Sitting of 30 April 2001

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

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: What further assessment he has made of the effects of the foot and mouth outbreak on tourism. [158136]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Our best estimate on the basis of information so far obtained is that loss of revenue by the English tourism industry will average about £140 million a week. The eventual total economic impact of foot and mouth will obviously depend on the final extent and spread of the disease, as well as its duration and the effectiveness of the measures that we are taking to encourage tourism to Britain in general and to the countryside in particular.
  Mr. Robathan: We all know that the statement that the Secretary of State has just made is extremely sad. Apart from the dire consequences for all rural communities, including the rural people whom I represent, foot and mouth is having dire consequences for tourism. The Secretary of State will know that businesses and hotels are being put up for sale all the time. What further steps can the Government take to assist the tourism industry, including hotels and other businesses in the countryside? Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider taking on board the Conservative scheme for interest-free loans to rural businesses?
  Mr. Smith: I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's dismay at the way in which foot and mouth has affected the tourism industry in many parts of the country. We have already put in place substantial measures to provide immediate relief to affected businesses, including additional rate relief for business premises, deferment of tax and value added tax payments and access to the small firms loan guarantee scheme. We have also put in place additional resources for the English Tourism Council and the British Tourist Authority to carry out immediate work to promote tourism and encourage visitors back to Britain and the countryside.
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: While welcoming what the Government have already done, may I tell my right
  626
  hon. Friend that it is still woefully inadequate? When he next speaks to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he tell him that many good businesses in places like Dartmoor will go out of business in the next few months unless he comes up with interest-free loans now?
  Mr. Smith: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have heard what my hon. Friend said. Of course we recognise that, in the coming months, further promotion work will be needed, particularly in relation to the promotion of tourism in this country. I hope that we will be in a position to make additional announcements on that shortly.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Why is it taking the Government so long to meet the express requests of the BTA for its budget to be substantially increased now to enable it to promote effectively visits to this country, particularly in the United States?
  Mr. Smith: We are considering carefully the cogent case that the BTA has put to us for additional promotion work that can and should be undertaken. Of course there is a sensible judgment to be made on when the best push on further tourism promotion should be made, which we wish to leave to the experts at the BTA to decide. Does that push come now, in the lead-up to the immediate summer booking period, or does it come when we can safely and finally say that the disease has been eradicated? It is probably the case that both strategies need to be followed; the judgment on the precise balance between them is best made by the BTA itself.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: There has been some welcome tourism assistance, such as rate reduction provisions, in various areas of the country. However, is there a continuing review to determine the boundaries of the areas to be covered? Ashover in my constituency, although far from any foot and mouth outbreak, has problems because of that outbreak and would like to be benefit from provisions available elsewhere in the country. Problems have also arisen because of the disposal of cattle in landfill sites which are too close to communities. That disposal has created such obnoxious smells that one cannot imagine any tourist ever going to places such as Poolsbrook, near Chesterfield.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Those matters are under continuing review by the rural taskforce, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. The impact on tourism has been adverse not just in areas of the countryside affected by foot and mouth, but in towns and cities completely unaffected by the disease, because overseas visitors are simply not making bookings. The problem that we face is not confined to rural areas; the lack of forward tourism bookings is a problem for the economy throughout the country.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: In answer to his hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that he acknowledges the extent of the problem, although his response to his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter

  627
  (Mr. Bradshaw) was not strong enough. Does he accept that the compensation on offer is not adequate? Does he also accept that, not only does a lost hotel bed result in lost tourism revenue, but that that lost booking has other economic repercussions? Will he therefore urgently address the issue and come up with a package that gives greater recognition to the terrible calamity facing the industry than has been made so far?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows that a substantial package of measures is already in place. The best service that we can do for people in the tourism industry who run hotels and guest houses, or in the service industries that serve the hotels and guest houses, is to get visitors coming back. That is where we must put the major emphasis over the coming weeks.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Are not rambling, hiking and walking in the countryside the British national sport? I cannot imagine the Austrians, French or Swiss closing down the Alps if there was some wretched agricultural disease there, yet all over the country, there are "Footpath closed" signs put up by private landowners and members of the National Farmers Union, not by local authorities. There has been no case of ramblers transmitting the wretched disease. Could my right hon. Friend make it clear to local authorities and to private landowners that our footpaths can safely be open, and that they must be open to allow the British people to enjoy their countryside again?
  Mr. Smith: There is no reason at all why a footpath which goes nowhere near livestock, does not go over grazing land, does not go near a farmyard and has never gone anywhere near livestock cannot be safely and legitimately opened up for public access. I am pleased to say that there are many county councils across the country that are now realising that and are re-opening footpaths for public access. I fear that there are some county councils that are not.
  Mr. MacShane: Name and shame them.
  Mr. Smith: For example, I hope that the leadership of Buckinghamshire county council will have heard what my hon. Friend said.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is it not the case that the Government's handling of the crisis in tourism has been complacent and shambolic since the outset? According to the British Tourist Authority, up to £5 billion in revenue and 300,000 jobs are at risk. What has the industry got from the Government, other than the usual depressing cocktail of spin, dither, delay and confusion? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a business with no income will leap at the chance to take out an emergency loan at 8¾ per cent.? When will he stop ducking and answer the questions that have been put to him this afternoon? When will the Government introduce a proper interest-free loan scheme of the type that we recommended five weeks ago?
  Mr. Smith: On spin, I am astonished that on 24 April, when we had the then unconfirmed case of the slaughterman who was suspected of having foot and
  628
  mouth disease, which has now been shown to have been a false alarm, the hon. Gentleman, describing the case, told the world that it was
  "a massive setback to the recovery of British tourism".
  What sort of message did that send to people thinking of coming to Britain from abroad?
  Mr. Ainsworth: It didn't take long, did it? If in doubt, blame the Tories. [Interruption.] That is a pathetic response. When all the other answers fail and the Government run out of excuses, they blame someone else. We have seen it before and we are seeing it again this afternoon. Who does the Secretary of State think the industry blames for the mishandling of the crisis since it began? Who does he think the industry blames for the paltry £2 million offered to promote Britain around the world at this time of crisis? When the president of the American Society of Travel Agents writes in a letter to the chairman of the British Hospitality Association:
  "Britain must be seen to participate with great vigor and visibility in efforts to help itself"
  what does the right hon. Gentleman think he means—another photo call in the rain? He means that the Government must get behind the industry and offer the practical help for which the industry has been asking for so long. When will the Government provide the funds that are necessary to support the marketing of Britain abroad at this time of crisis in tourism?
  Mr. Smith: The Government are behind the British tourism industry. We have offered help and will be offering further help. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, if it is right and sensible to blame the Tories, then we will, of course, blame them.

  Performing Arts
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: If he will make a statement on the implications of the Budget for performing arts industries. [158137]
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): It is anticipated that the Government's plans, which were announced as part of the Budget, to replace income-spreading rules with a simpler profits averaging system for creative artists will be of assistance to more people in the performing arts.
  Mr. Hopkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I want to draw his attention to jazz. He will know that thejazz audience is similar in size to that of opera, but that arts funding for jazz is a small fraction of opera funding. Britain is arguably the second greatest jazz nation in the world after the United States, but jazz receives a tiny proportion of funding. Arts Council allocations have improved, but will he use his influence to ensure that jazz funding at all levels, including schools, will increase substantially to ensure that jazz receives its fair share of the arts budget?
  Mr. Howarth: Jazz musicians will benefit from the new tax provisions to which I referred. On my hon. Friend's comments about Arts Council support, he himself is a notable performer not only at Question Time, but as a saxophonist and as leader of the all-party

  629
  parliamentary jazz appreciation group, where he is a dynamic force. I, too, am a member of that group, so I hope that he will share my pleasure in the fact that the Arts Council has just announced a 27.5 per cent. uplift for the national youth jazz orchestra in the current year. That will rise to 135 per cent, above the present level by 2002–03, and there will be a 49 per cent. increase for the Jazz Development Trust by 2002–03. The trust is a new beneficiary, which will receive £40,000 in 2002–03. The Arts Council's national touring programme has greatly increased, and there is every reason to hope that jazz will benefit. Jazz is a very important musical tradition. I am delighted that, under this Government, the Arts Council has chosen to increase significantly its support for jazz, and I shall encourage it to continue to do so.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister confirm that, between 1997 and 2000, payments by the lottery to the Arts Council of England were reduced by £97 million because of the siphoning off of moneys into health and education? What does he say to that?
  Mr. Howarth: We said that lottery funds would total £8 billion, but it will be very much more.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that an integral part of the Budget was continuing pressure on local authorities, which, even though they have had a small real increase in funding, have a large number of duties to perform to match it? Particular difficulties have been created for those who want to keep regional and local theatres and concert halls open. Will he ensure that, for the next Budget, Ministers with responsibility for local government are made aware of the importance for the arts of the local government budget?
  Mr. Howarth: It is important that we have a partnership in funding and that local authorities give the support to the arts that they wish to give. We have asked all local authorities to develop a local authority cultural strategy by the end of next year. The signs from the pilot authorities that have been engaged in the project suggest that it has focused their minds and that other local authority departments, apart from leisure departments, have increasingly recognised how much the arts can contribute to an authority's wider objectives. I hope that the trend that we have seen for far too many years of real-terms decline in local authority support for the arts will be reversed.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: One of our most successful industries is our popular music industry, which receives not a penny in public support. Will the Minister please resist the siren voices and claptrap coming from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and others on public subsidy for jazz? I have a photograph in my office of the no-turning back team of rowers. The right hon. Gentleman stands proudly with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), Michael Forsyth—now Lord Forsyth—and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). In those days, he banged the drum for free enterprise. He should return to his roots and say no to such suggestions.
  Mr. Howarth: I continue to bang the drum for free enterprise, but I am very glad to be a member of a
  630
  Government who take an intelligent and responsible view of their scope to support private enterprise, so that we can create conditions in which private enterprise can truly flourish. From that point of view, none of my views has changed. I am glad to associate myself with my old and hon. Friend on the Conservative Benches.

  Tourism
  Dr. Brian Iddon: What steps he has taken to improve facilities for tourists in the UK. [158138]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The English Tourism Council, which is responsible for tourism in England, has been very active in promoting quality standards schemes for tourist accommodation. We now have in place a standard grading scheme for hotels and guest houses in England, agreed between the ETC, the AA and the RAC. Improvements in the quality of service and accommodation, coupled with a well-motivated and properly remunerated staff, are the best way forward.
  Dr. Iddon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tourism and its related sectors support 20,000 jobs in Bolton—20 per cent. of our total work force—and that we have 1 million staying visitors each year? Is not that a good illustration of why the Government and others should support urban tourism?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Across the country 1.8 million people are employed in tourism-related activities. The industry contributes some £64 billion a year to our national economy. It is an enormously important industry, and it is equally important that the standard, quality and renumeration of staff within the industry are right.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: How will it encourage tourists to attractions such as Whipsnade or Woburn to see lorry loads of carcases being transported into a disease-free area of mid-Bedfordshire and dumped in pits at Stewartby or Brogborough, with the ensuing stink and the danger of leaching into the ground water?
  Mr. Smith: The best possible answer to foot and mouth, for both the agricultural industry and tourism, is to eradicate the disease. That is the end to which all the Government's efforts are being put. I am very sad that the hon. Gentleman makes statements that are not guaranteed to present a good picture of Britain to overseas visitors.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I remind my right hon. Friend that quite a large number of tourists visit the United Kingdom out of an abiding interest in the history of naval architecture? With that in mind, may I put in a plea for heritage lottery funding for the restoration of the Carrick-City of Adelaide—a famous 19th century Scottish vessel—and the steam ship Shieldhall, both of which definitely need that money? The Carrick is managed by the Scottish maritime museum and the Sheildhall by Solent Steam

