsion at the killings, but it is our strong advice and view that without the culling process we will not stop the disease affecting yet more areas of the country. It is already clear that the spread of the disease has been rapidly slowed down as a result of the culling process. I appreciate that there have been particular problems and that there has been a negative reaction on the part of some of the public. But not to have engaged in this process would have been the height of irresponsibility.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that many other people will share the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the complacent reiteration of the phrase "return to normality" is deeply depressing? Does the noble Lord really think that it is any good for the rural economy to return to the status quo immediately before the outbreak of the disease? Does he not also recognise that many people will have been deeply puzzled by his statement, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that only some parts of the rural economy are suffering from the ill-effects on agriculture? Does he not recognise that without agriculture there will be no rural economy as tourists will not visit countryside that is desolate because the farms just cannot operate?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept only in part what the noble Viscount has said. Clearly, there is a major role for agriculture in sustaining the attractiveness of rural areas in general. However, only a minority—a very small minority—of employment in rural areas is provided by agriculture and only a relatively small proportion of GDP is provided by agriculture. In addition to that, the supply industries and many others have a relationship with the health and prosperity of agriculture and they have indeed suffered. In many parts of the country that was palpable as a problem prior to foot and mouth striking and making the situation much worse. But there were also areas where there was great hope for the rural economy, both in terms of its tourist attractions and in terms of the way in which farming and other traditional industries were diversifying across the rural scene and providing jobs and new prosperity for our rural areas. That has to be recognised. The enhancement of that as well as the revival of agriculture will be an important part of bringing the rural economy back to normality. When I use that phrase I am not saying that normality is

39
likely to be restored within a matter of months; it may take some considerable time. Nevertheless, all sectors, not simply agriculture, will have a part to play in that.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the statements made by the Chief Scientific Officer and by Ministers that we are almost over the hump? That is far from true. The situation in the countryside is absolutely desperate, as was implied earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Sheep are being slaughtered in enormous numbers. There is not a sheep alive within 50 miles of me. They have all been slaughtered. That was the right policy but it was started far too late. If it had not been for the Army, God knows where we would now be. It is high time that the Government stopped tinkering with this matter and really began to understand the kind of money that is required. My local authority reckons that it has already spent £90 million on trying to help. Will the Government provide such sums to local authorities in Cumbria, Devon and the Midlands and to Dumfries and Galloway through the Scottish Executive? I do not think that the Government have any idea of what the situation is like in the countryside at the present time.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that the Government are well aware not only of the devastation caused by this disease, but also of the significant expenditure of resources being made by public authorities, as well as the impact on the private sector. Clearly, the Government will need to look at the position of those local authorities which have been most susceptible to the pressures referred to by the noble Lord. I believe that the response of the Government has not been too slow, as the noble Lord has suggested, but that decisive action has been taken at appropriate points and that the spread of the disease has been slowed down very effectively and, it is hoped, will now be stopped. In achieving that, not only have we had the support of the majority of farmers, but also the close involvement of public authorities, expert advisers and, indeed, the important contribution made by the Armed Forces in delivering the programme.
We recognise that we need to keep farmers and rural communities with us and that the effort to explain why these steps have to be taken, and thus involve people in the process, has formed an important part of our policy. For that reason, it is important that we do not exaggerate the degree of frustration with or level of attack on government authorities that has taken place. By and large, a level of understanding has been demonstrated, along with a high degree of co-operation between public authorities and local communities.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, although one would not expect Thatcherite principles of market economy to be applied to agriculture which has always been a special case, is it not remarkable nevertheless that many of the voices so raised around the House
40
now depart so far from those principles to say that this industry should be supported in every way possible in order that everyone's income is maintained?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, perhaps I may put the question. I do not need to go through the entire list of industries in this country which have suffered great problems of closure and loss of income. I would say that, over the years, this has not generally been the position as regards agriculture, given the £3.5 billion a year coming from the CAP, and the £1.5 billion from import levies, along with many other forms of support that might be called "market externalities". When this crisis is over, a review of the future of agriculture and the countryside should be conducted.
Does my noble friend agree that we should recognise that the Government, in their Statement today and in other Statements, are maintaining a high degree of market intervention? Does he further agree that frustration has been expressed in part over the culling policy, but that that policy is now proving successful—The Times publishes a chart each day showing the reduction in the number of new cases in relation to the epidemiological forecast?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I certainly agree with the last point made by my noble friend. I have made the same point twice in the course of my remarks; namely, that the spread of the disease has now been restricted. Provided that that continues, we can look forward to the time when this disease will have been beaten.
As regards my noble friend's earlier points, it is true that the agricultural sector has received substantial support over the years and that other industries which have been faced with structural change and other pressures—including rural industries such as coal mining—regrettably did not receive the same degree of support. Nevertheless we all recognise that agriculture is a special case. It is important to understand that farmers are being compensated not for their loss of income but for their loss of assets in relation to the beasts that have had to be culled. That distinction must be drawn between agriculture and the rest of industry.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has made the position clear as regards the position of farmers and their incomes. Speaking as a farmer's wife, all we seek is a fair price for the products that we produce. Whichever way that is met, that is all that is necessary.
Will the noble Lord answer the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, regarding who is responsible for selecting the sites for the funeral pyres and the burial of animals? The Minister said that his department was responsible for the landfill sites, but he has not said who is responsible for the other sites. We have seen horrendous sights: bonfires; dismemberments; half-burnt animals swinging in the air on the end of cranes; and animals being disinterred

41
from burial sites. These events have taken place because of the incorrect selection of sites. How many more times will this happen?
Lord Whiny: My Lords, I indicated earlier in my remarks that certain sites may have been wrongly identified. Furthermore, the Environment Agency and other bodies have to ensure that the environmental impact resulting from the use of such sites at the levels originally proposed does not have undesirable effects on water quality or air quality either immediately or in the medium term. For that reason, some restrictions have been imposed on the use of such sites. We are confident that we have now identified sites which are appropriate, both for landfill and for mass burning. We shall use those sites, not necessarily as intensively as might originally have been thought, but in a manner that will not generate public health problems or have long-term effects on drinking water standards.

Armed Forces Bill
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the quinquennial review of the service Acts is an important reminder that the Armed Forces have a unique statutory position in this country and in society. I do not need to spell out in your Lordships' House why that should be, or that, so far as the Army is concerned, it goes back to the Bill of Rights 1688.
It is of course important that the service Acts are reviewed and kept in line with developments in the criminal law as they affect the rest of our society. Traditionally, this has led to amendments to these Acts tracking other legislation, but at a respectable distance, as it were, from the dates of enactment. Apart from the delays imposed by the legislative timetable, it seemed to be sensible—indeed, prudent so far as the armed services were concerned—to see how the new legislation was developing in its application, and a framework of caselaw had evolved. Given an interval of a few years, it would then be time to incorporate those aspects of the legislation into the service Acts which were valuable and important to the armed services themselves.
Thus it has been possible for Parliament to ensure that the services' unique disciplinary status was in tune with contemporary trends in the law, without endangering the vitally important aspects of trust and respect within the services, up and down the chain of command, for their disciplinary practices. In places, the Bill before us today demonstrates that traditionally cautious approach. Only now, many years after their enactment, are we seeing provisions and amendments from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 being adapted and incorporated into the service discipline Acts. Detailed drafting apart, I think that steps such as these are to be welcomed.
42
For all those reasons, I question whether it is right to include Clause 33, which provides a general order-making power to enable the Secretary of State to introduce modifications into the service discipline Acts at any time, incorporating very recent changes in criminal legislation. In other ways, too, the approach in the Bill before us goes much further than has been traditional. In Part 2, dealing with powers of entry, search and seizure, the helpful Explanatory Notes prepared by the Ministry of Defence state that it is "desirable", but not essential, that the so-called "inherent powers" of a commanding officer should be clarified and put on to a statutory footing.
The reasoning seems to be that this will help to avoid the risk of a successful challenge to searches instigated by a commanding officer being made under the European Convention on Human Rights. Is that a risk to be avoided at all costs—or, at least, to attempt to avoid it at a disproportionate cost in terms of the diminution of the authority of a commanding officer and of the complexities of the alternative arrangements which are spelt out in Clauses 2 to 16?
Even allowing for the steps being taken to harmonise with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the complexities are legion. We have pages to define the reasonable grounds for belief that a search should be authorised by a judicial officer; more pages to detail the rules for the reasonable grounds for a service policeman to search a vehicle, as long as the said vehicle is not,
"in a garden or yard occupied with and used for the purposes of a dwelling or of any service living accommodation falling within section 15(1)(a), or on other land so occupied and used".
The "dwelling" I have mentioned,
"does not include any dwelling which is permanently or temporarily occupied or controlled by any of Her Majesty's forces".
On the other hand, "premises", according to Clause 16, includes any place and, in particular, includes—
"(a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft, and
"(b) any tent or movable structure"—
but not, according to Clause 15, service living accommodation if, or to the extent that, the premises are being used for holding persons in custody or for the accommodation of persons serving sentences of detention or imprisonment. Am I alone in feeling sorry for the service policeman as he attempts to comprehend his freedom of action in discharging his duties?
The Explanatory Notes state that Clause 16(7),
"is designed to avoid any doubt about the effect of sections 22–15"—
but it only heaps complexity on to complexity. Surely that is something to be avoided in the disciplinary provisions for the Armed Forces. I think that I should have the greatest difficulty in passing any promotion examination today in Air Force law based on this Bill.
The Bill's draftsmen have tried to square a very difficult circle. Perhaps recognising that real life will not stand still, they have incorporated a let-out clause for the commanding officer. Clause 7 empowers him to authorise entry and search when he believes that the

43
other methods outlined in the Bill are not going to be timely. The Bill then throws a fig leaf to the human rights lobby with provision for retrospective review by a judicial officer. If he approves the action of the CO, all well and good; but the Bill is silent on what happens in the event that the judicial officer is not satisfied. Both he and the CO will have had to arrive at a very subjective judgment. The latter, the CO's, will be made under the pressure of events; the former will be made in a much calmer atmosphere and the judicial officer will have the benefit of hindsight on which to reach his judgment. The CO will have a wealth of personal knowledge of the probity and character of those he commands; the judicial officer will have none of that background information on which to base his own judgment.
Am I being unfair to the judicial officer? If he is a judge advocate, or one of a number of senior practising UK lawyers who know the Armed Forces well, maybe I am. But tucked away in paragraphs 35 and 36 of Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Bill are amendments to the service Acts specifying the qualifications for appointment as a judicial officer. The appointment may be made if he or she holds,
"a relevant judicial appointment in any Commonwealth country or colony and has professional or educational"—
note "educational"—
"qualifications in law which appear to the Judge Advocate General to be appropriate".
Eminent these individuals may be in the practice—or maybe only in the theory—of the law, but the Bill leaves it to the Secretary of State, in Clause 8, to make orders governing the powers and duties of all judicial officers. If they are now to play such a prominent part in the application of service discipline, should not their powers—or at least a clear outline of them—and their duties be on the face of the Bill?
What happens if a judicial officer disagrees with the CO's actions? What redress can the CO seek if he is dissatisfied with the judicial officer's review? Indeed, do these non-UK-based judicial officers have to take any form of oath of allegiance to the Crown?
This is another example of the MoD, with the best of motives so far as concerns the Human Rights Act, once more putting commanding officers through the hoop and yet further debasing their authority. We have seen it in relation to summary punishments; we have seen concerns raised by commanding officers about the way in which the International Criminal Court Bill may affect operational judgments and decisions in the heat of battle.
My question, therefore, to the Minister is: do we have to put our services through all of this? When the Human Rights Bill was in Committee in February 1998, in answer to concerns which I and other noble Lords had raised about the impact of the Bill on the Armed Forces, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"I urge your Lordships to be of the view that the convention is a flexible instrument. It poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces".—[Official Report, 5/2/98; col. 768.]
44
If the Bill is accepted in its present form, it makes a travesty of that assurance from the noble and learned Lord.
Would it not be more sensible to follow the more traditional approach and to see how new laws are shaping in the civilian world before we press forward with them in the Armed Forces? We have had very little case law for the Human Rights Act or how the Crown Courts will deal with cases brought by service personnel. I would trade the risk of an occasional successful finding against the Armed Forces under the human rights convention for retention of the inherent powers of the commanding officer, which have long been understood and accepted in the forces themselves.
We are, after all, dealing with volunteer servicemen and women, not a conscript army. I think that the approach in the Bill on this matter is misjudged. Indeed, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is right and I am wrong, the services have no need to act in fear of the human rights legislation at all. Do we really have to rush our fences to incorporate all these provisions before there has been time and opportunity to assess how the Human Rights Act is affecting the services in practice?
5.7 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, Perhaps I may first say to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, how valuable it has been to have displayed today his experience of how an average serviceman will view this legislation. Indeed, I add my congratulations to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on the award of the Order of the Garter.
My noble friend Lord Burnham put the political case very well in his speech. I agree with him in regard to Clause 31, which seems to be the main contentious part of the Bill.
Before I go into the Bill—I intend to speak very briefly—I should say to the noble Baroness how much I appreciate what the Army has done over the past six or seven weeks in helping with the foot and mouth outbreak. In my part of the world, Dumfries and Galloway, 52nd Lowland Brigade from Edinburgh has carried out splendid work through the Highlanders and the Gurkhas. Most importantly, they have brought with them an understanding of what had to be done, which has cheered up a demoralised community very extensively. The leadership given by the soldiers has been of tremendous benefit. When my farm lost all its sheep a week ago, the sympathetic approach of the Gurkhas who came to assist could not have been more helpful.
The least that one can say is that, on the whole, the discipline of the services is first class and quite excellent. I am not sure that the Bill makes the law any easier for any servicemen to understand. It adds complication. The poor old Jock in his quarters is thinking, "Well, there's human rights, rules of engagement, orders on Northern Ireland and judicial reviews; am I under the orders of the MoD, NATO, the United Nations or the European army?". This is

45
turning servicemen into barrack room lawyers. I do not suppose that anyone in the services would understand the content of the Bill if it were placed before them today. The noble Baroness and her team should attempt to do all they can to simplify some of the aspects of the Bill. It is desperately complicated.
As a junior officer during the war, I was horrified if I was ever involved in a legal case of discipline or a court martial and was told to do a summary of evidence. It took hours, even days, of work. It took one away from what one was supposed to be doing; namely, helping to win the war. That is the kind of problem that will face officers of all ranks when they attempt to fulfil the terms of the legislation that we are considering.
There are few points that I should like to put to the Minister relating to the service discipline Acts. Matters were greatly helped by the Reserve Forces Act, which brought greater flexibility to our Reserve Forces. The Minister knows how well the Royal Auxiliary Air Force campaigned in the Gulf with our medical air evacuation squadron and the movements squadron that was based in this country. During the Gulf War, the Royal Air Force was stretched to the limit in the United Kingdom servicing aircraft for use in the Middle East. In the Royal Auxiliary Air Force—at which time I was an inspector general—we were very keen to take over the guard duties and other work that members of the Royal Air Force had to do on bases in this country. But that was not possible: it was quite wrong for a reservist to carry live ammunition, and he could not be on guard duty at a gate without carrying ammunition. That kind of problem has been resolved by the Reserve Forces Act. There is no reason why a reservist should not be able to do that kind of work in order to relieve our front line forces who may be serving in the Balkans, the Middle East or elsewhere.
I also want to ask the Minister where matters stand in relation to the RAF police. A year or two ago it seemed to me that there were moves for full-time reservists becoming RAF policemen. That may or may not be a good idea; however, I should like to know whether the Bill will cover all aspects of the duties of full-time reservists if they are appointed as RAF policemen.
I should like to raise a further matter which is not specifically contained in the Bill but which comes under the heading of discipline, which is what the Bill is all about. I refer to an issue that has been referred to frequently in the press over the years; namely, having women in the front line.
I have the highest regard for the attributes of our servicewomen. They fly fast jets, work with the artillery and are on active service on warships. That is absolutely right. I am glad that they are able to do so, and to do the job so efficiently. However, the Secretary of State for Defence said last October that women are just as likely to be in a position to kill people as men are. That is not really the point. I accept that because they fly aircraft and work with the artillery and so on, they will be doing just that if required to do so. The worry that one has about women being literally in the front line is the fear of the physical difficulty of
46
carrying weights over the distances that a serviceman must cover these days. Could women really have been expected to carry haversacks and weapons over the mountains of the Falklands in such difficult weather and land conditions?
There has to be a balance. Yes, in positions where women can use their skills effectively, they should be allowed to anything that men can do when fighting a war. But where the physical position is impossible, they must accept that they will have to stand back. That is the difference: those who want women to do everything are asking them to do the impossible.
In our regiment squadron in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, women were trained to an equal standard of efficiency with the men. We were defending aerodromes; therefore, we were not carrying heavy weights and rushing around on our feet for miles and miles. We were in a defensive position. The women were as effective as the men—indeed, some in the squadron were far better shots than some of the men. There is a careful balance to be drawn. I hope that in its thinking the Ministry of Defence will try to draw that distinction in arriving at some future conclusion.
I shall watch the Bill's progress with interest. I do not know how the time will work out, bearing in mind the number of amendments that are likely to be tabled. By and large, one shares the feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that we should give the Bill a Second Reading and take the next stage as it comes.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank those noble Lords who have congratulated me on being made a Knight of the Garter. I have not quite recovered from the shock of receiving such an honour.
I welcome a number of the changes proposed in the Bill. Indeed, much of it is uncontroversial. I thank the Minister for the trouble that her office has taken to make sure that we were briefed about the meaning and consequences of the Bill. Much of it is positive. Making warrant officers eligible to sit on courts martial is a good step. I hope that it will not be too long before they can sit on the summary courts of appeal. I shall not, however, tell the Minister what my first company sergeant-major said to me when I was a second lieutenant and sat on a court martial under instruction. His advice was quite clear. I shall tell the noble Baroness after this debate.
I also think it good that people who are not subject to the service discipline Acts who are summoned to attend at courts martial can in future commit an offence. That is important. The introduction of powers to test for alcohol in incidents that may result or risk resulting in death, serious injury or damage is also important. It is good that the service courts will have powers to make orders relating to costs against parties or their legal representatives whose actions or omissions have resulted in another party incurring unnecessary considerable expenditure.
I have one major concern and one major question. My major concern is the one that has been expressed so eloquently by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig.

47
The Minister for the Armed Forces in another place, Mr Spellar, made two comments. He said that he wants to bring service police powers of search and investigation more into line with PACE. The point is dealt with in Clauses 2 to 16. But he said also that he wanted to check that military law meets the current needs of the services. In other words, are they being made more effective by the changes in the law? I find a contradiction in the two statements. The changes to the powers of entry, search and seizure that are being introduced meet not the needs of the services but the needs of the European Convention on Human Rights.
When your Lordships discussed the changes to summary dealing, a number of speakers made the point about the increased bureaucracy that the new arrangements for summary dealing would bring about. Secondly, it was pointed out that they were eating away in a substantial way at the authority and effectiveness of the commanding officer and his command team.
One of the reasons for our Armed Forces being so good is that that critical level of command is invested with considerable power; but the commanding officers exercise that power extremely well, and with great care and caution. I believe that we eat away at that power, that effectiveness and that authority at our peril. I am well aware that in the Ministry of Defence the military lawyers, and others, believe that they have protected summary dealing; indeed, they have done so. However, I believe that that has been at the expense of the effectiveness of the commanding officer. There are also other changes. We are talking about the powers being given to the service police. The fact that the commanding officer must now, if he can, refer to a judicial officer will further eat away at that power. It will certainly become more bureaucratic; it will certainly become less responsive; and, as I said, it will weaken the authority of the commanding officer.
By and large, I believe that noble Lords have an understanding of what it means to be a commanding officer of our Armed Forces. I say that because it is worth reminding ourselves that they are in a totally different position, in my judgment, from anyone else. They are asking the people who work for them—and, therefore, for the nation—to put their lives at risk. Unlike many parts of civilian life, the group is fundamentally more important than the individual. Therefore, the commanding officer is concerned about his people 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Anything that we do to undermine that responsibility and thereby take away his ability to care for, train, look after and lead his command must, I believe, be a mistake. I am concerned that our Armed Forces, unlike the French armed forces, do not have the opt-out clause, or have not been allowed to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights.
My second point is a question: why has it been thought necessary to give the Secretary of State the general order-making power to amend the service discipline Acts, if need be? I ask that question because I am suspicious. We are talking about the investigation of offences and the powers of arrest and detention. Are
48
we saying that we have to keep up to date with future civilian justice legislation, or do we think that the European Convention on Human Rights—this is where my alarm bells ring—is what I would call a "fast-moving legal target", with which it will be difficult to keep up? If that is the case, are we also saying that the five-yearly review of the Armed Forces Bill is too long to keep in step? If that is so, it seems to me that we are in danger of opening a Pandora's box when we are not yet sure of the possible consequences.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, perhaps I may add what I suppose is almost an ex post congratulation to the noble and gallant Lord on the award of the Garter. He will now be able to look up at his banner. But also, as he leaves the House of Lords each day, he will have the almost unique benefit of seeing his own Coat of Arms on the Staircase leading from this House. The honour is richly deserved. All the noble and gallant Lord's friends, and those who worked with him over many years, congratulate him.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I should like to associate myself very much with the remarks made not only by the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken but also with those made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, especially concerning the possible increasingly invidious position in which commanding officers are likely to be put if the Bill becomes law. I should tell the Minister that I believe that that is a reason for us to pause for reflection on this extremely important point. It is not a mechanistic point, nor a legal point; it is a point of real substance. The two noble and gallant Lords who have spoken from the Cross Benches have enormous experience as commanding officers. I should like to add my modest support for what they have said.
I declare an interest as president of the United Kingdom Council of the Reserve Forces Cadets' Association. The Bill also covers the reserve forces. It is interesting to note that the Armed Forces discipline Acts cover reserve officers at all times, but that they only cover other ranks when they are on duty—an anomaly that I have never properly understood. Doubtless the Minister will be able to enlighten us further in that respect. Of course, as and when the reserve forces are called up in formed units, as I expect they will be, I very much hope to serve in the future. Certainly in peacekeeping roles, both officers and other ranks will be equally bound by the discipline Acts.
Before I turn to my brief contribution to the debate, perhaps I may share the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Monro about the work of the regular and reserve forces in dealing with the foot and mouth outbreak. I was in the north of England last Friday and talked to both regular and reserve force officers, as well as to other ranks. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I commend their expertise and efforts in dealing with this horrendous problem.