  631
  Packet Ltd. Given the sparseness of funds for ship preservation projects, is it not time that those two ships were preserved?
  Mr. Smith: I am pleased that the heritage lottery fund has at least done some extremely valuable work over recent years in helping to preserve our maritime heritage. However, decisions on individual schemes are entirely a matter for the board of the heritage lottery fund; I am sure that it will have heard my hon. Friend's eloquent representation.
  Mr. Tom King: The question is about improving facilities for tourism. I think that the right hon. Gentleman realises that the real question at the moment is how far we are able to sustain the present facilities for tourism, given the critical situation that they face. I agree with the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw): the present package simply will not be good enough. It is vital that some of those businesses know, and know very quickly, that interest-free loans will be available, otherwise a number of facilities will be lost and the employment figures that the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted for tourism will no longer be relevant because of significant job losses.
  Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that aid measures are already in place, including access to the small firms loan guarantee scheme. I repeat to him what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) earlier: the best possible way to help tourism businesses to recover from the present crisis is to get visitors coming back. That is the end to which all our efforts must be put, and that is what the Government have assiduously been doing. I hope that the Opposition will wake up to doing it as well.
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that facilities for tourists in the United Kingdom would be more than adequate if we were able to spread the tourism trade around a bit more? Perhaps we could attract tourists from hot spots such as York, which is a lovely city but which gets overcrowded in the summer, to—dare I say it?—west Yorkshire, which has the armouries museum in Leeds, which is not attracting too many visitors, and the national museum of photography, film and television in Bradford. There are also three splendid tourist attractions in my constituency: the Worth Valley railway, East Riddlesden hall and the Bronte parsonage museum. If we could encourage tourists to spread out a bit more, it would be better for them and it would certainly be better for the economy of west Yorkshire.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the attractions of her constituency and those of west Yorkshire. I was particularly pleased to hear her mention the national museum of photography, film and television in Bradford, which last year welcomed a million visitors for the first time in its history. My hon. Friend's basic point is right. We need to ensure that the information services and—particularly in an era of new technology—the website technology are in place to ensure that information about attractions outside the traditional
  632
  honeypots is made available to visitors, because there are an enormous number of such attractions which are waiting and hoping to welcome visitors.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Is it Government policy that the English Tourism Council should have a marketing role?
  Mr. John Greenway: No.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Well, should it not be, given that the Secretary of State has already correctly identified that the foot and mouth epidemic has had an appalling consequence for tourism not only in the countryside but in our towns and cities?
  Mr. Smith: The primary marketing role in England must rest with the regional tourist boards, because, inevitably and rightly, they are the greatest focus of promotion work, advertising and the means of attracting visitors. The English Tourism Council primarily has a role in relation to research, the upholding of standards and improving information across the country. Of course, given the current difficulties because of foot and mouth, the English Tourism Council is already taking on additional responsibilities and will do so for the foreseeable future. That is only right and proper given the immediate tasks that face us, but the proper split of responsibilities must be between promotion work at regional level, and work on research, standards and quality at the English level.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on the impact of foot and mouth disease on the number of visitors to the south-west over the Easter period. [158139]
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Early indications show that visitor numbers to the south-west over the Easter period were some 90 per cent. of what they were in 2000.
  Mr. Heath: Whatever improvement there may have been in some resorts and main attractions, there certainly has not been a similar improvement in the rural areas. Since Easter, people have not been making the lengthier stays that we would wish, and there has been no improvement for the many farm businesses that have diversified to provide overnight accommodation. The Minister has already heard calls from Members in all parts of the House for an immediate package of interest-free loans and a proper promotion budget. That is what we in the west country want as a matter of urgency. When are the Government going to overcome the scruples of the Treasury and provide them?
  Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Can I reassure the House that the Government in no way underestimate the difficulties facing farm businesses in particular, as well as everyone else in rural areas? The hon. Gentleman is also correct that the impact of foot and mouth disease on visitor numbers at Easter appears to have been twofold. First, visitors made later bookings and took shorter breaks, and, secondly, there was a disparity

  633
  in the areas visited. For example, compared to last year, visits to cities, towns and resorts were up by between 5 and 10 per cent., while visitor numbers in deeply rural areas were down by about one third.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have already introduced a wide range of measures to assist affected businesses in these difficult times. The rural taskforce, which the Prime Minister set up under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, will continue to monitor the circumstances and ascertain whether enough is being done. However, all the current evidence suggests that deferments of statutory payments are being taken up and that the industry welcomes that.

  Millennium Dome
  Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the preservation of the millennium dome. [158140]
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Like many of others, including the London borough of Greenwich, the Government are committed to the dome staying in Greenwich. It is an important landmark on the London skyline and has made a major contribution to the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not believe me, perhaps they would like to go and see for themselves.
  The dome has also added to the quality and variety of the world-famous structures that were already so prominent in the area. Providing a successful future for the dome will build on that, ensure continued recognition worldwide and maintain the regeneration momentum that has been established.
  Dr. Lewis: Given that the dome has cost the country more than £1 million a month since it closed, will the Minister try to prevail on the Prime Minister to reinstate his idea of referring to it in the first line of his general election manifesto? Is not the dome the perfect metaphor for the new Labour Government: flashy on the outside, hollow on the inside and costing the country a fortune long after it has ceased to serve any useful purpose?
  Janet Anderson: I have no knowledge of the contents of the manifesto, but we shall be able to stand on our record better than Conservative Members could after their last term of office.
  It is nonsense to claim that the dome costs £1 million a month to maintain, as press reports and Conservative Members have suggested. The cost of care and maintenance for the site and structures is approximately £600,000 and decreasing.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Only £600,000 a month—that's okay then. The Minister claimed, as she has done on previous occasions, that the dome somehow contributes to regeneration in Greenwich. When will the Government realise that it is part of the problem, not the solution? When will they face the fact that it is an obstacle to the important task of creating jobs, prosperity and economic vitality in Greenwich?
  634
  Having failed to sell it twice, the Government hope that everyone will forget it. People will not forget. The dome was supposed to be good for tourism, but when thousands of small businesses face ruin, is not it obscene that it sits there, closed but costing millions of pounds to the public purse? Is not that the price of new Labour's vanity?
  Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman says that the dome was "supposed to be good" for tourism; I stress that it was. More than 6.5 million people visited the dome, which was the most popular pay-to-visit attraction in the United Kingdom in 2000. He is wrong to describe it as a lost cause. It has been a major catalyst for regeneration on the peninsula, which, less than a decade ago, was one of the most derelict sites in England. The benefits include new roads and other services on a grand scale, major retail outlets, a 162-bed hotel, a state of the art cinema complex, which is now open, and Greenwich millennium village. I advise Conservative Members to visit Greenwich and see how the area is being regenerated.
  Ann Clwyd: Will my hon. Friend remind hon. Members of the Conservative party's role, especially that of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), in creating the dome?
  Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. It is appropriate to remind hon. Members that the decision to build the dome at Greenwich was made under the previous Conservative Government and that the original chairman and chief executive of the dome company were appointed by them. They also determined the corporate structure, the use of lottery money to support the project and the role of the shareholder.

  Tourism
  Mr. Nigel Evans: What representations he has made to the Exchequer in respect of financial support for small businesses involved in tourism which have been affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. [158141]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): As members of the rural taskforce, we have been actively proposing measures to help small tourism businesses. A package of financial measures to help tourist businesses affected by foot and mouth was announced by the chairman of the taskforce on 20 March. As I said earlier, we have also announced an immediate package of help for the promotion of tourism to both the domestic and the international markets.
  Mr. Evans: Tourism is vital to the north-west. It has a turnover of £1.5 billion, and supports 7 per cent, of the work force. I have received a letter from the chairman of the North West tourist board, Anthony Goldstone, who writes:
  "The leadership and personal support of the Prime Minister and other Ministers in reassuring the tourism industry and encouraging the consumer, has been big on words, but short on practical substance."
  Support to date has been pretty useless. The letter makes some suggestions: at the top of the list are interest-free loans. Has the Secretary of State asked the

  635
  Chancellor of the Exchequer to offer interest-free loans to industries involved in tourism? If so, has the Chancellor said no?
  Mr. Smith: As I said earlier, what is essential is to bring visitors back to tourism businesses. We have already introduced measures to ensure that that can happen, but we are going further. I hope that later today we shall hear the announcement of a new initiative, involving a partnership between the Football Association Premier League and the British Tourist Authority, to provide a major boost for British tourism promotion abroad. I am delighted that the premier league is proposing to fly the flag for Britain overseas; it is a pity that the Opposition are not.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Inland Revenue in the north-west is doing a sterling job in helping all small businesses that require assistance with their considerable loans, and is producing very positive results? Some farm shops in exclusion areas, however, are suffering very badly. Although both the civil service and the Inland Revenue are trying hard, it would be helpful if we could convey further information to those who are particularly affected.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the assistance that is already available. I am pleased to tell her that today my Department's website will have full details for all affected businesses in tourism and connected with tourism about how to gain access to the various elements of help available to them.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the impact on small businesses of the lifting of the quarantine on the royal parks, particularly Home park and Bushy park in my constituency; but is the Secretary of State aware of continued concern about the safety of the deer? Supposedly the infection has now entered the wild deer herd. Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to vaccinate deer? If not, why not?
  Mr. Smith: According to the best scientific advice that we have had so far, there is no evidence that foot and mouth has entered the wild deer herd, and certainly no evidence of any impact on the deer in the royal parks.
  We have issued clear advisory and precautionary warnings to people entering the royal parks, and have specifically asked those who come from directly affected sources of foot and mouth to stay away. All the evidence suggests that people are heeding that advice responsibly.
  Mr. John Greenway: We are delighted to learn that the premier league in football is pulling its weight, but the question for the House is, what are the Government doing?
  Earlier, the Secretary of State spoke of the importance of the regional tourist boards and their primary marketing role. Does he not recognise the growing funding crisis that is affecting our regional tourist boards? Does he not realise that small tourism businesses have no money with which to pay their contributions for marketing? Is he aware that the Government's failure to provide those adequate resources—described as "outrageous" by the chairman of the North West tourist board. who was
  636
  mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—was condemned by the Yorkshire tourist board only last week as
  "another devastating blow for rural tourism businesses in Yorkshire",
  and that lack of funds will mean the closure of the visitor information hotline?
  It is no use simply saying that tourism businesses need customers and then denying the industry a budget for proper marketing. When will the Government grasp the seriousness of the situation and provide the resources needed to sustain that vital industry on which so many rural jobs depend?
  Mr. Smith: The Government are, indeed, well aware of the needs for promotion and marketing in tourism. That is why we have already put in place some immediate measures to help, and it is also precisely why we have helped to foster the agreement between the British Tourist Authority and the premier league to which I have just referred. However, it is not only a matter of what the Government are doing, but a matter of what the Opposition are doing. When I read on the Opposition's internet site this very day that it is "not surprising" that holidaymakers
  "have decided to play it safe and stay at home, or go abroad",
  I have to say that that is a fine message to overseas visitors to this country.

  Museum and Gallery Visits
  Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston): What the impact has been of the abolition of museum charges on the number of pensioners and children visiting national museums and galleries; and if he will make a statement. [158142]
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Since free admission at Department for Culture, Media and Sport-sponsored national museums and galleries was extended for children, on 1 April 1999, and for the over-60s, on 1 April 2000, there have been more than half a million additional visits by children and more than 400,000 additional visits by the over-60s. Within those figures, at the museums and galleries that previously charged, there have been almost 435,000 additional visits by children and more than 127,000 additional visits by the over-60s. Those figures are most encouraging.
  Maria Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one fact highlighted by the figures is that compulsory charges act as a disincentive for people to make such visits? Does he also accept that there are still families in the United Kingdom who cannot afford to go to their museums and galleries because of the adult entry free? When might we expect to have universal access to museums and galleries without any charges at all?
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is of basic importance to ensure that children are able to visit museums and galleries without there being the type of insurmountable obstacles that there have been for all too many of them. She is also quite right that it will be an enormous advantage when we are able to advance to universal free entry, so that parents will not have to

  637
  pay and more of them will take their children—or their children will take them—to museums and galleries. We have provided the resources to enable that to happen, on 1 December 2001, and we are very hopeful that all the institutions that we sponsor will respond to that opportunity.
  Mr. John Bercow: Under the partial free access policy, how, when and to what extent does the right hon. Gentleman expect admission revenues forgone to be offset? In the context of the increased visitor numbers to which he has just referred, has he made any assessment of the proportion of that increase that is accounted for by tourists visiting from overseas?
  Mr. Howarth: We are compensating the institutions to enable them to be able to introduce free entry without financial penalty to them. The figures for tourism of course vary enormously, and I think that it would be very rash of me to attempt to make an assessment here and now. We have spent much of this Question Time discussing problems about the numbers of tourists visiting Britain at the moment.