49
If I may say so, the skill that they bring is not noticeably and consistently present in Whitehall departments. I mean no criticism of them, including MAFF. The Armed Forces bring command and control capabilities that are totally absent from our domestic Whitehall departments. I am sure that many noble Lords will agree with me when I say that, with the benefit of hindsight, the Armed Forces should have been brought in sooner. If we ever suffer such a crisis again, I hope that they will be brought in at a much earlier stage.
I have long been concerned about the rules applied by the Treasury in terms of payment to the forces for the use of equipment. That situation occurred again during the outbreak of foot and mouth. Treasury rules normally require full cost payment for the use of equipment, such as helicopters, transport and aircraft. It is high time that we moved to a system of marginal direct cost charging at the event, which would allow the Treasury to review the following year the total costs of dealing with an emergency and to consider a fair allocation of costs. It cannot be right, as it appears to have been during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth, for there to be any doubt in the minds of commanding officers about the need for—or the willingness of—the Ministry of Defence to provide equipment for the civil forces.
I turn to my three brief points for the Minister. First, there is the need for a tri-service discipline Bill. I think that my noble friend Lord Attlee will probably be dealing with this matter in his speech, but I know that most of us believe that such a Bill is to be commended, at least in principle, because it will bring some form of consistency; and certainly efficiency in the use of parliamentary time. My concern is as expressed by the recently-retired Chief of the Defence Staff; namely, that if you have one Bill, you may perhaps lose some provisions that apply uniquely to one of the four other services. But, however the matter is resolved, I believe that we must press ahead quickly. I ask that the Ministry of Defence treats this as a matter of priority and that it produces a Bill with the aid of parliamentary counsel at an early stage—certainly not at the end of the next Parliament—for wider consultation with the Armed Forces.
Secondly, I should like to commend to your Lordships the use in the House of Commons of the Select Committee system to examine a Bill between Second Reading and the Committee stage. That process occurred during the consideration of the Bill now before us. Perhaps when we come to deal with the next Bill—certainly the tri-service discipline Bill, as far as concerns the Armed Forces—it may be possible, although it raises a constitutional point, to have a joint Select Committee of both Houses so as to enable us to benefit from the expertise available in both places. We are denied the opportunity of prolonged consideration and the taking of evidence from experts on the Bill from which Members of the other place have already benefited. I hope that sufficient time will be allowed by the next government for the tri-service discipline Bill to
50
be properly considered by such a Select Committee. We are not talking about a matter of weeks; we are talking about several months.
My final point relates to Clause 31, with which my noble friend Lord Burnham dealt so robustly and correctly. I do not want to pre-empt what my noble friend Lord Onslow might say, although I should point out that his firm views have already preceded his speech. In my judgment, the principles of Clause 31 are correct. However, I have two concerns in addition to those expressed by my noble friend Lord Burnham, which I am sure will be reflected in many amendments which your Lordships will discuss at great length.
First, when a request for assistance is made by local police to the Ministry of Defence Police, who is to set guidelines and priorities? For example, in the case of a national demonstration—as we had in the mid-1980s over the use of Cruise missiles—there may be demonstrations well away from MoD bases but also at those bases. Who is to decide how the scarce resources of the Ministry of Defence Police are to be allocated? Who is to say yes or no to a request from a local constabulary? At the very least guidelines need to be drawn up. It may be difficult to put them in the Bill but they need to be drawn up and published.
Secondly, I refer to the right of individual Ministry of Defence policemen to act in emergencies. Who is to define such an emergency? I have read carefully the Bill and the guidance helpfully prepared by the Ministry of Defence, but I do not think that that matter is made clear enough. We must surely clearly discourage Ministry of Defence policemen from pursuing their own views with regard to dealing with problems reported either in newspapers or on the radio or, indeed, by their own colleagues. Will they divert from a trip between two bases in order to deal with possible assaults and threats to the person? I suggest that, as in the case of the cards issued to infantrymen on the rules of engagement, at the very least clear instructions ought to be issued as to what policemen should or should not be able to do, if the relevant clause is to be passed. Other than that I commend the Bill and I hope that it will receive an unopposed Second Reading.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I thought that he made a very important point when he said that there should be a Joint Select Committee of both Houses to deal with defence matters in the next Parliament. Does he agree that that has become much more necessary because of the amount of expertise in your Lordships' House and the lack of expertise in another place?
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I am not sure that I associate myself with the latter part of those comments. There is a good deal of expertise in both Houses but it should be combined.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on his membership of the noble Order of the Garter I believe

51
that his description of the duties of a commanding officer impressed every Member of this House. No wonder he got to the top of his profession!
I am concerned about one particular aspect of the Bill: the position of the MoD Police—a police force that has been built up without any proper local authority control and is entirely the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence. As I understand the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the Ministry of Defence may take powers to act without a request for assistance from the Home Department or from a police officer. Those powers are far too wide-reaching.
It is terribly important for everyone in this country to realise that even chief officers of police are subject to the vigilance of police committees. Every year people are elected to those committees which constitute a good safeguard. I cannot imagine that the chief metropolitan commissioner of Northumberland would try to cancel the livelihood and liberties march unless he believed that it would cause disorder or seriously endanger people. I also worry about some chief constables with degrees in sociology. I hope that that does not make them politically corrupt. They are, after all, accountable to their local police committees. I hope that as the members of those committees are elected, they will keep them under firm control.
Let us consider for a moment what happened with the fuel crisis. The Government wanted a force that could break heads and enforce their will. To that end they approached the Ministry of Defence Police for help. I am glad to say that they said that they could not help. I hope that the Bill will not give them additional powers. As I understand it, the Ministry of Defence Police cannot arrest someone who commits an offence outside an MoD establishment. The Ministry of Defence Police should deal only with people who commit offences on MoD establishments.
If the Bill becomes law, the Government will be able to build up a paramilitary force to use against people whom they do not like. We ought to be able to say that that should not happen here. Now is the moment for us to kick up a fuss to make absolutely certain that that does not happen here. After all, the noble Baroness is working against the clock. Unless she removes the whole of Clause 31, the Bill will not be accepted. However, we may be able to reach a compromise on that matter.
5.36 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have now observed the most perfect, glorious and juicy irony of my whole life. Nick Cohen is a rabidly Left-wing journalist on the Observer. I was deeply influenced by one of his articles. I shall quote from it at considerable length. However, it never crossed my mind at its most imaginative late at night after seven pints of beer that my noble friend Lord Kimball and Nick Cohen would sing from the same hymn sheet. That is the most marvellous advance in the cause of human liberty. My noble friend Lord Kimball is absolutely right: liberty without eternal vigilance will not survive.
52
I must briefly digress to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on his award of the Garter. It is the only honour which I lust after completely although I know that I shall not get it. I lust after it because when Lord Melbourne was awarded it he said that he liked the Garter as there was no damned merit in it. There was a rather jolly 18th century Peer who was considered totally eccentric as when he was invited out shooting he used to sit at the third drive at Chatsworth, or wherever it was, wearing his Garter ribbon. That is another reason that I lust after that which, as my noble friend Lord Burnham quite correctly said, I will not be awarded. However, my congratulations are sincere even if my comments may have been mildly flippant.
The Government have in many ways introduced some pretty illiberal measures. I refer to the "three strikes and you're out" measure and their banning the innocent from having pistols while the supply to the ungodly has in no way diminished. They have attempted to restrict jury rights and now they have produced Clause 31 of this Bill. It is worth while quoting from Mr Cohen. No one has as yet denied the following point. He states that the Bill proposes that,
"the 3,500 officers in the Ministry of Defence Police … should be free to search and arrest any citizen, and to break whatever strikes, fuel protests and anti-nuclear demonstrations upset Ministers".
That constitutes a Napoleonic police, as permitted by Clause 31. The article continues—this point was mentioned totally correctly by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball—
"No independent inspectorate investigates complaints. Its officers are not soldiers, but they are armed and trained to deal with obedient squaddies, not the lippy public outside the barracks. At present they can investigate only the alleged crimes of servicemen and women and defence contractors. This sensible precaution is now being dismissed as an absurd anachronism".
I offer many congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, on entering the blessed state of holy matrimony. It is to be recommended. My old woman has put up with me for 35 years. I suppose my noble friend Lord Burnham is going to criticise that as well. However, today the noble Baroness has said that if officers driving across Wiltshire Plain saw a man loitering suspiciously near an empty building or holiday cottage, they could arrest him and search him for housebreaking tools. No police force has ever asked for such powers, but the Bill will allow the Ministry of Defence Police to do that.
The Ministry of Defence Police have made some serious errors recently. As Nick Cohen went on to point out:
"It accused Major Milos Stankovic, who served with distinction in Bosnia, of spying, for example. He was born in Rhodesia and brought up in the West Country, but his Serb name was enough to blacken his character. The charges were dropped".
Mr Cohen also said:
"Nigel Wylde, a former lieutenant-colonel who was decorated for bravery in Northern Ireland, was hounded for two years for a supposed breach of the Official Secrets Act. … He had helped a journalist writing an account of military tactics in Ireland. The book—The Irish War by Tony Geraghty—was not banned and remains on sale to this day. The information on the use of electronic surveillance Wylde and Geraghty discussed was in the public domain. As Wylde was not a serving officer, his arrest by

53
MoD police was probably illegal. For all that, the prosecution was only abandoned days before he was due to go to court after a stunned Attorney General called in the papers and ordered the MoD to back off".
There seem to be enough worries about the behaviour of the MoD Police as it is, but there is now a suggestion that they can become a national police force with powers over everybody else without a proper watch committee, however feeble that control may be.
Parliament exists because our forebears decided that James II should not use arbitrary powers for the standing army. We have the quinquennial Acts because William III was not allowed a standing army except when the Mutiny Acts or the Army Act were renewed every year. Having a national police subject only to the control of a Minister without any outside check or balance goes to the core of English and British liberties.
I make jokes occasionally because I think it is fun to do so, but on this issue I am being totally and completely serious. This is tyrannical legislation. I use the word, "completely" advisedly. The provision is not necessary. If it to be enacted, it needs to be done by a full Act of Parliament, with proper discussion at all stages so that we all know exactly what we are doing, not shovelled in by the back door. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will remove Clause 31 from the Bill.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on his Garter. Unlike that of Lord Melbourne, it was well merited. I also congratulate the Minister on her marriage. In the light of that, I am not sure whether we shall need to move the amendment that we were considering to Part 6 to permit Ministers to be married in military chapels.
It is a pleasure to speak from the Front Bench on the Bill. I regret that I may have fewer opportunities to take part m your Lordships' debates on defence in the future.
As the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, have made clear, the Bill is of great constitution al importance, because the authority given by the quinquennial Act is precious to the structure between civilians and the military. During this transitional period of the development of new democratic societies in central and eastern Europe, we are spending a great deal of time explaining to them how to develop proper civilian and military relationships. The model and procedures that we have developed are of considerable value.
The Select Committee in another place proposed accelerating the production of the single tri-service Act. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, pointed out that some specificities of particular services might be lost if we moved too quickly. I believe that there would be gains and that on balance we ought, if possible, to have a tri-service Act before the next quinquennial Bill is due.
54
Reference has been made to the specificity of military discipline and service. I started my military career not in soft beds, but in a hammock on a mess deck in an aircraft carrier, which was made a little more tolerable by the presence in the same mess of two other present Members of your Lordships' House. We all served as ordinary seamen and we discovered at an early stage that military life was different.
That is one of the problems that we need to consider. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred to political correctness. We need to decide how and in which ways military society and discipline will evolve as other ideas and thoughts change in society. How should we take into account attitudes towards gender balance and diversity that are part of society today? That will cause tension, but in the Bill and in other ways the Government have attempted to strike a balance. There are particular points on that issue to which I shall return.
I strongly agree with what has been said about the advantages of the special procedure of the ad hoc Select Committee that operates in the House of Commons. Twenty five years ago, I sat on the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill 1976, under the chairmanship of Richard Crawshaw, who was not only a very good walker, but also a very good chairman. That was a particularly interesting occasion. Serving on that Select Committee is an important education for all who take part. During the debate on the Queen's Speech, my noble friend Lord Wallace and I suggested that this House should consider using the special procedure that is available to us for a Select Committee to consider the Bill. That will not be possible on this occasion, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, that we should return to the issue, doing it either in parallel with the Commons or jointly.
Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, I thank the Minister for the briefing that she provided to Members of your Lordships' House earlier this year, when it was possible to raise some of our concerns about the Bill.
We have to deal with some fundamental issues of the basis of military justice in those areas where it does not deal purely with military discipline, but overlaps with issues that are dealt with by the civilian criminal courts for the rest of society. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said that certain provisions in the Bill could seriously erode the role of the commanding officer. There is a complicated balance to be struck. Anything that the noble and gallant Lord says on the issue must be taken very seriously. We shall no doubt come back to it in Committee. The noble and gallant Lord has not yet persuaded me of his case, but he has convinced me that there is an issue that we need to discuss.
There are further and wider problems of how far military justice can be seen to be independent and impartial when senior officers sit in judgment and there is no jury. Are those serious restrictions? I believe that we have found—not in this but in other legislation—ways of coping with possible challenges to our system of military justice which could be raised by

55
the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not envisage the risk of a further deterioration in this area, as was suggested by the noble and gallant Lord. However, we may well have to return to some of these points in Committee when we consider the question of the future role of the European Convention on Human Rights.
As has become clear, Part IV of the Bill, and in particular Section 31, raises the most complicated and difficult problems—those which arise in dealing with the Ministry of Defence Police. This is a very difficult issue; for example, there is the general problem of assistance to the civil powers. Such assistance can, of course, be fully beneficial and appreciated, as has been the case with regard to the work carried out by our services in relation to the current emergencies arising from foot and mouth disease.
Here, we are talking about a specific type of assistance to the civil powers; namely, that given by the Ministry of Defence Police to their colleagues in normal county constabularies. I believe that that raises a range of serious issues. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, took the view that it would be better if this were dealt with in a separate Bill. That will not happen. He went on to say that at present he was minded to support the clauses concerned, even though some of his noble friends do not appear to share his view on the matter. From these Benches—
Lord Burnham: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I said that there was enough in Clause 31 to allow us to support it, but there was also much in it that we would criticise and would want to amend.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I was about to come to that very point.
I read the proceedings of the Select Committee in another place. They provided another useful source of information on these matters in addition to the material which appeared in the Sunday Observer. They perhaps set out the issue rather more fully than the interesting article to which the noble Earl referred. Of course, in a number of cases that could be valuable and useful.
However, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in his questions to the Minister, it is extremely important to see precisely what protocols will be developed. I believe that we shall need to consider this clause as it comes out of Committee before we are able to say whether or not we can support it. A number of serious matters must be clarified further along the lines mentioned by a number of noble Lords in this debate.
As has been said, this is a constitutional Bill of some importance. We shall not oppose it tonight, but we hope to have an opportunity to return to it and to deal in particular with the matters to which I have referred.
5.53 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I begin by reminding your Lordships that I have an interest as a serving TA
56
officer and, as such, am subject to many of the provisions of the Army Act 1955. Noble Lords should note that the SDAs apply as equally to reserves as they do to regular forces.
My noble friend Lord Burnham was not sure whether he welcomed all the Bill. Of course, what is welcome is that our Armed Forces are under full parliamentary control, and our debate today is part of that process. Many of the provisions described by the Minister are very welcome. That is, of course, the main purpose of the Bill—a routine service, as it were. I am sure, too, that Schedule 7(31) will be welcome to some service families.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said that the Bill had been thoroughly examined in another place. It was certainly examined, but I do not believe that the Select Committee there has the experience of your Lordships, particularly that concentrated on the Cross Benches—a point emphasised by my noble friend Lord Renton.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to the difficulties of the commanding officer. He also said that he was sorry for the service policemen. My thoughts turn to the difficulties facing the commanding officers of the future. I am sorry for them. The noble and gallant Lord expressed his concern regarding the ECHR and the Human Rights Act.
My noble friend Lord Monro questioned whether servicemen would understand the Bill if it were put before them. The fact is that even commanding officers and their adjutants are hazy about some of the precise details of the legislation. However, I hasten to add that good advice is always available to them. I have brought into the Chamber the Queen's Regulations for the RAF, but it is too heavy for me to hold in one hand.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, shared the concerns of his noble and gallant friend Lord Craig regarding the erosion of the powers of the commanding officer. He also referred to the opt-out of the fast-moving target of the ECHR that is enjoyed by the French. It seems that the military experts—I do not count myself as one of them—are becoming increasingly concerned about the ECHR, the ICC et al.
My noble friend Lord Freeman referred to the fact that volunteer reserve officers always come under the SDAs. Although that is, indeed, an anomaly, it is also an advantage. A while ago I was travelling on the Tube and saw a group of soldiers enjoying, shall we say, a night on the town to the full. One growl from me in "officer mode" was enough for them to pipe down a little. Knowing that it was my duty made it possible for me to do so; if it had not been my duty, I should not have bothered.
My noble friend Lord Freeman also touched on the allocation of cost associated with military assistance to the civil community. Sometimes the training value of such assistance to the TA unit can be immeasurable, but it can be stopped by an accountant, who can measure the cost precisely.

57
Perhaps I may offer my congratulations to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on his appointment and to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, on his.
My noble friend Lord Burnham articulated his concerns regarding the new powers of the MoD Police. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to conservative concerns regarding the possible emergence of a national MoD-based police force and poured water on the idea. He then went on to explain, far better than I could, the potential dangers of such a development. His noble friend Lord Roper then amplified those concerns.
My noble friend Lord Burnham referred to political correctness. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, challenged my noble friend to define political correctness. My noble friend asked for a little time to reply, but I can do so now in my own humble way. "Political correctness" is being marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy, often involving issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, ecology and the environment. When applied to the Armed Forces by those with no relevant experience, there is usually a failure to recognise the realities of warfare involving significant casualties and personal sacrifice.
We expect our Armed Forces to operate to the highest moral standards because of, and not in spite of, the tasks that they might have to undertake. Indeed, the demands of such tasks may be more than the human mind and body can stand without suffering permanent damage.
My noble friend Lord Monro drew attention to the valuable activities of women in the Armed Forces. Further use of women in the Armed Forces is under review. Women have much to offer the services, but a decision on their future role must be a military one and not a matter of political correctness.
Many noble Lords welcomed the new role for warrant officers in courts martial. I believe that to be a positive development. However, I want to follow on from the hint given by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. Warrant officers are much tougher and more unforgiving than junior officers. As I believe the Minister said, they are also more experienced. They will also be able to relieve a load from commissioned officers.
Clause 25 will compel witnesses to attend a court martial. I have no difficulty with that, but I have a related concern. I believe that there is no compulsion on a member of the volunteer reserves to attend a court martial as a defendant. If he or she delayed matters long enough, time would run out for the proceedings and the volunteer could continue with his or her service. I am not convinced that that is proper and I may return to that matter in Committee.
My major concern about the Bill, and that of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Roper, is that the Minister has failed to deliver a tri-service discipline Act. The Minister stated that it was never the intention to introduce a tri-service Act at this point. However, that does not alter the fact that a tri-service Act is desirable. Noble Lords will recall that during the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Act
58
2000 about 18 months ago, the legislation was presented to your Lordships' House as an interim measure. We have been concerned about that for some time. I regret that even the previous administration did not make any progress in that regard, although they introduced the useful Reserve Forces Act, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Monro.
Surely the first stage should involve a consolidation process bringing together the three service discipline Acts as amended into a single Act but ma king no substantial changes to the law in the process. I do not necessarily suggest using the consolidated Bill procedure because there may be difficulties if simple minor changes are required. However, I do not regard that as being terribly difficult. Such an exercise would, however, be exceptional, because it would involve the horizontal consolidation of a set of parallel Acts rather than the usual process of the vertical integration of a series of Acts. It should not be forgotten that the Army Act and the Air Force Act are very similar. The principal difference involves the ranks that are quoted.
It is vital to understand that the desire for a tri-service discipline Act is not a way of moving to a single armed service. It is even essential to maintain the separate ethos and, most importantly, the traditions of each service. Noble Lords will recognise that ethos and tradition cannot be legislated for. Over the years, noble Lords on all sides of the House have made the case for a single Act that gives a clear framework of discipline for all service personnel, who nowadays find themselves working alongside and under the command of—or even in command of—personnel from other services.
During the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Campbell of Alloway and others made it clear that new primary legislation was required. It would simultaneously bring together the separate service discipline Acts and complete the process of updating the legislation into a single whole.
The Queen's Regulations for each service are very detailed but many matters are repeated for each service. For instance, chapter 16 of the Queen's Regulations for the RAF has 27 pages covering courts martial, and chapter 45 has 47 pages on baggage allowances! I cannot see why there should be any difference with regard to those two matters across the services. I accept that we are some way off having tri-service Queen's Regulations.
The previous administration did not succeed in introducing a tri-service Act. I point out that the Army and the RAF legal services between them have two two-star officers, two one-star officers and about eight full colonels or equivalent. Given that those officers are also lawyers, is there just too much inertia for Ministers—even for the noble Baroness—to move, whatever the advantages of doing so? We have proposals that we hope to advance in Committee which, if agreed to, would ensure that the same thing does not happen again.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as is usual during the passage of legislation affecting the Armed Forces, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. Such debates invariably benefit from the wealth of experience and knowledge that is available in your Lordships' House, but which is not found there exclusively. However, we have the advantage of the wisdom of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Inge and Lord Craig of Radley. I, too, congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on his well-deserved honour.
Noble Lords have heard about the variety of measures that the Bill will introduce. They are designed to improve the Armed Forces discipline system. Some of those measures are adapted from practices that already operate in the civilian criminal system but others are only of relevance to the Armed Forces. In all cases, they have been the subject of careful consideration by the services. As Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, assured the Select Committee in another place, there is nothing in the Bill that would make discipline more difficult to maintain. It would clearly be of concern to noble Lords, Ministers and chiefs of staff if the Chief of the Defence Staff had felt otherwise. However, he told that Select Committee that he was satisfied that the Bill will, in some areas, improve the way in which discipline is conducted. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for acknowledging that.
The noble Lords, Lord Burnham, Lord Wallace and Lord Freeman, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised the issue of a tri-service Act. They rightly pointed out that the Select Committee in another place wanted such an Act within three years. However, I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, who rightly said that one must be careful not to lose anything of value when drawing up a tri-service Act. The important point is to get such an Act right, not simply to have it as quickly as possible. In my opening speech I said that we should examine the feasibility of bringing forward such an Act in the way in which the Select Committee in another place asked us to do. We will consult, as we did with the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000, which recently passed through your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, discussed a joint Select Committee. I find that an attractive idea, not least because there is such expertise in your Lordships' House. I see the merit in the proposal but, as the noble Lord knows, that is a matter not for me but for the usual channels. I am sure that he will make his representations accordingly.
Many noble Lords—notably the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who was strongly supported by his noble and gallant friend Lord Inge—discussed the reasons that the Bill is so important. Part 2 establishes for the first time the key powers of military and other service police and of commanding officers to investigate offences by members of the Armed Forces. In doing so, it covers two main areas, which are of great importance: first, the stopping and searching of members of the services and of service
60
vehicles, and, secondly, the searching of the accommodation of members of the services, for evidence of offences.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, wants us to look further at the accommodation issue; I am sure that we shall return to it in due course. It would be of great assistance to service police and commanding officers if they had a clear statement of what their powers were. That would also be much fairer to members of the services because everyone would know clearly where they stood.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, was extremely concerned about what he described as a creeping political correctness. Although he did not use the same language, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, was also concerned about what might be described as the civilian system being unnecessarily imported into military discipline. There are key differences between the civilian criminal justice system and the discipline procedures operated by the Armed Forces. Trial by court martial rather than by jury is perhaps the most obvious, but the chain of command's responsibility for the maintenance of discipline is also important. We are considering importing only those aspects of civilian procedures that are relevant to the services. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that our policy in that regard is very much in line with that of the previous administration. On Second Reading of the last five-yearly Armed Forces Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said:
"Where it is sensible and practical that they should do so, the services' procedures for investigating and trying offences closely resemble those of the civilian system".—[Official Report, 3/6/96: col. 1102.]
Our position is no different now that we are in office.
We believe that it is essential to define the powers of the service police and of commanding officers in investigating offences for two major reasons. First, it will enable the service police and commanding officers to carry out their investigations with greater confidence. That greater confidence also implies a better understanding of their authority among those with whom they are operating. Secondly, it will ensure that people subject to service law can see for themselves that they are being treated fairly.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, remains concerned about the impact on commanding officers. Of course, we can and shall discuss that in Committee. But as I indicated in my opening remarks, we must recognise that, although the Armed Forces are indeed in a different position, as the noble and gallant Lord said, and although the group is more important than the individual, as he said, the curtailment of an individual's rights must be only what is necessary so as not to impair the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces.
The point is that that operational effectiveness must not be compromised. But the individual's rights should not be curtailed if that operational effectiveness is not compromised. If it is not, surely the rights of an individual should not be any less than those of any other individual.