  Lottery Funding
  Mr. Mike Gapes: What steps he will take to reduce the variations between (a) sales of national lottery tickets and (b) average expenditure of the National Lottery Charities Board in parliamentary constituencies. [158143]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): It is important to bear in mind that 28p of each lottery pound goes to the good causes overall. It is also difficult to seek a direct correlation between ticket sales and the value of lottery awards, as all parts of the country should have access to lottery funding according to need. However, our commitment to ensuring that lottery funding is fairly distributed both geographically and across all groups of society is reflected in the changes made to lottery distribution through the National Lottery Act 1998 and the revised policy directions issued to distributors in summer 1998.
  Mr. Gapes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Ilford, South are very generous towards the national lottery? The most recent figures that I have, compiled at the end of 1999, showed that £759 per adult was spent on the lottery, which put us 68th highest constituency in the country. However, we received back only 4p in the pound for projects in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend have urgent discussions with the London board of the community fund about the disparities in payment between London boroughs and the fact that some constituencies and boroughs, including my own, are not getting their fair share of payments?
  Mr. Smith: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the picture is now a little better than the one that he described. His constituency has received overall from the national lottery so far £3.9 million and 77 lottery awards. However, he is right to draw attention to the fact that that is somewhat below the average for the country as a whole. Among the changes introduced by the National Lottery Act 1998 were a greater emphasis on small-scale schemes
  638
  at local community level to enable a much better spread across the country as a whole, a move away from an emphasis on buildings—bricks and mortar—to support for people and activities, and an attempt to ensure that areas of social deprivation can be particularly helped by the lottery distributors.
  Those changes are already beginning to have an impact. For example, during the past year, the number of small grants made by the lottery distributors has trebled. I am delighted by the progress that is already being made; I hope that it will continue and that it will benefit Ilford, South as well as other parts of the country.
  Mr. Graham Brady: The Secretary of State has just made it clear that one of his criteria for fairness in allocating lottery resources is redistribution of wealth from better off areas to less well off areas. That may be a legitimate thing to do, but I do not think that many people who buy lottery tickets are aware of that. Will the Secretary of State publish the criteria that are used to decide where the money goes so that the process is open and transparent and people cannot accuse the Government or the National Lottery Charities Board of wrongly distributing funds?
  Mr. Smith: The directions to which I referred were placed in both Libraries of both Houses some two years ago. If the hon. Gentleman has not seen them yet, he has not been doing his homework.

  Sport
  Angela Smith: What recent advice he has received on the importance of sport for the health of young people. [158145]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): A number of reports have drawn attention to the importance of sport and physical activity for the health of young people, most recently the National Audit Office's report entitled "Tackling Obesity in England". The Government fully accept that physical activity and sport have a range of benefits, including better health, and our plan for sport spells out our policies and strategy for increasing participation among all sections of the community, particularly young people.
  Angela Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's response. It is clear that he is committed to encouraging young people to be active in sport. May I therefore ask for his help in removing two barriers to participation for young people that have been drawn to my attention by Amy Cox, who is the Youth Parliament member for Thurrock, and a constituent of mine? The first is the cost of participation for young people using facilities—what may be a relatively small sum for adults is expensive to someone who is 13 or 14 years old. The second problem is the cost of transport for young people, as many 14-year-olds have to pay full fare on buses to get to these facilities. Will my right hon. Friend put it to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that there should be a bus pass for young people on the same basis as bus passes for pensioners?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. I was pleased to hear of the interest

  639
  taken by the Youth Parliament in the importance of sport for young people. We are bearing in mind the cost of participation and of transport to sporting facilities as we develop the programme of the appointment of school sport co-ordinators and the replacement of playing fields—many of which were sold off under the previous Government—and ensure that inter-school league competitions, which fell so drastically and severely during the 1980s, are put back in place.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in the fourth year of a Labour Government, 75 per cent. of our young people are still not getting the minimum two hours of physical education a week? What discussions has he had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to put that right?
  Mr. Smith: I am pleased to say that we have had substantial discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and that is why we have indicated that over the course of the next three years we want to put in place—for every pupil who wishes to claim it—an entitlement to two hours of sporting or physical recreation activity during the course of the school week.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  The Second Church Estates Commissioner was asked—

  Church Commission Rents
  Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey of 26 March 2001, Official Report, column 486W, on Church Commission rents, what further representations the Church Commission has received on behalf of the residents of the Octavia Hill Estates. [158166]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): A delegation representing residents of the Waterloo and Walworth housing estates met commissioners' staff at Elizabeth house on 9 April and presented a petition setting out their views. The hon. Gentleman was, I believe, present on that occasion and has met subsequently with the commissioners.
  Mr. Hughes: Do the Church Commissioners realise that what they do with the rents and lettings policy for the 1,500 homes on those estates in London will be perceived by the residents, as well as a much wider community inside and outside the Church as a real test of the ethical investment policy of the Church of England?
  I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman specifically whether he will seek an agreement from his fellow commissioners, and do all he can personally, to ensure that all papers prepared as part of the consultation process, including legal advice given to the commissioners, are made public in good time before the decision is made, and that no
  640
  decision is made without the agreement of the residents, the clergy of the relevant parishes and the local, democratically elected representatives.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who made that point when he met the commissioners with the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and the commissioners said that they would consider it with great care.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to explain the long-term policy of the Church Commissioners on all the property of which the Church owns the freehold?
  Mr. Bell: The long-term policy of the commissioners is in line with their statutory duties—to maximise investment returns in line with the mission to provide sustainable support for the nationwide ministry of the Church of England.

  Hagg Wood
  Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement concerning Forest Enterprise's interest in acquiring the freehold of Hagg wood, near Dunnington, from the Church Commissioners. [158167]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Forest Enterprise has expressed an interest in acquiring the freehold of Hagg wood from the commissioners but no firm proposal has, as yet, been put forward.
  Mr. Grogan: Given the considerable local support for the acquisition of the freehold of Hagg wood by Forest Enterprise so as to make it into a community woodland, can my hon. Friend assure me that he will consider carefully, on the advice of the land agents for the commissioners, the land swap proposals that I understand have been made today by Forest Enterprise? Those proposals would involve exchanging several woods in North Yorkshire, which Forest Enterprise currently owns, for Hagg wood and Bishops wood.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has indicated to me that an offer has been made today. That is interesting news for the commissioners and I assure my hon. Friend that it will be given careful consideration.

  Churchwardens Measure
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: For what reasons he has brought forward the Churchwardens Measure. [158168]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Following synodical approval and the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the Churchwardens Measure was passed by this House on 20 March his year, was found acceptable in the other place, and received the Royal Assent on 10 April.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that answer. He will be aware that

  641
  clause 9 of that Church Measure gives the bishops the powers to remove a churchwarden without any right of appeal. He will also be aware that it is a fundamental tenet of British law that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I have recently had a constituency case in which a headteacher was accused of sexual harassment by a young child. He went through many months of absolute torment, including seeing his picture on the front page of many newspapers and having his reputation completely ruined. Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Church Commissioners, and thence to the bishops, to use the power to remove only in exceptional circumstances?
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If I may remind the House, the Measure provides a comprehensive set of rules about the appointment of churchwardens and their tenure of office, building on previous legislation. Most of the Measure has caused no controversy and the draft provisions about which the Ecclesiastical Committee expressed concern related to the possible suspension of a churchwarden from exercising his or her duties. They were deleted by the General Synod and form no part of the Measure, which has become law.
  In respect of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the Ecclesiastical Committee expressed severe concern along such lines. It is to be hoped that any innocent person who stands accused might not be covered by the Measure.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not it a fact that that issue was debated in the Chamber, as my hon. Friend said, and that very few Members chose to take part? The Measure was agreed to without a Division although, as he rightly pointed out, that particular provision was of concern to the Ecclesiastical Committee. However, it was quite properly withdrawn by the Synod after representations were made by the Committee and after all the normal procedures had been followed during consideration of the Measure.
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee and he played a full part in those discussions during which Members of the House, in the interests of their constituents, and of the other place expressed valid views that were considered by the Synod and accepted.

  Church Land (Rents)
  Mr. Paul Flynn: What variations have recently been made in rents of church lands. [158170]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Recent farm rent reviews on the Commissioners' agricultural estates have resulted in reductions in the order of 12 per cent., while the average reduction in rents during 2000 was 15 per cent.
  Mr. Flynn: The Church Commissioners are to be congratulated on being fair and generous to their tenants who are in farming. It seems likely that many tenants will leave farming at the end of the foot and mouth outbreak. Do the commissioners have a policy to encourage the use of their land for non-farming or non-traditional farming purposes such as growing products for fuel, coppicing and
  642
  so on, which would be better for the environment and, as such usage would be more profitable, better for the Church Commissioners?
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I remind the House that he asked me the opening question at my first Church Commissioners Question Time four years ago and, if we have any luck, he might have asked the last in this Parliament.
  The commissioners are fully alert to the crisis in farming, especially the problems caused by foot and mouth disease, and, where there is hardship, will consider how best to help. That is done case by case and tenants are encouraged to discuss their difficulties with agents or staff. There may be examples in which agricultural land is no longer tenanted as farms and the points that my hon. Friend made will be taken into consideration should such cases arise.

  Tourism
  Sir Sydney Chapman: What role the Church Commissioners have in encouraging tourists to visit ecclesiastical buildings. [158171]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners' primary role is to manage their assets to support the Church of England's ministry, including the provision of clergy stipends and pensions.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I am sure that the Second Church Estates Commissioner recognises that, at this time, it is the duty of us all to encourage tourism so that it returns to its pre-foot and mouth level. Does he agree that the Church Commissioners have a great opportunity to encourage tourists to visit our cathedrals and churches, which, on any account, are part of our glorious architectural heritage? Those buildings should be seen by many more people, not only from outside, but from the inside.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he may know, the Church Commissioners have limited direct involvement with ecclesiastical buildings or tourism. However, he will be happy to hear that most diocese have a diocesan tourism officer and participate in the National Churches Tourism Group, which is an ecumenical body. Cathedral tourism is supported by the Pilgrims Association.
  The Church Commissioners are happy to assist in terms of giving moral support to those bodies, which seek to raise awareness in local churches of the opportunities provided through tourism. Given the outbreak of foot and mouth, we hope that all those efforts will surmount the reluctance to visit the countryside, which is felt by many people.

  Churches Conservation Trust
  Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on his support for the work of the Churches Conservation Trust. [158172]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Churches Conservation Trust, jointly financed by Church and public funds, was set up by statute in 1969 to preserve
  "in the interests of the nation and the Church of England
  redundant churches of historic, architectural or archaeological quality for which no suitable alternative use can be found. More than 320 such churches now vest in the trust.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically informative reply. Since 1 May 1997, how many churches that otherwise would have been doomed have been conserved as a result of the work of
  644
  the trust? What representations has he received about the aesthetic merit or demerit of that work, and will he offer us an insight as to the extent of the turnover of the leadership of the trust?
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for three questions rather than one and for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, at this time of the Parliament. I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, giving answers on all three points. He might, however, be pleased to know that, since 1989, the Government have provided 70 per cent. of the trust's budget and the Church has provided 30 per cent. For the period 2002–03, the commissioners will provide up to £3.8 million, partly from sales proceeds from redundant churches and partly by grants from their own funds.

Points of Order
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had notice of a point of order from the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a point of order of which I have given you prior notice. You and hon. Members will have seen with concern the report in The Sunday Times yesterday which unequivocally states:
"Sinn Fein MPs returned at the general election will be given offices and other facilities in Westminster even though they refused to swear allegiance to the Queen and take their seats in parliament.
The concession has been agreed by the Speaker, Michael Martin, after consultation with Tony Blair, according to a Westminster source."
Could you make it clear that this report in The Sunday Times is on a par with the other journalistic reports that we have come to expect from News International?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point of order, which gives me the opportunity to tell the House that there is no truth whatever in the suggestion that I have agreed to give Sinn Fein Members offices and other facilities at Westminster. The position remains as stated by my predecessor. Members who choose not to take their seats by swearing the Oath required under the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 are not entitled to have access to the facilities of the House. If the Government wished to change that position in the case of particular Members, it would be for Ministers to table a motion to that effect for debate and decision by this House.
I think that I am entitled to express my extreme anger and disappointment that, on such a sensitive issue, The Sunday Times chose to publish untrue allegations without waiting to discuss the position with me.
Mr. James Plaskitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that some Conservative Members are proposing a reduction in the tax on spread betting which would save the company IG Index £1 million a year. Given that it has donated £5 million to the Conservative party, can you rule on what procedures should apply to declarations of interest in this case?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that this issue is being considered in a Committee and it is up to the Committee and its members to decide how they wish to deal with
646
declarations of interest. If the hon. Gentleman has any worries, he can take them up with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Mr. Michael Jack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was it in order for proper declarations on that matter to be made in the Finance Bill Committee last Thursday when the issue was raised?
Mr. Speaker: Obviously, I was not present in the Committee, but if declarations were made, they must have been in order. The Chairman would not have allowed it to be otherwise.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you invite the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) to withdraw his remark? He alleged that an organisation had given money when, in fact, it was a private individual.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) raised a point of order and I have dealt with the matter.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any notice on whether the Government are withdrawing their tobacco advertising legislation. Anyone watching the television at the weekend will have been surprised to see the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport attending the Silk Cut challenge trophy and being presented to, and shaking hands with, the sponsors. As hon. Members well know, short meetings with such sponsors often lead to complete changes in Government policy, so before the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill leaves the Lords, I wonder whether we shall have a chance to reflect on the fact that the Government seem to want to support that type of tobacco sponsorship and advertising by their own presence at such an event.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the weekend, a report was published of a meeting on the control of foot and mouth disease that took place on 20 April at the Institute for Animal Health, which was heavily critical of the Government. You may know that, as of today, there have been 1,511 cases of foot and mouth disease, but the Government's current policy has resulted in there being more than 6,298 premises where animals have been or will be slaughtered. Given the recent announcements regarding Phoenix the calf and Porky the pig, it would be helpful to know what the Government's principles are in relation to their culling policy and whether it is being driven by headlines or science. I wonder whether any Minister has made an approach to you about the statement made at the Institute for Animal Health at the weekend.
Mr. Speaker: I can put the hon. Gentleman at ease; there has been no such approach to me.