61
Many noble Lords concentrated their remarks on Clause 31. I look forward as much as any of your Lordships to debating that more fully in Committee. However, I remind the House that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said that something must be done. He said that it is not clear where the powers lie. He said that the powers should be clarified. I agree with that and we must now look at the best way of achieving it.
On Clause 31, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that we had some very ambitious pretensions as regards a national police force. He was quite eloquent, as he is on many occasions, in persuading us that there was some perfidious reasoning behind the Government putting forward that clause. The purpose of the clause is nothing like as ambitious as the noble Earl wishes to persuade your Lordships that it is.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is not the ambition; it is the general convenience that this will be quite a useful thing to have which allows those effects to happen. That is the danger. It is what Lord Harlington in the 1880s would say that we should be saying, "Rather not" rather than that we should do something about it. These things happen because people recommend them and they become convenient. The bad effect is what I forecast it to be.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Earl may not have imputed the reason for putting forward the clauses, although I rather understood him to have done so, but he has again confirmed that he believes that that will be the outcome.
But the extension of the MDP jurisdiction in the clauses would not be appropriate to some of the crises which some of your Lordships have cited except, of course, under the provision of standing arrangements in the vicinity of defence land. This is not a national police force.
However, the MDP would be able to lend officers to help another force dealing with a crisis if requested to do so by that other force. But the MDP would not be involved as a force itself. The individuals on loan would be entirely under the direction and control of the borrowing force. Such lending of officers or other resources is already possible between Home Office forces, if I may use that terminology without incurring your Lordships' wrath.
The point is that if police forces can already lend officers between them, why should the MDP be any different? It would not be establishing the MDP as a single force being able to move in, which is very much what the noble Earl implied, perhaps because he had not taken on board fully those points which I have just made.
But I point out to him that we are very pleased that the Association of Chief Police Officers has been broadly supportive of those proposals, and that is another point worth bearing in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, asked who will decide what happens and who will say whether or not the MDP should move in. That would be down to the
62
local constabulary and it would be the chief officer of the MDP who would decide whether or not it was appropriate in the localised situation under discussion.
The noble Lord also wanted to know who would be in charge. Where MDP resources are made available to the local force on secondment or to assist with special demands, as in Schedule 5, the chief constable of the receiving force would be in charge of those MDP assets. Where MoD Police undertake duties under Clause 31, either at the request of the local force or officers or in exercise of emergency power, the police constable of the MoD Police force would be in charge and would be responsible. I hope that that has clearly laid out those two courses for the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, asked who will decide whether there is an emergency. The emergency powers to intervene without a request are exercisable only in very closely defined circumstances and essentially—this is the point—where violence is threatened. I hope I made that clear in my introductory remarks but no doubt we shall return to that matter.
I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, that we are not looking at creating a national police force. We are looking at more effective policing methods under certain extremely limited circumstances. It is not a paramilitary police force. I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, was as surprised as, no doubt, Mr Nick Cohen will be when he finds, on reading the noble Earl's remarks, that they agree with each other. But it is worth nothing that Mr Nick Cohen appears to have based his article on a number of misconceptions. One of those was that Part II, which is concerned with the powers of the service police, applies to the Ministry of Defence Police. Mr Nick Cohen appears to have fallen into the very trap which I asked your Lordships not to fall into when I put forward my opening remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked us to give further thought to the accountability of the MoD Police. The chief constable of the MoD Police reports directly to the Secretary of State for Defence and through him, of course, to Parliament, although like other police chief constables he is free from all political control over operations. The Secretary of State is advised by a police committee which includes three independent members and two police advisers who are present or former HM inspectors of constabulary. Members of the public can, and indeed do, raise matters with Ministers through their MPs and through complaints procedures. The MoD Police are subject to regular inspections by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary which will now, for the first time, be placed on a statutory basis as a result of a government amendment to this Bill in another place introduced—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, will be the first to say this—very much in response to opposition concerns on this matter. The role of the Police Complaints Authority extends to complaints against the MDP in exactly the same way as it does for other police forces.
Questions were raised about Clause 33, principally by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig of Radley and Lord Inge. Any changes to the service discipline

63
Acts made under this clause will reflect changes to the civilian criminal system which have already been the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. Any instrument which makes changes to primary legislation will need the consent of Parliament before it comes into force. As I have already indicated in answer to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, the issues surrounding the use of secondary legislation and the body of legislation concerning the Armed Forces will be considered as part of the work on the proposed tri-service Bill and, as I have indicated, we shall do everything we can to bring that forward as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, expressed concern that the Bill allows passages of some of the HMIC reports on the MDP to be omitted from publication. Restrictions on publication of the reports are exactly the same as those in the provisions for the Police Act 1996. The only possible exclusion is where it would be prejudicial to national security or the personal safety of individuals. I am sure that the noble Lord would say that such factors could not be ignored.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro, raised questions about the wider employment of women. I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to know that a tri-service report led by the Army, and supported by the other services, was produced on 15th March this year. It is a factual report and presents the results of academic and other work that will contribute to an assessment of the impact on combat effectiveness—a point about which he was concerned—of removing the present exclusion of women from the Royal Marine general service, the Household Cavalry, the Royal Armoured Corps, the Infantry and the RAF Regiment.
The report does not make any recommendations. Currently the services are conducting a risk analysis within their respective areas. We hope that the results will be presented to the Chiefs of Staff and to Ministers by mid-summer. At the moment that is all I can say on that matter, but I hope that we shall be able to discuss it further in the summer.
I turn to the interesting remarks made principally by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in relation to political correctness. Nothing that we are discussing now, or that we discuss in relation to disability or to women in the Armed Forces, should be allowed to compromise the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces. However, there are matters of respect for other people; there are matters of respect for everyone, irrespective of issues such as gender and race. I am sure that none of your Lordships would want to sneer at such respect being given where it is properly due.
I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, on his promotion, although the reason for it is sad. I shall be sorry to lose his wisdom in our future defence debates.
I know that your Lordships would not want me to conclude without paying tribute on behalf of the House to the men and women of our Armed Forces. Primarily this Bill is about those men and women. We
64
often acknowledge the unique role of our forces. We expect a great deal of them and, as your Lordships will appreciate only too well, invariably they fulfil our expectations. Their readiness and their ability to get on with the task in hand, however challenging it may be, are demonstrated day in and day out overseas, and particularly in this country at the moment. I was grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Monro and Lord Freeman. I shall draw them to the attention of the service chiefs who I am sure will be pleased to read them.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that we are fortunate in having men and women in the three services who serve this country with such commitment, loyalty and distinction. I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to debating it in future with your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Hepatitis C
6.23 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchesterrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what further help they are considering for people who were infected with hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood products and the dependants of those who have since died in consequence of their infection.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the scriptures tell of,
"a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief".
This debate is about a whole community in sorrow and for whom acquaintance with grief—recurrent and often abject grief—is an inescapable fact of daily life. So too is a burning sense of injustice.
To work with and for the haemophilia community—as I have the honour to do as President of the Haemophilia Society—is at once humbling and inspiring. I say this as a serial legislator on the problems and needs of disabled people for over 30 years now, both as their first-ever Minister and the author of successful Private Members' Bills—twice chairing the international committee that informed UN pronouncements on disability rights—and thus having worked with people with severe disability in all its forms world-wide.
And I know of no disability group anywhere whose courage, fortitude and moral strength exceed those of Britain's haemophilia community in facing what doctors of the highest distinction—including some noble Lords—see as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the National Health Service.
That my noble friend Lord Burlison is again on duty in this debate, as he was to respond to the exchanges about the disaster on my Starred Question on 26th March, is most welcome to me on personal grounds. For I have long held him in the highest regard. He will, though, understand that the further absence this evening of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as a Health

65
Minister, will be disquieting to the haemophilia community, more particularly in view of the Prime Minister's letter of 30th January to Eddie O'Hara MP—copied to me and clearly also to my noble friend—about compensation for people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C, which stated that,
"Lord Hunt in the Department of Health has responsibility for this policy issue".
My noble friend Lord Burlison will, I am sure, want to explain, when he comes to reply this evening, why the Minister cannot attend a debate that is so very important to the haemophilia community.
Already disabled by a rare, life-long bleeding disorder requiring continuous medical treatment—for which there is no cure—people with haemophilia have twice been infected en masse by unclean NHS blood and blood products. Of a community of 6,000 people, some 4,000 were infected with hepatitis C (HCV), of whom 1,240 were also infected with HIV. Of those with HIV infection 818 have since died of AIDS-related illnesses; and well over 100 of those infected with HCV alone have in consequence died of cirrhosis and liver cancer. Now there is what is officially described as a "theoretical" risk that hundreds of people with haemophilia have been infected yet again, this time with variant CJD by a blood donor who has since died of the disease.
Almost everyone with haemophilia now over 15 was infected with HIV and HCV by unclean NHS blood and blood products; and of a haemophilia community of some 6,000, now approaching 1,000 have died of one or other of these two life-threatening viruses. Others are now in very poor health, many of them terminally ill, and have lost their jobs, homes and, in some cases, family due to infection.
Among those not so far seriously affected, there is the daunting worry of not knowing which of them will develop A I DS-related illnesses or chronic liver disease. No one with HCV infection, regardless of their health now, can obtain life insurance except at prohibitive rates. And excluding them from help from the Macfarlane Trust denies those with young families and other dependants even the peace of mind of knowing that, if they become terminally ill, they will be provided for.
Yet there is still no positive response from Ministers to the Haemophilia Society's calls for an independent public inquiry into this appalling disaster and the provision of financial help for its victims. This compounds their sense of injustice. They see themselves as forgotten, cast aside as "yesterday's people": too small and powerless a community to be treated as politically important in a society that is being told more and more insistently from Whitehall how economically strong and affluent Britain has now become.
There have been sympathetic words from successive governments. But as a member of the Haemophilia Society now suffering the cruelly punitive effects of end-stage HCV, told me recently:
"It is not sympathy we want from Governments—it is justice—and I find it heartless and unforgivable that they still refuse us even a public inquiry".
66
It should not be necessary for me to have to make this further plea for elementary justice for sick and deeply vulnerable people now living under a death sentence for the mistake of having trusted in the cleanliness of NHS blood and blood products. After all, when the Green Paper on Welfare Reform was published on 26th March 1998, Ministers told both Houses of Parliament that the Government's,
"commitment to the vulnerable is non-negotiable".
That ringing declaration raised hopes nowhere more visibly than in the haemophilia community. For no Minister who has spoken to anyone trying to cope with end-stage HCV can doubt their vulnerability or that of their dependants. Indeed, the word "vulnerable" might have been invented to describe them.
That no public inquiry has yet been held into a medical disaster on this scale—leaving 95 per cent of patients with the devastating complications of two life-threatening viruses—is without precedent in the modern era. And it does nothing to assuage the anguish and anger of the victims and their dependants to hear Ministers saying that so grave a disaster is now best forgotten; that it is time to "draw a line" under what happened; and that the haemophilia community should "move on". Indeed, they regard such statements as offensive and bereft of any understanding of the extent of sorrow and grief in their small, closely-knit community as more and more of them become terminally ill and die of infection by unclean NHS blood products. Yet fortunately they are not without friends good and true, as I was reminded again this morning by a deeply well informed and very moving letter of support for them from Vicky Vidler, who chairs the Royal College of Nursing's Haemophilia Nurses' Association.
In effect, people with haemophilia given NHS blood products in the 1970s were human guinea-pigs for a new form of treatment. The risks were not explained to them; and despite the scientific knowledge then available to Whitehall that hepatitis could be transmitted in blood, no warnings were given to enable haemophilia patients to make an informed choice.
However, no one has been held to account and no apology has been made. There have quite rightly been public inquiries into the spread of BSE, paediatric cardiac care in Bristol and the retention of human tissue at Alder Hey. Public inquiries have also been held, again quite rightly, into the sinking of the "Marchioness" and the Paddington rail disaster. But far more people have died through the mass infection of haemophilia patients than in all these cases. Why, then, does this much bigger disaster not merit a public inquiry?
For the Department of Health's own "internal inquiry"—which tersely reported in 1998—to be seen in Whitehall as any kind of substitute for a public inquiry is also offensive to the haemophilia community. Reputable journalists freely describe this caricature of an inquiry as,
"a whitewash perpetrated behind closed doors".