Orders of the Day

  Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.37 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill introduces two important measures. We are introducing the Bill in the belief that it will encourage farm diversification and give help to rural communities. It fulfils commitments made last year in the action plan for farming and in the rural White Paper, which was published in the autumn of last year. It will also provide some long-term help for businesses inevitably affected by foot and mouth disease.
  The rural White Paper set out a comprehensive plan of action to improve the quality of life and increase opportunities for rural communities. It is important to ensure that rural economies are able to establish themselves on a sustainable footing. However, I know, perhaps as well as any hon. Member in the Chamber today, that the effects of the foot and mouth outbreak have been, and continue to be, very serious for farmers, the wider rural economy and, of course, the communities that rely on the rural economy.
  The first priority is, of course, to eradicate the disease, but the Government are equally committed to helping the farmers and other businesses affected. We have already committed in excess of £500 million in aid to farmers and more than £200 million of other help for the rural economy more broadly. That includes hardship rate relief, deferment of rates payments, temporary reductions in rateable values and the deferral of the rate appeals deadline. We are also deferring tax and national insurance payments for affected businesses and providing help through the Small Business Service, the small firms loan guarantee scheme and the regional development agencies.
  The measures contained in the Bill are designed to help farmers and small businesses that provide key services to local communities. They arise from the local government finance Green Paper, the rural White Paper and the action plan for farming. We have taken forward many of the other initiatives and measures in those documents. The changes to the rating system are part of a wider package to support farming and the countryside, so the Bill should not be seen in isolation. Indeed, earlier this month, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and I—along with other hon. Members—formed part of a Committee which considered other rating reliefs.
  Clauses 1 and 2 will provide rate relief for small enterprises that are newly established in former agricultural premises. That will include cases where the farmer lets or sells the property to a third party. Of course, farms themselves are already fully exempt from
  648
  non-domestic rates but, as soon as any part of a farm is used for anything other than agriculture, the business has to pay rates on it.
  Mr. Michael Jack: In the part of the Bill to which the right hon. Lady refers, will she enlighten me as to why the period of 183 days was specifically chosen rather than any other?
  Ms Armstrong: I am sorry to say that I do not know that; I shall come back to the right hon. Gentleman on that point later in the debate. I am sure that he will get the chance to speak and I shall be able to intervene then.
  When farmers seek to diversify, they face an additional cost through the imposition of rates on a property that was previously rate free. We want to remove that barrier to diversification—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) want to intervene? He was talking, so I assumed that he wanted to intervene, but obviously he does not.
  We have consulted on our proposals to remove that barrier, and the proposals in this Bill reflect those consultations. The relief will be on similar terms to that which already applies for village shops. There will be 50 per cent. mandatory relief paid for by the Government, which local authorities will be able to increase to 100 per cent. It will be limited to properties below a certain rateable value. We intend to set it initially at £6,000. That will be reviewed at subsequent national revaluations to ensure that the amount keeps in line with general changes in rateable values. For a property of such size, the mandatory relief will be worth £1,290 in 2001–02; and 100 per cent. relief would be worth £2,580.
  Mr. David Curry: The question of the rateable values at which those reliefs apply is important. The right hon. Lady will know that for the 75 per cent. relief, a rateable value of £12,000 has been applied. I have faded to discover the logic for that amount. The right hon. Lady now mentions £6,000. Has she calculated the number of properties that will be affected? What are the differences for the properties that fall just over that margin? It is sometimes difficult to understand the logic behind emergency rate relief—or indeed where the real differences exist between the properties that fall on either side of the limit.
  Ms Armstrong: If the right hon. Gentleman has had a look at the Committee debates on exceptional hardship relief in business rates, he will know that we set the limit at £12,000 for two reasons. The first is that the burden of rates on small businesses is much higher proportionately than for larger businesses. In fact, 77 per cent. of small companies come within the £12,000 limit. We made it clear in Committee—the matter is not part of the Bill—that we would keep that level under review, as indeed we are keeping under review the number of authorities that are eligible for that rating.
  Mr. Curry: I understand what the right hon. Lady is saying, but does she accept that businesses with rateable values of between £12,000 and £20,000, such as larger rural pubs, might be desperately trying to hold on to employees in the current circumstances? They are sometimes harder hit than smaller businesses and cannot meet the wages bill that they face for a significant number

  649
  of part-time, and perhaps a smaller number of full-time, employees when their cash and customers have ceased to exist.
  Ms Armstrong: When the Local Government Association raised that matter with us, we asked it to go back to local authorities to determine the weight of the concern. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have consistently said that we will keep the matter under review, and we are serious about that. However, it is obviously important that we get the balance right. We must consider the fact that there are some companies that might not have survived, even without foot and mouth. We must ensure that public money is used effectively. At the same time, we want to act as sensitively and responsively as possible. That is why we asked the LGA to consult local authorities. We have not had a full response and it is difficult to determine the effect around the country. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has talked to his local authority about the problem; I have talked to mine and know what balance is needed there.
  It is also true that larger businesses might be eligible for a reduction in their rateable value. The Valuation Office has agreed to review as a matter of urgency the rateable value of companies that think that they should have a reduction because of foot and mouth. In many areas, that is the first step that larger firms take and it might be the most sensible approach. We are clear that arrangements might need to change, and will ensure that we return to them if necessary.
  Mr. Nigel EvansWill the right hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Armstrong: I have not finished responding to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), but I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I did not appreciate that she was still responding to the previous question.
  Page 3 of the Bill sets out exemptions, including catering both on and off the premises. Why is that exempted from the rate reductions? It means that former agricultural premises that want to opens tea rooms will not qualify.
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman will remember that we discussed exemptions from business rates when we debated previous legislation in the House. The issue as it relates to shops was fully covered and the decision was taken to include general stores. Since then, we have extended the relief. In the secondary legislation that was discussed in Committee about three weeks ago pubs and garages were included in the exemption. The relief that we are discussing today requires primary legislation; otherwise we would have taken the opportunity to include it in that secondary legislation. We are now extending the exemption to stores that predominantly provide food. That means that if a small village has a butcher's shop as well as a general store or a baker's shop, both shops will get relief. The hon. Gentleman raises a separate issue, but as the relief has already been extended to pubs, I think that the point is covered.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I apologise if my right hon. Friend has already spelt out
  650
  this point. Some farm shops have logically expanded into catering for people who come on a trip to the countryside. Am I to take it that they will be included in the exemption?
  Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend raises another issue, which is whether shops that have already diversified will benefit from the relief. We are unable to backdate provisions sufficiently to deal with such premises, so I am afraid that they will not, unless they were set up within the past six months.
  If the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was thinking of tea shops, as opposed to pubs, the answer to his question is difficult because tea shops are not essential. [Interruption.] We had to decide what was essential. Local authorities can decide to give relief to small businesses such as tea shops if there has been significant hardship, but we have been trying to identify services that are regarded as essential by people in rural areas. On that basis, we have extended the rate relief significantly, but not as far as the hon. Gentleman would have liked.
  Mr. Damian Green: I am slightly more confused than I was before the Minister embarked on that explanation. Where in the Bill or the explanatory notes is there a reference to businesses set up in the previous six months? In response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Minister said that they might be eligible for the relief, but it is not at all clear to me that that is the case.
  Ms Armstrong: As we go through the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will realise that that is because of the number of days in a year in which a business is able to be operative, a point to which the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) referred.
  Mr. James Paice: The Minister is now saying that this is retrospective legislation that applies to any business set up in the past 183 days, the past six months. Will she clarify the matter? Will the concessions apply to businesses that exist as of today, or only to businesses that come into existence after the Bill is enacted?
  Ms Armstrong: We will be able to set the commencement date. If a business was set up in the previous six months and operates within the terms of the Bill, it will be eligible for the relief relating to farm diversification.
  Earlier, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon asked how many farms we expected to benefit from the measure. It is difficult to make an estimate, but if about 5 per cent. of farms in England set up a new diversification enterprise that qualifies for relief, more than 7,000 properties could benefit. If 20 per cent, of farms set up a new enterprise, about 30,000 properties would benefit.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to a previous question, the right hon. Lady said that it was hard to tell the effect of a provision. If a Minister is saying that it is hard to tell the effect of a clause in a Bill that she has introduced,

  651
  the public will find it even harder. Mr. Speaker, do you believe that this is an opportunity for the Minister to clarify what she meant?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Those are matters for debate and are nothing to do with the Chair.
  Ms Armstrong: If the hon. Member for Lichfield had been listening, he would have heard the explanation. Tea shops are not necessarily seen as essential to the local community, so would not automatically qualify for relief under the Bill. However, if the local authority thought that a certain tea shop qualified for hardship relief, it could get relief under existing rate relief exemptions. If a shop selling food to villagers had a subsidiary business serving coffee at two or three tables on the premises, it would obviously qualify, as the food shop was the main business. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is content with that answer.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Ms Armstrong: Before giving way, I want answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, as I have not yet been able to do so. He asked how many businesses would benefit and I gave the number of farms and food shops that will benefit. Precise figures are not available, but we estimate that there are about 3,000 food shops in rural parishes with populations below 3,000.
  Mr. Curry: I am grateful for the right hon. Lady's tolerance; we are seeking to clarify matters in this debate, not necessarily to dispute them. She talked about contributions to the local community and their importance. Is a facility important because it offers a service to local people or because its economic impact is achieved by attracting and servicing visitors?
  Ms Armstrong: As a Minister, the right hon. Gentleman introduced the original legislation, and I remember having similar debates with him then. He will therefore know that that is a matter for judgment and has been the subject of serious debate over the years. The number of such facilities has now expanded and I do not want to say that either route is right for a particular village. In some villages, the service provided is important. The intent of the Bill and of the legislation in general is to make sure that communities in rural areas are sustainable in the long term, which is why we must also take account of their tourism potential, their visitors and the service that they get. I therefore talked about other hardship relief for which such businesses may qualify.
  As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as he mentioned earlier, there has been an increase of up to 95 per cent. in the hardship relief that the Government are giving to premises such tea shops. That is why it is difficult to say that such businesses will not be eligible for rate relief; many will be, if not directly under the Bill. That is the point that I was seeking to make earlier.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, and I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. The right hon. Lady will be aware that I have
  652
  written to her right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment about Stroud district council's rate relief, and the fact that the council cannot recover part of the 75 per cent. rate relief from the non-domestic rate pool. Three weeks ago, that amounted to some £250,000 and many hundreds of applications. Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether the Bill will impose an extra burden on local authorities that cannot reclaim the full amount of rate relief given under the terms of the Bill? If so, it will impose a general burden on all council tax payers in a local authority area.
  Ms Armstrong: We agreed in Committee—of which the hon. Gentleman was a member—that councils would not have to pay over their non-domestic rate now and claim it back, so the problem to which he alludes should not arise. They will have to do so eventually, but that will be dealt with at the time. We agreed in Committee that it was right for councils to make some contribution to the hardship relief.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The right hon. Lady says that councils should make some contribution to the hardship relief. Is she saying that the same applies under the Bill? If so, can she say what the total amount will be that local authorities cannot reclaim under the Bill?
  Ms Armstrong: The Bill will enable businesses to claim 50 per cent. rate relief, not 100 per cent. The 100 per cent. relates to hardship relief. The local authority has the discretion to raise the relief to 100 per cent., but the mandatory level of relief that will be funded by the Government is 50 per cent.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister of State for giving way. Given that clause 4 declares that the power to make further orders under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 is unaffected, can the right hon. Lady tell the House whether any such orders would be subject to the House's negative procedure or its affirmative procedure?
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman should know that we have dealt with orders in the past few weeks: we discussed them in Committee. I am sorry that he was not a member of the Committee.
  Mr. Bercow: Negative or affirmative?
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Ms Armstrong: I am trying to be helpful. I assure the hon. Gentleman that orders will be made under the negative procedure. That was agreed when the Government whom he supported passed the original legislation. We discussed such orders upstairs. We made it clear that should evidence emerge that the support was insufficient, we would be happy to return to the matter within the three-month period to which the orders relate.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. She may inadvertently have misled the House when she answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). She said that the previous Administration had decided the provisions to which clause 4 refers.

  653
  However, as clause 4 deals with the functions of the National Assembly for Wales, and devolution was effected under the present Government, how on earth could that have been possible?
  Ms Armstrong: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The Bill as a whole affects the whole of England and Wales, as does the 1988 Act. Orders made under that Act will also affect England and Wales. The National Assembly is responsible for implementing the provisions that affect Wales, but we in the House are responsible for the Bill overall. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister help the whole House by spelling out the reason why there is a need for primary legislation in respect of agricultural premises and premises used for the supply of food, but not hot food, while public houses and other shops can be dealt with in secondary legislation? That is crucial to our understanding of why the Bill is being introduced.
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman should return to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. As that Act defines the nature of shops, we must introduce primary legislation to change the definition of eligible shops.
  Mr. Evans: On clause 4—I know that this provision has always been a bit of a problem for the Labour party, but then so has clause 3—what discretion will the National Assembly for Wales have once the Bill is enacted? Will it be able to vary its application in any way?
  Ms Armstrong: On the interpretation of the Bill in Wales, I have already said that Wales is responsible for specific rating issues. It must, however, act within the terms of the overall legislation. In that respect, subsequent orders are up to the Welsh Assembly.
  The relief will operate on terms similar to those which already apply for village shops. Mandatory relief of 50 per cent. will be paid by the Government, and local authorities can use their discretion to increase that to 100 per cent. The relief will be limited to properties of below a certain rateable value, which we intend to set initially at £6,000. That will be reviewed at subsequent national revaluations to ensure that it keeps in line with general changes in rateable values. For a property of that size, the mandatory relief will be worth £1,290 in 2001–02, and 100 per cent. relief would be worth £2,580.
  The scheme will initially run for five years, but we will keep it under review and extend it if necessary. If it were to be extended, however, businesses would be limited to receiving relief for five years after they diversified, because its purpose is to help farmers, to diversify, rather than to provide a long-term subsidy.
  I should make clear how the Bill impacts on some forms of farm diversification that already qualify for rate relief—an issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The premises of small-scale bed-and-breakfast businesses and similar businesses are treated as domestic rather than non-domestic properties. Thus, under the current system, they are liable for council tax, which tends to be lower than business rates. That applies to bed-and-breakfast businesses with no more than six beds in a property
  654
  where the proprietor also lives, and to self-catering accommodation that is available for letting for no more than 140 days a year. The new scheme extends rate relief to agricultural premises that are converted to those uses on a larger scale and therefore do not qualify for the existing rating exemption.
  A rating concession is already given to stud farms that are situated on agricultural land. Such farms currently receive a flat-rate reduction in their rateable value of £2,500, which amounts to a reduction of £1,075 from their bills for 2001–02. For the smallest stud farms, the concession amounts to a complete exemption from rates. The scheme is not time limited.
  Mr. James Gray: Will the Minister explain why that relief is given to stud farms, but not to farmers who diversify into breeding horses on ordinary agricultural farms?
  Ms Armstrong: That is one of the decisions taken when the legislation on stud farms was introduced. The Bill goes some way towards dealing with that anomaly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will say that it does not go far enough, but if he bears with me I shall explain how new stud farms will fare following this Bill.
  Because of the existing concession, new stud farms will not receive the mandatory farm diversification relief. However, we shall increase the stud farm concession to a £3,000 reduction in rateable value, worth £1,290 in 2001–02. That is the same as the maximum mandatory relief under the farm diversification scheme. Thus so long as it is on farm premises, either a stud farm or a horse enterprise of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will be eligible for the same amount of mandatory relief.
  Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill relate to village shops. Local shops provide an essential service for rural communities. In 1998, we implemented the village shop rate relief scheme, which provides 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief to small general stores and post offices where they are the only such outlets in villages with populations below 3,000. In addition, local authorities can give discretionary relief of up to 100 per cent. to those and other small businesses.
  In last year's local government finance Green Paper, we consulted on a proposal to extend the mandatory rate relief to other food shops, pubs and petrol stations. Earlier this month, we extended mandatory rate relief to the sole pub or petrol station in small villages, with effect from 5 April 2001.
  The Bill will do the same for small food shops in those villages. At the moment, where there is one general store selling food it gets mandatory rate relief, but where there are two, for example a grocer and a butcher, neither is eligible for mandatory relief. We recognise that separate butchers, bakers and grocers provide the same service to a village as a general store that provides a wider range of foods. I am sure that those of us who live in and represent rural areas want to ensure that local butchers, bakers and grocers can survive. The Bill extends mandatory relief to all village shops that mainly sell food for human consumption. Shops that sell other goods or services, secondary to their food sales, will also be eligible for the mandatory relief.
  Relief will be given on the same terms as the existing scheme for general stores and post offices. It will be limited to properties with a rateable value of less than

  655
  £6,000. Local authorities will have the discretion to top up the 50 per cent. mandatory relief to 100 per cent. where they feel that it is needed. They will also retain the discretion to give rate relief to any village business with a rateable value up to £12,000.
  Those measures should not be seen in isolation. We are implementing other rural White Paper measures to help village shops. For instance, the new community service fund will mean that the Countryside Agency can offer more support to keep village shops viable. It will also help communities to re-establish a shop where it has closed.
  I should make it clear that the Bill amends the main rating legislation, the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It therefore extends to England and Wales. The new order-making powers will be exercisable in Wales by the National Assembly, including setting rateable value thresholds, commencement and possible extension of the farm diversification scheme.
  Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Before she winds up her speech, could she focus her mind on the word "hereditaments" in the title of the Bill? Am I right in understanding that that means any property that can be inherited, and therefore any property that is owned, which would exclude, for example, farms that convert a building and rent it out? If that is the case, does the hon. Lady intend the word to mean corporeal hereditaments or incorporeal hereditaments?
  Ms Armstrong: I can confirm that the Bill will apply to any premises which used to be used for farming and which will now be used for other purposes, whether the premises are rented out; whether the farmer still lives on and runs the farm but rents out a part of it to someone else; whether the farmer himself uses the premises; and whether the farmer is a tenant or an owner. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
  I shall deal with the issue of the 183 days. We wanted to ensure that the premises were in agricultural use for at least half the preceding year, but we did not want to exclude premises that were not used for agriculture, seasonally, for a smaller part of the year. That is why the period of 183 days was chosen.
  Mr. Evans: The Minister said that it would be up to the National Assembly to bring the order into play in Wales. Will she tell the House what assessment she has made of the cost to the Assembly of implementing the provisions? Will she give the House an assurance that that money will be forthcoming from the Exchequer to support the National Assembly?
  Ms Armstrong: I have already explained that it is very difficult to estimate those costs. It will be up to the National Assembly to budget the amount that it will allow for this within its overall budget. For example, the Assembly has decided on totally different amounts for the rate relief that we announced some weeks ago, and it has done that within its budget. It is up to the Assembly to do that. That is why it has set an overall limit on the amount that it is prepared to give in hardship relief. My measures for England do not set such an overall limit. That is one reason why we went for a lower rateable value than
  656
  Wales. It is up to each of the Administrations to set those amounts for themselves within their overall budgets. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want me to go into the intricacies of how the Barnett formula allocates money to Wales as opposed to England and Scotland.
  Mr. David Heath: I want to return the right hon. Lady to the point that I raised earlier, because I still have not had an answer to my question. When the order was introduced to extend relief to public houses and petrol filling stations, it was done by an amendment, by order, to section 43(6A) and (6B) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The right hon. Lady is now saying that she needs to amend subsection (6C), to apply the provision to qualifying food stores. She defines those stores separately despite the fact that qualifying general stores are already covered by the Act. Will she explain the legal necessity for that? It is not apparent to me or, I suspect, to a great number of other people.
  Ms Armstrong: It was not very apparent to me, either. However, as a Minister, if one does not take the advice of the lawyers and parliamentary counsel at this stage, one can end up in deep trouble. Whatever the means of achieving this, we wanted to make sure that we could do so without being challenged. This was the most effective way of ensuring that we would not be challenged. The legal advice was very clear that the provisions relating to shops had to be achieved through primary legislation and that we could not achieve that in the same way as we did with pubs and garages—so it may be mystifying to us all. Lawyers will always have their day. My main concern is that rural communities can benefit from the measures. By whatever means, therefore, I was prepared to do the additional work to ensure that we could introduce the Bill without concern that the provisions would be challenged.
  Mr. Curry: Are small firms of rural lawyers eligible for rate relief?
  Ms Armstrong: I think that they might have great difficulty in demonstrating that they were undergoing hardship at the moment.
  To sum up, the two measures in the Bill will provide welcome financial assistance to rural businesses. The Bill will help to reduce costs for farmers who wish to diversify into non-agricultural activities. It will also provide support to village food shops. It will be helpful as part—I recognise that it will be only part—of the long-term recovery from the problems caused by foot and mouth disease. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.20 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: At the beginning of the Minister's illuminating and helpful speech, she said that the Bill was important. She was right, and it is therefore right to put on record the fact that precisely two Labour Back Benchers were present to listen to the whole speech—less than 0.5 per cent. of the parliamentary Labour party. One of those two hon. Members was elected a Conservative—I welcome the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) to his place. That is a stark illustration of the Government's commitment to the countryside in the middle of the current crisis.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman might be using an interesting form of arithmetic that I have not

  657
  discovered, but at least three or four Labour Members were present. Some of us make up for more than one person.
  Mr. Green: I was going to make the point that although the quantity of Government Back Benchers was lamentable, the quality was extremely high. The hon. Lady makes a significant contribution to the quality. I emphasised that only two Labour Members were present throughout the Minister's opening speech: the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the hon. Member for Leominster.
  The Minister introduces the Bill at a time when the economic condition of the British countryside is unprecedentedly bleak. We are considering a few small but welcome measures to help farmers and other rural businesses. Although we welcome the Government's gesture, it is vital to put it in perspective. The crisis threatens to engulf not only agriculture but many other sectors of rural life in Britain today.
  Hon. Members know from the Minister's speech that the provisions arise from the crisis that hit agriculture before the devastating blow of foot and mouth. A little more than a year ago, the Prime Minister presented an action plan for farming, to which the right hon. Lady referred. He stated in it that he intended to introduce proposals that would help
  "chart a way out of the current crisis in farming."
  Thirteen months after that action plan was produced, things are getting worse faster. Conservative Members therefore believe that the Bill will be useful, but only at the margins of the crisis.
  Mr. Fabricant: Would not it emphasise my hon. Friend's valuable point if he made it clear to hon. Members and the public that farm incomes have fallen by 72 per cent. since their peak in 1995, and that they doubled between 1990 and 1995? Does not that illustrate the difficulties that farmers faced even before the onset of foot and mouth disease?
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right. The accountants Deloitte & Touche published an analysis of farm incomes last October, before the outbreak of foot and mouth. I shall illustrate my hon. Friend's point with the stark figures. An average-sized farm of 500 acres, which earned £80,000 in the mid 1990s, earned only £8,000 in 2000. Almost no other business sector has suffered so much in the past few years. Deloitte & Touche also estimated that in 2001, such a farm would incur losses of £4,000.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) mentioned the five-year figures. In 2000, total income from farming fell by 27 per cent., with the consequences that we have witnessed. That is why the crisis is spreading throughout rural businesses. The National Farmers Union estimates that 47,400 farmers and farm workers left the industry in England and Wales in the past two years. Even before that, the industry shed almost 20,000 jobs between June 1998 and 1999.
  Inevitably, the position has worsened since because of foot and mouth. A survey shows that more than a third of the farmers hit by the disease plan to scale down their businesses. Part of the problem is that the crisis is all-embracing in farming: the fall in farmgate prices and incomes is affecting every sector of the industry.
  Mr. Bercow: Given the visceral hostility of most Labour Members to farmers, and their habitual tendency
  658
  to depict British farmers as the unwarranted beneficiaries of public funds, would my hon. Friend care to re-emphasise the fact that thousands of pig farmers who might benefit modestly from the Bill—I stress the word "modestly"—receive absolutely nothing from public funds, and that 24,000 have gone out of business over the past three years?
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently. He is right: although some sectors of agriculture are subsidised, others are barely subsidised at all or, indeed, unsubsidised. The crisis in agriculture is all-embracing, so the unsubsidised as well as the subsidised are being hit.
  Even more important, however, is the fact that the current crisis is spreading far beyond agriculture. It is affecting all the essential services that provide the lifeblood of local communities. We welcome the fact that the Bill recognises that by including provisions for village shops. The daily customers of many such shops are precisely those whose family incomes are being hit hard, which will be a severe additional problem for businesses that are already in crisis.
  In many areas, village shops normally rely for survival on another great source of income—visiting tourists. Again, the effects of foot and mouth will be targeted on the shops that can least afford them. Whatever overall drop in tourist numbers is taking place—and there can be debate about that—urban destinations will probably be hit less hard than rural destinations. Trips to country areas, whether by British or by overseas tourists, are most likely to be cancelled. The summer uplift on which many village shops rely will be less this year than ever before. The Countryside Agency has estimated that rural tourism losses will rise to £2 billion, and I am happy to accept that figure: it comes from a Government agency. I am sure the Minister will recognise that, whatever percentage of that £2 billion loss falls on village shops, the help that the Bill will give them should be judged in the context of the sheer size of the losses that they face. The House should consider this Bill in the context of a terrible overall crisis.
  The Bill gives rise to a number of issues, not least the amount by which diversification can help farmers, and the effects on farms and shops. We shall want to make some proposals of our own. At the outset, however, let me urge the Government to consider whether their actions, including the Bill, are adequate to deal with a crisis of this scale. For many businesses in the countryside, these measures are not enough. To thousands of people who are struggling to hold on to their livelihoods, the Government seem to be offering an umbrella in a hurricane. The rural taskforce is meant to be coming up with wide-ranging solutions, but the Minister for the Environment has produced nothing new since he made what he described as a preliminary announcement fully six weeks ago.
  Perhaps the Government would command more respect in the countryside if we were discussing a comprehensive package of measures to help rural businesses; but they have not produced such a package, so instead we must consider the details of what they propose in the Bill.
  The first big issue that the Bill raises is the scale of possible diversification and the effect of diversification on preserving the long-term health of British agriculture. I do not think that any hon. Member would deny the