67
Its findings were demonstrably flawed. They again peddled the fallacy that, unlike HIV, hepatitis C does not involve social stigma; and they simplified the last government's reasons for compensating only HIV infection to the point of crude inaccuracy. At any public inquiry its findings would have been summarily repudiated. Indeed, what the department's in-house "inquiry" did was to make the case for an independent public inquiry into the disaster all the more compelling and it is indefensible that we are still left waiting for that inquiry.
The Haemophilia Society has given Ministers evidence galore that the stigmatising of those with hepatitis C by people who fear they too could become infected is every bit as strong as that of HIV infection. Also like those infected with HIV, but without compensating help from the Macfarlane Trust, they have the same lack of access to financial services. Yet current medical opinion suggests that up to 80 per cent of them will develop chronic liver disease; and that up to 25 per cent may develop cirrhosis, which can progress to liver cancer.
The HCV virus progresses more slowly than HIV. It can take 20 to 30 years but, once active, it is highly dangerous. Nevertheless, those infected are left to cope unhelped by the Macfarlane Trust created to help others in the same plight. And the only fair and just way forward is to extend the trust's remit to end the inequity that now so illogically divides the haemophilia community.
The setting up of the Macfarlane Trust for HIV-infected people was an acceptance of moral responsibility for their loss and hardship. An exception was made from normal NHS practice in regard to medical negligence and legal liability for people who were infected with that life-threatening virus. And the present Government, who came to power committed to higher moral standards, must do no less now for others infected by another life-threatening virus in the same small community, at the same time and by the same route. There is exactly the same moral responsibility for loss and hardship in the two cases. Yet as this Parliament approaches its fifth year parity is still denied.
The NHS was founded on a moral principle in which we on these Benches can take special pride. But as my noble friend Lord Winston, Vice-President of the Haemophilia Society, has said:
"Moral principles impose obligations and responsibilities; and there is a price as well as an advantage in taking the moral high ground".
The last government paid that price in the case of HIV infection. The moral promise on which this Government came to power alone commits us to do the same now for people infected in the same way with HCV.
Notwithstanding the creation of the Macfarlane Trust to compensate for HIV infection, Health Ministers still repeatedly state that, for compensation to be awarded, the NHS must be found to have been negligent. This was stated yet again on 29th March
68
(cols. 410–11) after my noble friend Lord Peston had said that he did not understand the Government's ethical position in regard to HCV infection.
"On all sorts of grounds which once, at least, our party used to believe",
he said,
"compensation is exactly the right path to take".
But in response, my noble friend Lord Hunt, speaking for the Department of Health, strongly insisted that compensation could not be awarded unless it could be,
"shown that a duty of care is owed by the NHS body; that there had been negligence; that there had been harm; and that the harm was caused by the negligence".—[Official Report, 29/3/01; cols. 410–11.]
But that is not so. His brief was wrong. Moreover, had it been right, as Karin Pappenheim, Chief Executive of the Haemophilia Society, has aptly responded:
"It would mean that under this Government—on the strength of their decisions on HCV infection to date—there would have been no Macfarlane Trust at all".
This and other Labour Governments have not, of course, uniformly insisted on proof of medical negligence before compensating NHS patients. For example, payments under the vaccine damage payments scheme, introduced when my noble friend Lord Callaghan was Prime Minister, have been substantially increased by the present Government, just as they have also increased the Macfarlane Trust's funding. Another example of their readiness to compensate without legal liability is the financial help recently agreed for British survivors of Japanese prisoner-of-war camps.
And indeed 27 years ago, the then Labour Minister for War Pensions changed the law to give benefit of doubt where ex-servicemen with cardiothoracic illnesses, having served in a theatre of war where gas was used as a weapon of war, applied for war pensions or their widows for war widows' pensions. I well recall this further example because I was the Minister who took that decision; and I did so without any prompting from its beneficiaries. So I speak in this debate as the advocate not of a new departure in social policy but of due respect for honourably humane precedent.
In truth, the issue is not one of inflexible rule but of political will and priorities. And I suspect that few of us here, or in another place, would have to "ask the audience" or "phone a friend" to discover the right thing to do in this case.
There are two more issues I want briefly to address. The first concerns the game of Russian roulette now being played with the haemophilia community. Despite the gruesome history of contaminated NHS blood, the vast majority of people with haemophilia over 16 are still made to rely on plasma-based products, rather than the safer—but more costly—genetically engineered recombinant Factor 8 or 9. But the Department of Health still sees nothing wrong in making them accept the "theoretical" risk of using plasma-based blood products, even although risks they have already been forced to face proved far from "theoretical". In approaching 1,000 cases they were deadly.

69
What possible justification is there for denying them the safer treatment? In Scotland and Wales it is already available as of right to everyone in need: children and adults alike. In England it is provided for people over 16 only if they are fortunate enough to live in the right area. And this cruelly discriminatory policy is made all the more shocking by the potentially grave further risks of blood-borne infection now revealed by the recent disclosure that plasma from a man later diagnosed with vCJD was used in 1996 and 1997 to manufacture haemophilia treatment.
Here again, the risk is played down by officials. The department's Chief Medical Officer is quoted as saying that the risks of vCJD infection are "purely theoretical''. But these words offer no comfort to parents in shock from knowing their child has been treated with plasma derived from a donor with vCJD. They and others ask why—if the risks are in fact "purely theoretical"—it should have had to be put to the test by people already twice infected by other "theoretical" but lethal risks? Only a ministerial pledge to make the safer treatment available to everyone will be acceptable. The Haemophilia Society has repeatedly called for that pledge and this debate is an appropriate occasion for it to be given.
I come now to Mr Justice Burton's landmark High Court judgment on 26th March. His core finding was that the supplier of blood to NHS patients has a legal duty to supply clean blood and significant compensation was awarded. Yet some 4,000 people with haemophilia were supplied with unclean blood and blood products and, while the judgment applies directly only to offences after the Consumer Protection Act came into effect in March 1988, any attempt to deny its benefits to the haemophilia community would provoke moral outrage.
The unmistakable logic of the High Court's judgment is that it is right in principle to compensate NHS patients infected by unclean blood; and unless that logic is accepted and applied to the haemophilia community, any continuing ministerial claim to the moral high ground is plainly untenable. For without question the issue is one of moral right; and in none of the parliamentary campaigns in which I have been involved in over 37 years in Parliament—even thalidomide and that for statutory recognition of dyslexia—have I felt so strongly that campaigning ought not to have been necessary.
There has been enormous all-party backing by MPs for Motions calling for equality of treatment to end the gratuitously added distress now imposed on many of the most needful victims of the historic tragedy of unclean blood. I especially recall now that Alan Milburn, the present Health Secretary, was among the signatories of a Motion tabled in another place in my name calling for exactly what I seek in this debate. That Motion, like all the others, made it plain that this is not an issue for party animus—of right and left—but one of right and wrong.
Most of all this evening, I urge Ministers not to demean this House and another place by making legal action, here or internationally, the only way to resolve
70
an issue that is so obviously one of social decency and moral right. Knowing as they will the outcome of the legal action taken on behalf of the haemophilia community in France, I suspect that my preference for resolving this issue, if at all possible, by other than legal means will be shared by health officials here.
In France two senior officials, Dr Michel Garretta and Dr Jean-Pierre Allain, were convicted and sentenced to four years in prison and ordered to pay the sterling equivalent of £1.2 million on charges of "distributing tainted blood" that infected more than 1,250 French haemophilia patients, 273 of whom have since died. A third senior health official was given a four-year suspended sentence—but still heavily fined—and the Health Ministers resigned "in disgrace".
But my call in this debate is not to inflict retribution on public servants. It is simply to achieve social justice for a small but grievously hurt community. I ask of Ministers only that they should now let right be done and in its proper setting: here in Parliament.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I believe that the House should heartily thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for raising this issue yet again. It is unfortunate that I should have to congratulate the noble Lord on his dogged persistence in raising this issue time and time again. I can remember at least two previous debates this time last year and another in 1998. I remember innumerable Starred Questions on the subject, and yet the noble Lord must reiterate the same issues and points time and time again in debate. It is extremely disappointing that tonight we hold yet another debate to point out the problems faced by the haemophilia community as a result of the infected blood products with which the noble Lord has so cogently dealt tonight.
Many of us are only too well acquainted with the consequences of infected blood products which have affected over 4,000 people with haemophilia. We know that as a consequence up to 80 per cent of those infected will develop chronic liver disease; 25 per cent risk developing cirrhosis of the liver; and that between one and five per cent risk developing liver cancer. Those are appalling consequences.
Those who have hepatitis C have difficulty in obtaining life assurance. We know that they have reduced incomes as a result of giving up work, wholly or partially, and that they incur costs due to special dietary regimes that they must follow. We also know that the education of many young people who have been infected by these blood products has been adversely affected. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, was very eloquent in describing the discrimination faced by some of them at work, in school and in society, and their fears for the future. He referred to the lack of counselling support and the general inadequacy of support services for members of the haemophilia community who have been infected in this way.
There are three major, yet reasonable, demands made by the haemophilia community in its campaign for just treatment by the Government. To date, the