  659
  importance of diversification for farmers. Nevertheless, I hope that Ministers do not believe even for one moment that, in the long run, if it remains unprofitable, farming will be preserved by greater diversification. Ultimately, the long-term economic health of farms depends on farming, not on non-farming activities. Farmers will have the capital to diversify successfully, and to take advantage of the diversification that the Government are seeking to encourage in the Bill, only if the underlying farming business is producing a profit.
  Seizing on new opportunities is, of course, a good idea for businesses, but businesses will seldom be able to do so successfully if they act out of a sense of desperation. Currently, desperation is affecting far too many United Kingdom farmers.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that speculation on the very future of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is causing considerable concern in the farming community? Does he also agree that many farmers believe that their function in life is not to serve as mere stewards of the countryside or as "park rangers", as some farmers have described it? Do not those facts support his point that farmers wish to remain as farmers, and that although diversification can help farming, diversification should not be used simply as a means to an end?
  Mr. Green: I agree with my hon. Friend that, in shaping the control of farming, and by its very nature, diversification must remain essentially a side issue. As for his point on farmers wanting to be farmers, the key fact is that the English countryside—the environment that many of us love so much—is so attractive precisely because it has been farmed for hundreds of years. Our countryside has not grown up naturally. If farming declined, the countryside would not return to a more desirable state of nature; it would become environmentally worse.
  Too often, if diversification is undertaken for the wrong reasons, the wrong type of diversification emerges—that fact has long been known. As long ago as 1987, David Richardson—who is one of the more insightful commentators on agriculture, and currently writes for Farmers Weekly—wrote that farm diversification tends to attract publicity out of proportion to its potential. He said that many ideas
  "enjoy a brief period of intense interest and high profits for their originators before the necessarily limited new markets become oversupplied. All over Britain there is a scattering of failed worm farmers; deserted pick-your-own fields; empty farm house holiday bedrooms; and rabbit farms which seemed like a good idea once but proved unprofitable when the animals failed to breed like rabbits are supposed to do."
  Quite apart from that salutary warning, the fact is that the amount of help offered in this Bill and in the other measures that the Government have introduced is relatively small compared with the sheer size of the problems facing farming. The Minister acknowledged that when he replied to interventions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Indeed, the Bill's explanatory notes state that farm diversification relief will cost the Exchequer various
  660
  figures, beginning at £16 million. Although that relief is welcome, it is not sufficient to transform the fortunes of a quickly shrinking industrial sector.
  Mr. Gray: I am sorry to have to correct my hon. Friend, but, as the £16 million would be provided over five years, the figure could be as low as £3 million annually.
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend has caught me out for being generous to the Government. I apologise and assure him that it will not happen again. Even with those caveats, however, there are other important questions. For example, if we accept that farm diversification is desirable, how many diversification projects will be helped by the scheme?
  The Countryside Alliance has welcomed the Bill's principles, as do the Opposition, but it has asked some key questions. How many diversification projects will be eligible for the scheme? Is the £6,000 rateable value threshold appropriate? The alliance also rightly says that the rateable value must be realistic if it is to promote diversification, and that, if is not, the Bill will simply be an empty gesture. I am afraid that empty gestures are exactly what the countryside does not need in the current state of crisis.
  The Countryside Alliance also made the correct point that the rateable value for similar premises will vary across the country. Indeed, the recent Green Paper on local government finance uses a rateable value of £8,000 to determine a small business. We are entitled to ask, whatever happened to joined-up government if the limit under this Bill is £6,000 and the limit in an extant Green Paper on local government finance for small business is £8,000? As the Minister said, during the foot and mouth crisis relief has been given for premises with a rateable value of up to £12,000.
  There appears to be no coherence in the Government's thinking about where the limits should apply. Will the Minister explain the reason for the apparent plethora of limits on rateable value that the Government are scattering around? As we are anxious to ensure that any relief reaches businesses throughout the countryside as fast as possible, we hope that the Government can act quickly to address those concerns.
  The Government need to address a number of other worries if this measure is not to be merely an empty gesture. One of the most important, still under the heading of diversification, is that the relief proposed will apply only to farmers and not to third-party occupiers. Many farmers convert or construct buildings to be let to others as light industrial units or storage. If the rate relief were made available to farmers making such conversions and others, it would help not only farmers but the wider economy by providing affordable business premises.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is very indulgent and I apologise for interrupting him again, but this is an important point. Somewhere along the line, someone must draw a distinction between support to enable people to diversify from farm incomes to something that will continue to make their business viable, and creating an alternative form of development that could lead to problems in the countryside. I sympathise with his point that farmers on occasion want

  661
  to rent property, but does he accept that there is a narrow line between farmers diversifying into genuine, agriculturally based and useful businesses and people who seek to create an alternative industrial unit in the middle of the countryside, which could cause considerable problems?
  Mr. Green: I take the hon. Lady's point about the balance between the environmental need to preserve the beauty of the countryside and to avoid inappropriate development. However, surely that issue can be resolved by planning authorities; it has no necessary relationship with the operation of the business being set up. In theory, a farmer could set up a business that was environmentally inappropriate and someone from outside could set up a business that was entirely appropriate environmentally, providing local employment and other things that the hon. Lady and I regard as desirable.
  My point is that there seems to be an arbitrary distinction between which type of business the Government propose to help through the rate relief system. The Bill provides that relief can be allowed only if the business is operated by the farmer. Farmers may be very good at farming but not necessarily at running general businesses, and they may know that someone else could use a building for a better purpose, providing local employment. It seems perverse to deny them that opportunity.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. His understanding of the Bill is, like mine, that only the farmer may benefit from the rate relief proposed. That is why I intervened on the Minister on the rather technical point about the definition of hereditament and corporeal or incorporeal hereditament. Her answer was that the relief would apply irrespective of whether the person claiming it was the farmer or someone renting a building from the farmer. Therefore, if the Minister's words are to be taken at face value—they can, of course, be used in court when these matters come to court—my understanding of the Bill, and that of my hon. Friend, is incorrect.
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is my reading of the Bill. There is clearly an issue about definition that can perhaps be dealt with in Committee. However, at the very least, this part of the Bill bears further scrutiny and improvement, and I hope that we can achieve that in the coming days and weeks.
  One other specific point about diversification relates to the length of time for which the relief will be available, and I am grateful to the National Farmers Union for drawing it to my attention. As I understand the Bill, although I am open to correction by the Minister, the relief will initially be limited to a maximum of five years, which can be extended by order. The relief appears to be available to premises only for a set five-year period from the commencement of the new law. In other words, if a new business was set up in year four and the scheme was not extended, it would benefit from only one year's relief.
  Ms Armstrong: I discussed that point in my speech, and I made it clear that at this stage the relief will run for five years, but that we will continue to keep the position under review. I also made it clear that even if we extend the five-year period, any individual business will not
  662
  receive the relief for more than five years, because it is meant to help businesses get going, not to provide unfair competition for other businesses.
  Mr. Green: I am making a subtly different point. I appreciate that no business will get the relief for more than five years and that the House could decide to extend the scheme, but the point rightly made by the NFU is that if there is a risk that it will not be extended, for whatever reason, those planning a business enterprise would not be able to build the relief into their calculations. That could encourage a rush of applications in the first part of the period in order to gain the maximum definite relief, and a tailing off later as the value of the relief waned. All the history, in agriculture and all other industrial sectors, suggests that grant-driven or rate relief-driven business decisions are likely to be bad business decisions. The more we can clear up the position at this initial stage, the better it will be for farm diversification in the long run.
  I have spotted one other puzzling anomaly in the part of the Bill that is designed to encourage diversification, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clear it up. As she knows, we have welcomed the mandatory element of the relief, but some people believe that the discretionary element adds nothing to the existing power under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. Not only are the criteria for the discretion exercised under the Bill exactly the same as in the 1997 Act, but the threshold in the 1997 Act is £12,000, which is twice that proposed in the Bill. The Bill would add nothing to the status quo. Indeed, it is clearly unlawful for the same discretion present in two Acts of Parliament to be exercised in different ways. I can assume only that I have misread the situation or that it is a genuine oversight, and I would be grateful for the Minister's clarification. As it stands, once the Bill is on the statute book, we shall have two contradictory Acts. In fact, the 1997 Act is more generous and useful, and that is puzzling.
  Mr. Evans: Can my hon. Friend confirm that many local authorities would dearly love to help some of their small rural businesses but simply do not have the cash to do so? If they helped all their small rural businesses by the 50 per cent. discretionary rate, council tax rises would be even higher. In some places, the rises are in double digits, which is way above the rate of inflation.
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right and he anticipates a point that I intend to make later.
  The Minister glories in the fact that the proposals on shops might involve subsidising more than one shop per village. Even more damagingly, some shops could be subsidised at the expense of others. Can the Government bend their mind to the problem whereby one shop in a village would fall just under the limit while another would fall just over it? In such an example, the Government would be providing a subsidy to help one business against a similar competitor.
  Have the Government conducted any research to ascertain how common such a situation would be? Where one existed, what would they do about it? It would be perverse if the effect of this attempt to do good for rural

  663
  businesses made life more difficult for certain shops in rural areas. As the measure stands, we cannot rule out that possibility.
  Ms Candy Atherton: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the Bill, but his speech is making me more confused by the minute. Is he in favour or not?
  Mr. Green: I have already said that I am in favour of any measure that helps small businesses in rural areas during the crisis. Although the Bill is inadequate, it is a step in the right direction and I do not oppose it in principle. However, the hon. Lady has been a Member long enough to understand the process of parliamentary scrutiny, whose purpose is to allow us to welcome the principles of the Bill while referring to a number of genuine practical problems that might make matters worse in a situation such as I am describing, or whose effect could be lessened.
  It is the job not only of Parliament and the Opposition but of Government Back Benchers to try to improve Government legislation. I appreciate that that has not been their practice in this Parliament, but I commend to them the Bill, which they will enter the Lobby to support, in order that they will read it.
  Ms Armstrong rose—
  Mr. Green: Ah! The right hon. Lady has an answer.
  Ms Armstrong: I simply ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is suggesting that the Government should offer rate relief to businesses such as antique shops. If he reads the list of shops that exist in such villages as we are discussing, he should remember that a population of 3,000 is the key figure. The rateable value of food shops is simply not above the level that we are talking about. The only shops that have a rateable value above that level are antique shops and specialist shops, which are not considered to be essential to the life of the village.
  Mr. Green: For the Minister's sake, I hope that she is right that there are not a number of shops—largely food shops—that are just above the rateable level. She has put what she believes on the record, but if she is wrong I suspect that her postbag will be extremely large in the months ahead.
  Mr. David Heath rose—
  Mr. Green: I may be about to be given a counter example.
  Mr. Heath: I shall not give such an example, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I agree with the point that he is making. Has he considered the circumstances of two rural settlements, perhaps within a few miles of one another, with populations of 2,999 and 3,001? The food shop of one would be subsidised by the measure and the food shop of the other would not, simply because of the artificial threshold of 3,000 as an absolute figure for a settlement.
  Mr. Green: That is a good point and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it. Have the Government
  664
  consulted on whether some proposals, due to their potentially arbitrary nature, are legal under European Union state aid rules? Are they confident that they are legal?
  Mr. Tony Baldry: Is not the main offence of the Bill that it gives the impression that the Government are doing something for the countryside and for rural England following the foot and mouth disaster when practically nothing is being done? The bottom line is all spin and no substance. Will my hon. Friend make sure that he explains to the House what the Conservative Government will do to help rural shops and rural village post offices? [Interruption.] In the coming weeks, it will be extremely helpful for rural England to know exactly what we are offering to it in clear contradistinction to the Government, who are all spin and no substance.
  Mr. Green: Let me cheer up my hon. Friend and, indeed, the Minister, who was shouting from a sedentary position, by explaining not only our proposals for helping village shops and other businesses under threat from the Government, but where the money would come from. I made the point that these small steps are welcome, but they are inadequate.
  The House has spent time dealing with the detailed problems in the Bill, but it is important that we deal with the Bill's sins of omission, namely those provisions that would improve the Bill and that we have urged on the Government. The House will be aware—the Minister certainly is—that a Conservative Government would save money by abolishing the regional development agencies and the regional assemblies that add layers of bureaucracy to political life in this country without providing benefits to rural or urban areas. Some of the money that we would save by doing that would be used for our practical proposals to help businesses in the countryside. We are about substance and not spin, so we would use the money sensibly.
  For example, there are just under 10,000 post offices in rural areas. At present, under this Government, they are closing at a rate of nearly two a day. We propose to cut an average of £1,000 from their business rates, with many of the most vulnerable paying no business rates under our proposals. On the specific issue of rural shops, we propose a similar cut of £1,000 in the business rate for a shop serving a particular local community.
  The advantage of our proposals—which we will also extend to vulnerable garages and pubs in rural areas—is that the funding will not put any pressure on local authority funding in the way that the Government's proposals do. That point has been made by several Conservative Members, and it is vital because, in many rural areas, small district councils are already under extreme financial pressure. If those councils are to give help to the vulnerable businesses that, I suspect, all Members want to help, they will be under great pressure to cut essential services or increase council tax to unacceptable levels. Our proposals are better for small businesses and for small district councils.
  We also have detailed proposals for the equestrian industry, which has so far been very unhappy with the Government's proposals. Several of my hon. Friends speak with passion and great expertise on the subject of the equestrian industry and I am sure that the House will

  665
  benefit more from hearing their views than mine. Therefore, I shall restrict myself to saying that that we believe that equestrian buildings should be deemed to be agricultural rather than light industry, and that the next Conservative Government will exempt new and existing equestrian businesses from business rates.
  To help farm diversification, we have also suggested slashing the bureaucratic obstacles that make diversification so expensive and difficult for farmers. As the Minister has pointed out, we are all aware of the need to balance environmental protection with the business needs of rural areas. That is why we have proposed much greater devolution of planning decisions to local levels where decisions can be made in the full knowledge of local environmental conditions. In the end, decisions will be taken by the people who have to live with the consequences of them rather than by remote Ministers and bureaucrats in Whitehall. Within that general pattern, we believe that genuinely redundant farm buildings of up to 1,500 sq ft can be allowed to be used for commercial purposes, allowing small-scale non-farming operations.
  We also think that it is a shame that the Government are missing a huge opportunity with this Bill. We have made proposals for emergency interest-free loans to relieve the cash flow problems of rural businesses affected by the foot and mouth crisis. By contrast, the Government's proposals under the small firms loan guarantee scheme involve a complex and lengthy application procedure and, even more important, charge interest rates of 8.75 per cent. Small rural businesses affected by cash flow problems simply cannot afford to take on new interest-bearing loans, especially when the interest payable on those loans is higher than the interest that they pay on existing loans from their own banks. Our proposals—which, sadly, the Government have neglected to take up in this Bill—would provide businesses with an essential cushion to get them over the problems of the next few months. It is a terrible wasted opportunity that they have not been included in the Bill.
  The Minister will be aware that the Bill does little to tackle some of the unfairnesses that are emerging from the crisis in the countryside. There is unfairness between England and Wales about the size of the ceiling for emergency rate relief—the figure is £12,000 in England, but £50,000 in Wales. There is a potential unfairness built into this Bill between businesses set up more than 12 months ago as farmers tried to diversify and businesses that will be set up under the Bills's provisions. There is unfairness in the discretionary element of the rate relief available, simply because some local authorities will be able to afford it better than others and big authorities will have an advantage over smaller ones.
  The Bill is better than nothing, but it is less good than it should be. It offers a small degree of palliative care to some extremely fragile businesses. We will do everything we can, within the bounds of proper parliamentary scrutiny, to ensure that the small amount of relief that it proposes is available to businesses as soon as possible. However, we have proposed a set of measures that would make a real difference to hard-pressed farmers and struggling small businesses in rural areas and provide some hope in the current catastrophe facing the British countryside. I welcome these small steps by the Government, but I urge them to adopt some of our more radical proposals before it is too late.
  4.55 pm
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate. Although it is not for me to estimate the exact date of a certain event, I suspect that this speech will be something of a swan-song. Although the Bill is not extensive in itself, it is very much to do with wider rural questions and the wider rural package that the Government have proposed, so it is perhaps fitting that the hon. Member for Leominster—whatever side of the House he might sit on at the present time—should speak in a rural debate.
  Indeed, I was flattered that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who speaks for the Opposition, should remark on my conscientious presence in the Chamber throughout the Minister's speech. I was here not necessarily as a Labour Member of Parliament, although I am very proud to be such; I was here for my constituency. I have always sought—as, I think, the hon. Gentleman knows—to represent my constituency from this side of the House in exactly the same, I hope, conscientious way as I did from the other.
  I shall talk a little about my constituency because it more than qualifies me to make the comments that I shall make. The most encouraging thing that the hon. Gentleman did was not to approach the matter in a party political knockabout way, and I compliment him on that. It is utterly proper that the Opposition should make proposals, although I do not know how they would pay for them in the context of their overall commitments, but I shall not be distracted on to that matter. The important thing is that he has done what, in essence, he had to do—welcome the principle of the Bill. He said that it is a step in the right direction. I would add that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister made very clear, the Bill is part of a package, virtually every element of which is subject to review.
  Another point to consider before we reach any closing debate on such issues is that we are dealing with very wide matters involving agriculture, foot and mouth disease, the environmental aspects of rural areas and the benefits, or otherwise, to those who live in them. In this regrettable and tragic outbreak, there is a need to reach a conclusion so that we can understand and, to an extent, quantify the damage before taking any final decision on what help is given and, incidentally, what help goes where. We should have a vigorous debate on the balance of rural and environmental support, defining each in the context of the other, and so on.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that a thorough review must take place when we are over the immediate tragedy, and I dare say that it will have to go well beyond FMD, although FMD nationally and internationally will form an integral part of it. However, we must undoubtedly review the support in that context. I welcome the Bill because people will increasingly go out of small farming—perhaps regrettably, but necessarily—and into rural business. That aspect of the Bill is commendable.
  Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill represents nothing more than a sticking plaster for a patient who has had a heart attack? Does he accept that it would be far better if the smaller businesses that are in trouble because of foot and mouth and the lack of tourism were given access to interest-free loans, given that many

  667
  small businesses owe money to other small businesses, as that would pump-prime the whole industry and put it back on its feet again?
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I do not accept that. We have to consider the whole context. The matter is up for review, but the Opposition's proposal is not the Government's policy, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. Incidentally, the way that he introduced his remarks with the example of heart attacks and sticking plasters was colourful—talk about spin! However, given the whole context, the Bill is of value and has been welcomed as such by the hon. Gentleman's party; it is part of a continuing process.
  As I said earlier, we shall need to take a thorough look at agriculture and benefits to get over the situation in rural areas. In that connection, the hon. Member for Ashford made a point—with which I very much agree—that the long-term economic health of farmers depends on farmers and farming. I am sure that he well realises that although reform and change are expected in the agricultural community, the constant doubt, because people do not know—in the context of the common agricultural policy and elsewhere—what their eventual fate will be, causes many of the difficulties. Most farmers in my constituency accept that there has to be change—that the terms of subsidy will be different—but they need to know where they stand. The Bill is a step in that direction.
  I said that this speech would be a swan-song. I also said that I have a rural constituency. I am pleased to be speaking on a rural matter, and I take this opportunity to thank my constituents for putting up with so many speeches over the years on matters other than agriculture and the rural areas—especially on foreign and European affairs and Ireland. My constituents tolerated that; indeed, occasionally they encouraged it. However, in this debate I speak on behalf of a constituency of 700 sq m. I am happy to say that I have a lovely memory of the fact that when I was first elected to this place in February 1974–27 years ago—there was not one traffic light in that 700 sq m. Regrettably, I have to announce that there are about two and a half at the latest count; one of them—dare I say it?—covers the entrance to a supermarket.
  There are five market towns in the constituency. Two have benefited from the wider programme of which the Bill forms part—the Government's regeneration programme—and no doubt others will benefit, too. Much public money is going into areas such as mine, and there certainly is no area more rural than mine. We have countless villages. Fourteen foot and mouth outbreaks have occurred and there are more just over the border in Wales, which means that exclusion areas spill over into my constituency. There are 68 outbreaks in the whole county of Hereford and Worcester.
  There has been much hardship for animals and farmers alike, for rural areas generally and, indeed, for the rural businesses dealt with under the measure. No one is happy. We can always criticise financial support by saying, "We want more". Indeed, we have already heard that call from the Opposition today; it does not surprise me. However, my constituents are grateful for that financial support. They welcome the gradual relaxation of restrictions and the opening of markets. Goodness knows, no one is happy, but those measures have been welcomed.
  668
  Almost every day—like other hon. Members representing rural constituencies—I hold conversations with individual farmers; I shall be doing so later today. I take my hat off to those farmers. Despite their dire circumstances, they appreciate the sheer scale and extent of the outbreaks, which dwarf anything we or others have seen.
  My home is about four miles outside my constituency in the Welsh border area, just inside Wales, and has been in an infected area since the beginning of the outbreak. It has the shop, the pub—all the characteristics that we are talking about—and bed and breakfasts galore. In fact, bed-and-breakfast businesses and smaller hotels and accommodation are the main losers at present. However, to put that in context, all was not complete gloom over Easter. Many rural attractions did remarkably well—indeed business was up on last year. The statistic that tourism is 70 per cent. down overwhelmingly relates to accommodation. I am happy to say that the village pub was crowded during my last Sunday visit, and will remain so.
  I think that a personal anecdote helps. Some comments, especially by the Opposition, imply that everyone is seething with discontent against the Government. That is not the case in my area. Indeed, the farmer who farms immediately around my village, who is an embarrassingly enthusiastic member of my former party and farms in a Conservative area, told me last weekend that, all things considered, the Government have done as well as any could. That is a true anecdote and we should acknowledge such opinions.
  There is not much to say about the Bill's contents and I admire the extent to which the Opposition have examined its minutiae. They mounted a veritable barrage of questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister, for which I commend them. My study might appear to be limited in comparison, although as a lawyer I have some understanding of hereditaments.
  Measures in the overall rural package need to be mentioned and gratitude should be expressed to my party and Government. We must not forget that the cost of the total effort is much greater than the rural aid to farmers, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not put a limit on that. Direct agricultural support as a result of foot and mouth is climbing above £500 million and the support to the rural economy is nudging above £200 million. The Government have announced immediate measures, such as hardship rate relief, deferment of rates payments and temporary reductions in rateable values. In addition, an effective appeal has been made to the banks, which has not been mentioned. Their initial reaction was a little bank-like. However, the Government made a public appeal for them to go easy, which they have done. I have been in contact with constituents and banks, and approaches to them have had to go no further, which is a good sign.
  The village shop rates relief scheme, which was introduced in 1998, has been mentioned. The 50 per cent. mandatory relief applies to my village where the shop is doing the same business during the outbreak as it has always done. It is certainly a small business. The pub is down on accommodation bookings, but its general business, including serving food, is relatively normal.
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I see an impatient hon. Member who wants to intervene.
  Mr. Gray: I have tried my best to be patient, but I have two questions for the hon. Gentleman before he gets carried away with praising his new friends in the Labour party for what they have done for rural businesses. First, will he acknowledge that the mandatory relief on village shops is a result of an initiative introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment? It was merely brought into operation by Labour. Secondly, will he also acknowledge that according to the notes produced by the House of Commons Library, the Bill's provisions may amount to as little as £3 million a year help for businesses throughout England? That is a drop in the ocean compared with the hundreds of millions that are being lost by rural businesses. Perhaps he could include that in his speech.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: Overall support is climbing above £200 million, and it will continue to increase. Much as I appreciate the Library's devotion, and although I have not seen the paper, it appears we are taking a step in the right direction. The hon. Gentleman said "may amount to"—"may" being the operative word. I have a suspicion that when Governments offer such support, it absorbs more money than they initially promise. I am pretty sure that this measure will do the same. Incidentally, the relief is greatly welcomed by my constituents. I do not see why I cannot praise my present political party. This is one of the best Governments we have had for years. Compared with the time that I had under the previous Government, I have had a very peaceful Parliament.
  Regardless of who introduced what, the issues that affect rural areas have been around for years, as all hon. Members know. They include access, the motor car, people retiring to rural areas and the decline of agriculture. When I was an eager young Conservative Member in 1974, newly elected and anxious to assuage the concerns of a shopkeeper in a small village who had just had to close his shop, I told him that I was pleased to see the support that he had received from the village in a petition. I had better leave out his expletives, but the broad gist of his reply was that although he was pleased about the petition, if the villagers who had been so eager to sign it had shopped in his establishment a little more often, it might still be open. Many people in rural areas, particularly those who wave the banners the most, are the first in the Saturday morning queue in the supermarket. That is true of the relatively new supermarket outside the market town of Leominster.
  This month, rate relief for village food shops, pubs and petrol stations has taken effect. That applies to my village and many others in my constituency. About 8,000 pubs will benefit, so the measure will absorb quite a lot of public money.
  The Bill caters for the future. It goes beyond the question whether we should change the bottom line for rate relief and spend more; it tackles the fundamental issues. We will hear more and more about those because, regrettably, the debate is far from over. I am sure that the Government, after the election—I say that deliberately—will have much to do about the shift from farming to small
  670
  business which is represented by the Bill. Unfortunately, many farmers will go out of business, but they are already excused domestic rates and it will now be easier for them to diversify into bed and breakfast. The rateable values ceiling, which has already been mentioned several times and in this case is £6,000, is subject to review.
  I have said a little about village shops and given a personal example, but I want to deal with rural areas more generally. It is an unfortunate fact of life that when so many areas are in a state of change, that change leads to fear where there is uncertainty. It is the Government's duty to recognise, as I am sure they do, the extent of the change, particularly as it concerns the elderly, the need for increased services and the undoubted decline of agriculture. As we know, the latter affects not only those who are in farming, but the vast number of families and ancillary industries that are connected to or dependent on agriculture. The Bill forms a small part of an overall programme for the future, and I trust that that programme will include a full review not only of foot and mouth disease, but of the whole question of agricultural subsidies.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Temple-Morris: The hon. Gentleman may not have realised, but I am just perorating. However, I cannot resist his plea.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman really ought to make up his mind. I say to him beyond peradventure that his attitude makes Dr. Pangloss look a pessimist. How does he justify the Government's refusal to introduce honesty in food-labelling legislation, whereby consumers can know both the country of origin and the method of production of all the main ingredients so that they can make a free and informed choice of what to buy?
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I seem to remember being asked that question as a Conservative Member when the Conservatives were in power. As for labelling in shops and supermarkets, it is infinitely better than it has ever been. Indeed, I am always clear about the origins of what I am buying. The Minister concerned has been tightening up regulations on labelling.
  I know that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is well practised, but I could not resist giving way to him. I am sorry that I hesitated to do so at first, but perhaps I was overcome by my own oratorical efforts and was anxious to complete my speech—[Interruption.] Well, he has made his point now and I have dealt with it. I wish him many more happy interventions; I am sure that he will be making them in opposition for a long time. Finally, I thank the House for occasionally listening to me over the years and my constituents for putting up with me.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) who, if I may say so, brought urbanity to his rural subject. Having listened to him carefully, I have the impression that the picture in Leominster is different from what we are experiencing daily in Somerset. The hon. Gentleman would be