71
Department of Health appears to have resisted stoically all three demands. First, there is the lack of availability on a general basis of recombinant genetically-engineered blood products. Currently, they are available for all adults in Scotland and Wales but not in England and Northern Ireland. Do we have to see the emergence of a black market or cross-border trade in these recombinant products? Should not the Government make a positive commitment to provide these recombinant factor products for all adults in the United Kingdom wherever they live? Quite apart from that, what are the Government doing to ensure that the serious shortage of these products is overcome? In many ways that is as serious as the lack of universal availability. Those who are entitled to them find it difficult to get hold of them in the first place.
The second reasonable demand of the campaign is for adequate compensation. The contrast with the HIV/AIDS situation could not be more stark. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to the setting up of the Macfarlane Trust which was given £90 million as a result of his campaigning in 1989. The trust has provided compensation to people with haemophilia who contracted HIV through contaminated blood products. But there is no equivalent provision for those who have contracted hepatitis C. The Government, in complete contrast to their stance on AIDS/HIV, have continued to reiterate that compensation will not be forthcoming. The Minister of State for Health, Mr Denham, said some time ago that at the end of the day the Government had concluded that haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C should not receive special payments. On 29th March of this year the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in response to a Starred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said:
"The position is clear and has been stated policy by successive governments. It is that, in general, compensation is paid only where legal liability can be established. Compensation is therefore paid when it can be shown that a duty of care is owed by the NHS body; that there has been negligence; that there has been harm; and that the harm was caused by the negligence".—[Oficial Report, 29/3/01; col. 410.]
The Minister said something very similar on 26th March. This means that the Government have refused to regard a hepatitis C infection as a special case despite the way in which they have treated AIDS/HIV sufferers who, after all, were adjudged to be a special circumstance. These are very similar situations.
In our previous debate on this, noble Lords referred to the similarity between the viral infections. They are transmitted to haemophiliacs in exactly the same manner; they lead to debilitating illness, often followed by a lingering, painful death. I could consider at length the similarities between the two viral infections and the side effects; for example, those affected falling into the poverty trap. We have raised those matters in debate before and the Government are wholly aware of the similarities between the two infections.
The essence of the debate, and the reason for the anger in the haemophilia community, is the disparity in the treatment of haemophiliacs infected with HIV
72
and those who, in a sense, are even more unfortunate and have contracted hepatitis C. We now have the contrast with those who have a legal remedy, which was available as demonstrated in the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred, and are covered by the Consumer Protection Act 1987. This latter case was in response to an action brought by 114 people who were infected with hepatitis by contaminated blood. The only difference between the cases that we are discussing today and the circumstances of those 114 people is the timing. Is it not serendipity that the Consumer Protection Act 1987 covers those 114 people but not those with haemophilia who are the subject of today's debate?
It is extraordinary that the Government—I have already quoted the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—take the view that it all depends on the strict legal position. Quite frankly, the issue is still a moral one, as we have debated in the past. In fact, the moral pressure should be increased when one is faced with the comparison with both that case and the HIV/AIDS compensation scheme. People with haemophilia live constantly with risk. We now have the risk of transmission of CJD/BSE. What will be the Government's attitude to that? Will they learn the lessons of the past? I hope that the Minister will give us a clear answer in that respect.
I turn to the third key demand of the campaign by the haemophilia community. Without even having had an inquiry, the NHS is asserting that no legal responsibility to people with haemophilia exists. The Government's position—that they will not provide compensation where the NHS is not at fault—falls down because that is precisely what the previous administration did in the case of those infected with HIV. An inquiry into how those with hepatitis C were infected would perhaps establish very similar circumstances.
Other countries such as France and Canada have held official inquiries. Why cannot we do the same in this country? The Government's refusal to instigate a public inquiry surely fails the morality test. Surely the sequence of events which led up to what has been widely referred to as one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the NHS needs to be examined with the utmost scrutiny. Why do the Government still refuse to set up an inquiry? Is it because they believe that if the inquiry reported it would demonstrate that the Government—the department—were at fault?
Doctors predict that the number of hepatitis C cases among both haemophiliacs and the general population is set to rise considerably over the next decade. The Department of Health should stop ignoring the plight of this group. They should start to treat it fairly and accede to its reasonable demands. The Government's attitude to date has been disappointing to say the least. This debate is another opportunity for them to redeem themselves.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for initiating this

73
important debate. It is always a great pleasure to speak in a debate initiated by the noble Lord. I, too, pay tribute to him for his dogged persistence in returning again and again to this cause about which he has spoken so movingly today. The Haemophilia Society is indeed fortunate to have him as its very effective president.
We on these Benches share his concern for the plight of those haemophiliacs who received infected blood products before the hepatitis C infection could be removed. People with haemophilia are a small but vulnerable patient group who, through no fault of their own, have suffered a lot. We feel a great deal of sympathy for them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that they have shown incredible courage, fortitude and moral strength.
We, on these Benches, have always argued against no-fault compensation for medical accidents in the NHS. But we feel that there are a number of ways in which the Government can and should be helping these unfortunate people.
First, haemophilia sufferers should be treated equally, irrespective of where they live. That is not happening. Comprehensive care centres provide specialised care and support for patients and their families. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the provision of these centres is uneven. They are also subject to postcode rationing. Some NHS regions have several care centres while others are under-provided. The South West has none. For haemophiliacs living in Cornwall or Devon the nearest centre is in Basingstoke, Hampshire, 237 miles from Penzance. The Trent region, however, has four centres.
During the course of the debate in November last year in the name of my noble friend Lord Howe, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, told the House that the Haemophilia Alliance was developing a national service specification to help standardise all aspects of haemophilia services. This was intended to get rid of unacceptable variations in care. I understand that the Government are still considering the representations. Can the Minister tell the House when the specification might be published?
I also understand that the Government are setting up a hepatitis C expert steering committee which will produce an important consultation document. How wide a remit, and how much authority, will that document have over the wide range of specialist services including haemophilia which treat, support and care for people with hepatitis C?
There is currently no nation-wide system to identify and monitor all people with haemophilia infected with HCV. What plans do the Government have to ensure that, in the interests of the safety and well being of this patient group, such a system is created?
The majority of health authorities either do not provide treatment for HCV or only on a limited and inadequate scale. The combination therapy, involving Interferon alpha and Ribavirin, which is able to cure up to 40 per cent of patients, costs some £9,600 per annum per patient. Although NICE recommended
74
that patients suffering from moderate or severe HCV should be given the combination therapy, there are concerns that the NICE guidance will not be enough to solve the postcode lottery. This is gambling with lives—and despite repeated assurances from Ministers that people with haemophilia would not be denied treatment for HCV. Timely drug treatment does reduce the long-term costs of care, particularly the need for expensive liver transplants. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government intend to honour these ministerial assurances?
We believe that the harrier to funding relatively expensive drug therapies could be eliminated by the creation of a central funding mechanism for such exceptional medicines quite separate from health authority budgets. I know that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has reservations on this score. However, it is unlikely that health authorities will follow NICE guidelines despite the additional resources which have been put into the health service. I should be grateful to know, therefore, whether the Minister's department has further reviewed our suggestion to ensure that people with haemophilia are not refused their only hope of a cure. It cannot be right that there is unequal access in different areas to this treatment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, there are fears that the Government are putting haemophiliacs in England at risk from vCJD. In England, unless they are new patients, or under 16, haemophiliacs must use blood products derived from human blood with all the risks, including CJD, which this might entail. Haemophilia sufferers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, on the other hand, are given the safe, genetically-produced, recombinant Factor 8. This is also postcode care for haemophiliacs.
This is most apparent in the English haemophilia centres in Liverpool and Manchester to which patients from North Wales go for treatment. The policy adopted by the NHS commissioners in Wales means that all haemophiliacs living in North Wales are entitled to receive recombinant Factor 8 irrespective of age, postal code or viral status, and attend the Manchester or Liverpool centres. However, many people living in Manchester, Liverpool and the surrounding areas do not have the same rights and benefits. The Government must now stop treating haemophiliacs in England as second-class citizens. After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, the Government came to power on a commitment to the vulnerable that is non-negotiable.
I therefore ask the Minister what plans the Government have to ensure that plasma-derived treatments are successfully screened for new variant CJD. What reason is there for further denying to adult haemophilia sufferers in England the safer recombinant clotting factors? Was the decision to withhold this treatment taken on financial or clinical grounds? Was it because there is a world shortage of recombinant Factors 8 and 9? If that is the case, what representations are the Government making on behalf of the haemophilia community to secure a full supply to the UK as soon as possible?

75
There seems to be a lack of welfare support for many haemophilia sufferers. I have received several reports of a lack of information in DSS offices at a local level. I am aware that the Minister is not a DSS spokesman. However, it would be helpful to have some reassurance that this problem will be looked at.
We feel that far more funding is needed for research. There is much about HCV that remains unknown. The precise mechanisms by which HCV causes liver cancer have not been identified. We still need a simple, cost effective and reliable diagnostic assay test, both for the initial detection of HCV and for monitoring the disease as it progresses. Perhaps the Minister can touch on funding for research when he winds up.
The noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Clement-Jones, both mentioned in some detail the High Court judgment made by Mr Justice Burton. Doubtless the Minister will comment on the Government's response.
I much look forward to the Minister's remarks in winding-up, particularly as I have lobbed him a formidable number of questions. I quite understand that he may not be able to answer them all tonight, but perhaps he could respond by letter to the others.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for raising this issue. After hearing his submission today, no one can be in any doubt of the noble Lord's commitment to this cause. Like other noble Lords, I know that, as president of the Haemophilia Society, he will pursue this issue in a dogged fashion until he makes progress generally on behalf of that society.
Perhaps I may also assure your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, like myself, feels very strongly about the issue. The fact that this debate has taken place tonight demonstrates yet again the strength of feeling within this House on behalf of people with haemophilia and hepatitis C.
Haemophilia is a lifelong, painful and debilitating condition. But modern treatment is very effective, with patients now able to look forward to a good quality of life. Sadly, during the late 1970s and indeed the 1980s, the majority of regularly treated patients with haemophilia were infected with either HIV or hepatitis C before it became possible to remove those viruses from clotting factors made from human plasma.
As a result, around 4,000 to 5,000 haemophiliacs are estimated to be infected with hepatitis C and around 500 are still living with HIV. Most of those with HIV are also infected with hepatitis C. This co-infection may accelerate the clinical course of both disorders as well as making the haemophilia more difficult to manage. They therefore face considerable medical and psychological problems over and above those faced ordinarily by people with haemophilia.
The Government have enormous sympathy for haemophiliacs in this situation. It is therefore essential that the National Health Service is properly geared up to delivering the full range of clinical and support
76
services needed by people with haemophilia and treatment-acquired infections. These include routine and emergency medical treatments, drug therapies, physiotherapy, counselling, genetic services and specialised services for HIV and hepatitis.
I shall say more about these broader issues in a moment, but first I want to respond to the many points made by noble Lords. I begin with the call on the Government to provide financial assistance for people with haemophilia and hepatitis C and their dependants. As Members of this House are well aware, we met the Haemophilia Society in 1997 and listened to its arguments for a special payment scheme for people with haemophilia and hepatitis C similar to that in place for HIV. After long and careful consideration, we came to the same conclusion reached by the previous government; that a special payment scheme should not be established. Succeeding Ministers have reviewed that decision and have reached the same conclusion. It has also been debated on numerous occasions in both Houses. It is not a view we have come to lightly. I can assure noble Lords that every one of my colleagues who has looked at this issue and met individuals directly affected by this tragedy has found this a most difficult position to arrive at.
The Government have also considered the suggestion that we might provide a limited special payment scheme or hardship fund. However, as we do not make payments to other groups or individuals inadvertently harmed by the National Health Service, the same arguments apply. We believe that the financial needs of people whose condition results from inadvertent harm should be met through the benefits system. I know that the Haemophilia Society does excellent work in ensuring that people with haemophilia are made more fully aware of their benefit entitlements.
It has been the policy of successive governments that compensation or other financial help to patients is paid only when the National Health Service or individuals working in it are at fault. The underlying principles are clear cut and independently established under common law. They apply to personal injury cases in general, not just those arising from health care. There have been no new developments to change this long-standing policy.
We are currently assessing the implications of the recent decision in the High Court (raised by noble Lords) to award damages to 114 people infected with hepatitis C though blood transfusion before the introduction of screening for the virus in September 1991. The case was brought under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which introduced strict liability for products judged to be defective. However, the judgment does not impact on the question of compensation for haemophiliacs with hepatitis C who were infected before the Act came into force in March 1988.
The Government have decided not to seek leave to appeal against the judgment. Although an appeal would have provided an opportunity to seek

77
clarification on some aspects of the judgment that may have a bearing on the future liability of the National Health Service bodies, the Government did not wish to subject the claimants to a further period of uncertainty while an appeal was under way.
As I mentioned, we are now focusing on the implications of the judgment, which will take time to consider. However, we have no plans for the introduction of a no-fault compensation scheme. Such a scheme would have far-reaching policy and financial implications which would need to be explored very carefully.
During the course of our debate, comparisons have been made between the decision not to offer special payments to haemophiliacs with hepatitis C and the special payments established in the late 1980s for haemophiliacs with HIV and the ex gratia payments we are making to people with variant CJD and their families. However, there are significant and real differences between these situations.
In the case of HIV, we need to think back to the circumstances of the late 1980s when HIV was having a vast and dramatic impact. It was a source of fear and a stigma for all those who became infected with the virus. There was wide-scale public reaction. HIV then was a new sexually transmitted infection which was rapidly fatal. There was no treatment and, at that time, death from IDS-related diseases was considered inevitable.
It was in that context that special payments were introduced and the Macfarlane Trust was established. We see this as a reflection of those truly exceptional circumstances and the very poor prognosis at that time for people with haemophilia who became infected with HIV.
Questions have also been asked about the parallels between those infected with hepatitis C and those with variant CJD. However, while the Government have agreed ex gratia payments for victims of variant CJD in the wake of the Phillips inquiry, the circumstances and background to this situation are truly exceptional. It therefore does not change our long-standing policy on compensation for injuries caused by the National Health Service, which I firmly believe is the right one.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, raised the issue of comprehensive care centres. There are 18 centres throughout. England and smaller haemophilia centres in each National Health Service region in England providing care and counselling to haemophiliacs.
Noble Lords have called for a public inquiry. I can understand that people infected with hepatitis C want to know how it happened and why it could not have been prevented. But the fact is that this was a global problem linked to developing science and technology. It was not confined to the UK or linked to some local breakdown in blood product development. No public inquiry is likely to provide a satisfactory answer. Our aim now is to move forward to enable people with haemophilia and hepatitis C to get on with their lives and to look constructively at how we can improve their health and well-being here and now.
78
Several points have been made about the provision of recombinant clotting factors. Recombinant clotting factors are commercially produced through genetic engineering outside the human body. They are not yet entirely free from human products, as they contain small amounts of human albumin as a stabiliser. The Haemophilia Society, the UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation and others have petitioned us to make recombinant Factor 8 and Factor 9 the treatment of choice for people with haemophilia. That is largely on the grounds that recombinant products are regarded as free from the risk of transmission of as yet unknown viruses and free from the theoretical risk of variant CJD.
There is a serious world-wide shortage of recombinant clotting factors. That has been exacerbated recently by the temporary removal from the market of a Factor 8 product used extensively in the UK. The Government have been working closely with the UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation and with suppliers of clotting factors to manage the situation in a way that best meets the needs of haemophilia patients. However, that illustrates the very real problems faced by the UK and other countries in securing sufficient and sustainable supplies of these products.
That is one of the factors uppermost in our minds in considering the call to place all adult haemophilia patients in England on recombinant clotting factors. We have not yet come to the end of our deliberations on the issue, so I am unable today to give noble Lords the assurances they are seeking. The Government already require National Health Service trusts to provide recombinant Factor 8 and 9 for all new haemophilia patients and children under 16. Other patients can also receive recombinant if it is prescribed for them, although there is no requirement on trusts to do so. Over 50 per cent of the clotting factors prescribed in the National Health Service in England are currently recombinant. However, the fact remains that there is insufficient recombinant clotting factor available now and in the immediate future to give it to every patient who would like to have it.
However, I can assure the House that the plasma derived clotting factors that patients are receiving are just as effective as recombinant products. Since the introduction of viral inactivation they have had an excellent safety record. They are made from non-UK plasma to reduce the theoretical risk of variant CJD and are subject to the same rigorous assessment for safety, quality and efficacy as all other medicines. Manufacturers of blood products, such as the National Health Service-owned Bio Products Laboratory, are also required to meet very stringent requirements of good manufacturing practice regulated by the Medicines Control Agency.
Looking to the future, the Government want haemophiliacs with hepatitis C to receive the best treatment and care we can provide; and that is where I hope we can begin to focus our energies.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The noble Lord,

79
Lord Astor of Hever, raised a specific case. In Manchester's haemophilia treatment centre, patients from North Wales have to be treated more beneficially than local people because of a decision by the Welsh Assembly. What possible defence can be offered for treating people in Manchester differently from people from North Wales who are visiting the North-West of England to attend the treatment centre? They have to be prescribed recombinant treatment as of right and regardless of age and, therefore, are treated more beneficially than Manchester patients. Is it not possible now to say that such discrimination cannot continue?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, raised the issue in relation to recombinant factors and treatment. I tried to set out the difficulties surrounding that issue at the moment. The Government are considering the issue. Indeed, when they are in a position to do so, they will make a decision. If the noble Lord is not happy with that, I am ready to write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, raised the issue of consistency of treatment. There is evidence that greater consistency is needed across the country in the delivery of clinical care for haemophilia patients. The professional groups with an interest in haemophilia have recommended the development of a set of minimum standards for service delivery. That should be a very effective way of helping to standardise all aspects of haemophilia services in the longer term and get rid of any unacceptable variations in care. With that in mind, the Haemophilia Alliance, which includes the Haemophilia Society and the UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation, has developed a national service specification. The specification outlines the key components of a high quality haemophilia service, whether that is provided in the larger comprehensive care centres or the smaller haemophilia centres. That is currently out for consultation. The Department of Health will be submitting its comments shortly.
The Government recognise the importance of hepatitis C as a public health issue and the need to ensure that effective prevention, testing and treatment services are in place. It is essential that activities to tackle hepatitis C are developed in a strategic and co-ordinated manner. I believe that we are already doing that, but we wish to develop and strengthen our efforts.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have recently announced the establishment of a multi-disciplinary steering group to assist in developing a
80
strategic approach to hepatitis C. The steering group, which is chaired by Professor Howard Thomas of Imperial College School of Medicine, will bring together issues relating to prevention, control and treatment. It will produce a document by the end of this calendar year for consultation with the National Health Service, professional bodies and voluntary and community sector organisations.
In 1999 we asked NICE to assess the interferon/ribavirin combination therapy as a matter of urgency. NICE's guidance was published last autumn and provided clear and authoritative advice for clinicians and healthcare providers. Combination therapy is recommended as the treatment of first choice for moderate to severe hepatitis C in previously untreated patients and patients treated with interferon monotherapy who responded but have relapsed. The treatment should make a significant improvement to the prognosis for many people with hepatitis C.
Several other therapeutic agents which also show great promise are in development. Other treatments are being researched, such as different combinations of drugs. The next few years are likely to see significant developments and improvements in the treatments available.
As I have outlined, there is much that we can do and are doing through improved treatments and services to help people with haemophilia. We shall continue to work with all those involved in haemophilia care to improve the services and support available to haemophiliacs with hepatitis C.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can help me on one point. I understand fully the principle to which the Government have adhered; namely, that compensation is not paid in a situation such as this, where negligence cannot be established. What would assist me would be to understand how the position of haemophiliacs differs from that of victims of criminal injuries; that is, persons who have been injured by criminal activity. Millions of pounds have been spent and continue to be spent, but there is no question of any negligence or vicarious liability. Can the noble Lord explain how to differentiate one from the other?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I understand the noble and learned Lord's question, but I do not think that I can assist him. This is an area I would be quite loath to go into. I shall write to the noble and learned Lord on the matter.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past seven o'clock.

  Subsidiarity and Repatriation of Powers
  Subsidiarity and Repatriation of Powers
  EU: Enhanced Co-operation
  EU: Enhanced Co-operation
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Macedonia and Kosovo: Albanian Insurgents
  Macedonia and Kosovo: Albanian Insurgents
  European Community and Nice Treaty
  European Community and Nice Treaty
  Missile Defence
  Missile Defence
  Northern Iraq
  Northern Iraq
  European Community: UK Contribution
  European Community: UK Contribution
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Cost
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Cost
  Judicial Appointments
  Judicial Appointments
  Government TV Advertising: Close Caption Subtitles
  Government TV Advertising: Close Caption Subtitles
  Written Answers: Reference to Published Documents
  Written Answers: Reference to Published Documents
  Public Sector Appointments: Register of Volunteers
  Public Sector Appointments: Register of Volunteers
  Millennium Dome: Preferred Bidder Correspondence
  Millennium Dome: Preferred Bidder Correspondence
  Millennium Dome: Best Value
  Millennium Dome: Best Value
  EU Institutions: UK Stagiaires
  EU Institutions: UK Stagiaires
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Internet Access
  Internet Access
  Ministerial Code: Monitoring
  Ministerial Code: Monitoring
  Doctors' and Dentists' Pay Review Body: Chairman
  Doctors' and Dentists' Pay Review Body: Chairman
  Equine Industry: Promotion
  Equine Industry: Promotion
  Foot and Mouth Disease Virus
  Foot and Mouth Disease Virus
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Racehorse Industry
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Racehorse Industry
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Mr Feakin and Mr Cleave
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Mr Feakin and Mr Cleave
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Milking Cow Vaccination
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Milking Cow Vaccination
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Veterinary Assistance
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Veterinary Assistance
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Financial Support to Farmers
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Financial Support to Farmers
  British Beef: Export to France
  British Beef: Export to France
  MAFF Disease Emergency Control Centre: Hours of Operation
  MAFF Disease Emergency Control Centre: Hours of Operation
  Farm Subsidies
  Farm Subsidies
  Rod Fishing Licences
  Rod Fishing Licences
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Grazing on Set-aside Land
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Grazing on Set-aside Land
  National Minimum Wage: Hospitality Sector
  National Minimum Wage: Hospitality Sector
  Post Offices: Horizon Programme Installation
  Post Offices: Horizon Programme Installation
  Worktrain Internet Service
  Worktrain Internet Service
  Work Based Training for Adults: Contract Award Criteria
  Work Based Training for Adults: Contract Award Criteria
  New Deal Employment Statistics
  New Deal Employment Statistics
  Airport Slot Allocations
  Airport Slot Allocations
  East Coast Main Line Franchise
  East Coast Main Line Franchise
  Transport Act 2000, Section 223: Entry into Force
  Transport Act 2000, Section 223: Entry into Force
  Luton and Dunstable Guided Busway Proposal
  Luton and Dunstable Guided Busway Proposal
  "How to get an elected mayor" Brochure
  "How to get an elected mayor" Brochure
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Assistance to Tourism and Rural Business in the North West
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Assistance to Tourism and Rural Business in the North West
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Reopening of Footpaths in Cumbria
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Reopening of Footpaths in Cumbria
  Foreign Registered Vehicles: Road Accidents
  Foreign Registered Vehicles: Road Accidents
  Foot and Mouth Disease: National Parks
  Foot and Mouth Disease: National Parks
  Braille Labelling for Medicines
  Braille Labelling for Medicines
  Parkinson's Disease: Diagnosis
  Parkinson's Disease: Diagnosis
  Community Pharmacies
  Community Pharmacies
  Pharmacy Workforce
  Pharmacy Workforce
  Home Care and Non-residential Services
  Home Care and Non-residential Services
  Contaminated Blood: Judgment
  Contaminated Blood: Judgment
  Interactive Television Systems: Statutory Provisions on Data Processing
  Interactive Television Systems: Statutory Provisions on Data Processing
  Contract Catering: Increased Turnover
  Contract Catering: Increased Turnover
  New Opportunities Fund: Freehold Land
  New Opportunities Fund: Freehold Land
  Parliamentary Pay Review
  Parliamentary Pay Review
  EU/US "Safe Harbours" Agreement
  EU/US "Safe Harbours" Agreement
  National High-Tech Crime Unit
  National High-Tech Crime Unit
  "Hard-working Families": Definition
  "Hard-working Families": Definition
  Immigration Act Detainees: Telephone Calls
  Immigration Act Detainees: Telephone Calls
  Firearms Database
  Firearms Database
  Persistent Offenders: Sentencing
  Persistent Offenders: Sentencing