  671
  hard-pushed to find people in my constituency who were quite as optimistic about their future or as complimentary to the Government as his constituents are, although that may be a regional difference. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) gave a good analysis of this brief Bill and covered many areas that I intended to cover. I therefore make no apology if some of my comments are along the same lines as his.
  The Bill was not introduced in response to the present crisis. If it had been, it would be even more inadequate. It was introduced in response to an old anomaly in the effects of the uniform business rate, to the closure of shops in small communities—which has been going on for a long time—and to the difficulties that many in the agricultural industry are experiencing in diversifying. Whatever the response to the present crisis, it is extraordinary that everybody is gripped by the urgent need to do something for our rural areas, apart from the Treasury and the business managers of the House.
  It is extraordinary that the Bill has been introduced at such a late stage. As the Minister said in her introductory remarks, the Bill had its genesis partly in the action plan for farming that was drawn up a year ago. We then waited for the rural White Paper, which eventually appeared in November. However, after that, nothing was done to put any proposals into effect. The Government finally got round to publishing the Bill on 16 March and it was introduced in the House, but we have had to wait until now for it to see the light of day. I suspect that we might not be discussing it now had I not asked the Minister for the Environment the other day when it would be debated on the Floor of the House. The right hon. Gentleman realised that it was rather embarrassing for the Government that a Bill that they had introduced purporting to give support to rural areas had not even been debated in this place.
  I shall not labour the point about whether we need primary legislation. I was not convinced by the Minister's reply, which was based on something that we have heard before from this Government—an assertion that the lawyers know best. Our role in this place is to question what Government lawyers say about legislation; we need to be told the reasons for any course of action and consider whether it is right. No doubt, we shall return to that in Committee.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that if a piece of primary legislation states specifically that relief is for a sole business in a community, it is not possible to undo that without primary legislation?
  Mr. Heath: I understand that perfectly well. I did not want to extend the argument as we will have to return to it in Committee, but I question the distinction that is still made between a food store and a general store. The qualification on sole business is on the general store, not the food store. Why does the Minister's point not apply to the public house or the petrol station? The distinction is not a matter for a long debate on Second Reading. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that I am wrong. He will have to establish that to the satisfaction of members of the Committee. Let us have that debate at the appropriate time.
  672
  The Bill does not address the basic inequities of the uniform business rate. Some of us have argued ever since its introduction that it was based on an erroneous premise and was unfair in its application. It is biased against the interests of small businesses, particularly small high street businesses in villages and market towns in areas such as the one I represent, and it benefits large retailers—supermarkets and hypermarkets—which are laughing all the way to the bank because the overhead that the uniform business rate represents reduces the opportunities for competition.
  I would have liked to see a Bill to reform the uniform business rate and make it fairer than the present system. If that is not possible in one leap—and why it should not be, I cannot imagine—perhaps we might at least have had some form of tax allowance for a certain turnover or income in order to take smaller businesses out of the uniform business rate net entirely or to reduce its impact on them. That would have been a fair approach. Instead, the Bill tinkers at the edges to make exceptions piecemeal and on an interim basis. It is unfortunate that we cannot address the basic problem.
  Mr. Evans: Can the hon. Gentleman remind the House whether it is still Liberal Democrat policy to scrap the council tax and business rate and replace them with a varying rate of local income tax throughout the country?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is still our policy that local income tax would replace council tax. We are discussing the uniform business rate, which militates against rural areas and small businesses. It was introduced by the Government whom he supported and its reform is long overdue.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: When I have made some progress, the hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity.
  The problems with the Bill have been outlined by the hon. Member for Ashford. I shall deal first with the aspects relating to agricultural premises. I am greatly in favour of means of support for rural businesses deriving from agriculture. The re-use of agricultural premises in the form of diversification is consistent with what my colleagues and I have been arguing for many years in the context of common agricultural policy reform. We are in favour of support for rural economies and rural societies, rather than simple commodity support. It is important for us to make that move, although the Bill is a very limited part of that process.
  The Bill contains no definition of agricultural premises or of agriculture. It does not purport to address that, as the matter is covered by other legislation, but it is time that we grasped the nettle and stated what agriculture is. Some of the businesses that are currently excluded from the definition of agricultural businesses should be included, because times have moved on.
  I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ashford raised the topic of third-party use, but I am less pleased with the fact that we had no clear answer on the point. I do not read the measure as applying to third-party users. The Minister indicated that it applied to tenant farmers. We knew that.

  673
  The question is whether someone unrelated to agriculture can use the premises and benefit from the relief afforded by the Bill. I am not clear that that is the case.
  Mr. Gray: It is worth repeating that, when I intervened on the Minister or Local Government and the Regions to ask her about the matter, she made it absolutely clear—tomorrow's Hansard will confirm this point—that the relief applied not only to farmers who own their land and to tenant farmers, but to any other business that rents the premises. Thus, a farm could convert a barn into a small office and rent it to an outside interest in industry that would benefit from the reduction in rate relief. I agree that that is not what the Bill says, but I point out that the Minister said that it would have that effect.
  Mr. Heath: I wish that I could rely to the same extent on the Minister's words, but I do not interpret the Bill in the same way. We will have to explore the matter further in Committee to make certain that the Bill achieves the intention that she described.
  Concern was expressed about the five-year expiry period, but the Minister appeared to misunderstand the point that was made. Surely, the question is not whether businesses can benefit from rate relief for longer than five years, but whether a business that wishes to take advantage of rate relief in, say, the fourth year after enactment of the Bill will be subject to a five-year or one-year period of relief. Clearly, the period can be extended by the Government, but that will not impress a bank manager who is presented in the fourth year with a business plan that can extend to only one year. We need clarification and we must press the Government for it. I suspect that they have good intentions, but that they have not written them into the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke about the business of whether diversification is always good or bad and about the wrong uses to which it can be put. I feel strongly that rate relief is an economic and fiscal measure, and not a means of policing environmental and planning considerations. The planning regime must be sufficiently flexible, but also sufficiently robust, to deal with those issues, which should not be the subject of measures such as the Bill.
  I should like to deal briefly with the provisions on food shops. I welcome the principle of extending rate relief to such shops.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The point that I sought to make—obviously, I did not do so with sufficient clarity to get it across to my colleagues—is that, although there comes a moment at which planning laws mean saying yes or no to particular developments, the Bill is meant to support businesses. At some stage, the House will have to decide on the ranges of business that are suitable and unsuitable for rural areas. As we are currently anxious to develop any sort of employment, people are not prepared to confront that question, but it will be a significant problem at some future time.
  Mr. Heath: I understand the hon. Lady's concerns, but I believe that the matter must be determined by local authorities, which must fulfil their planning function in respect of what is appropriate to their local areas. The House cannot determine such matters, but we can set out
  674
  the support that we can offer when a business is determined by the planning authority to be appropriate to an area. Perhaps that is where the hon. Lady and I have a difference of opinion, but it is only slight, as we are dealing with essentially the same point.
  On food shops, we must consider the key issue of the rateable value threshold. I do not think that the £6,000 threshold is appropriate. The matter was the subject of substantial argument in the statutory instrument Committees that have dealt with related issues concerning pubs and petrol stations. It is a matter that has caused some concern in terms of hardship relief, in respect of which there is a great disparity between what is being offered in England and what is being offered in Wales. I think that the Welsh are right to ask for an increased deal.
  On food shops, some basic issues need to be addressed and the Government need to clarify their thinking. We were told that the matter could be reviewed whenever there were revaluations. We have had revaluations since 1977 but have seen no change, despite the fact that the revaluations have mostly been upwards and have often been challenged by businesses that are subject to the business rate. I have no confidence that the threshold will ever move; it will simply stay at a grossly inadequate level.
  Evidence from the shops themselves shows that the level is grossly inadequate. I have a letter from the Association of Convenience Stores, which might be said to know the nature of the business of its members. It argues that, although there are exceptions to the rule, in general, a convenience store needs about £4,000 a week minimum turnover in order to be viable. That is a very different figure from the £6,000 rateable value mentioned in the Bill, which suggests a turnover of less than £1,346 a week. Thus there is a huge disparity between what the Association of Convenience Stores says is a viable level and what the Government say is the maximum allowable. We must get to the bottom of that.
  It is argued that pubs and filling stations are being given an enhanced level of £9,000 because many of them share large premises, but so do many food stores in rural areas.
  Mr. Bercow: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman says about sharing premises with larger outlets. However, as he has just referred to the Association of Convenience Stores, does he accept that in the overwhelming majority of cases, those stores occupy a space of under 3,000 sq ft and, almost invariably, occupy a space of about 2,000 sq ft or less? Will he also factor into the equation in support of his general argument the fact that those stores operate on substantially smaller margins than their big business counterparts?
  Mr. Heath: The latter point is self-evidently the case, and I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's figures on the first point. Although I have no evidence that his figures are correct, I feel intuitively that he is right, so I am grateful for his general support for my proposition.
  Those businesses must cross not only the rateable value threshold, but two other thresholds. First, there is the Government's definition of a rural area. As we know, some rural areas are defined by order of the Secretary of State, while others which happen to be on the periphery of conurbations and which are clearly rural areas, are not defined as such. We have had this debate in terms of the

  675
  hardship funding. It is difficult to stand on the banks of the lower estuary of the Severn, in an entirely rural setting with not a vehicle or house to be seen, and explain to someone—as my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has had to do—that they are not in a rural area because the Secretary of State says so, and simply because of the definitions being used. That anomaly must be dealt with.
  The third threshold is the limit of the population of a settlement to 3,000. I accept that a limit must be set and that 3,000 is towards the upper end of a village size, but in my part of the world we have many small settlements of around that size. Broadly speaking, it is a very rural county, but our population pattern happens to be in settlements of about 3,000 every three or four miles.
  It is a townie's conception of rural life to think that only shops in small villages serve rural populations and are suffering from a downturn in the present crisis. It is principally the shops in the market towns that serve the rural population. That is where those people go to shop, and those are the shops that are feeling the squeeze at the moment.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: This is the key issue for me in the Bill. Is my hon. Friend aware that the "big smoke" in Montgomeryshire—indeed, in midWales—is Newtown, whose population is 11,000? The Bill will be extremely helpful for the shopkeepers there, yet they might in part be excluded because of the limitation that my hon. Friend has described.
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That it exactly the kind of illustration of which we should take careful note.
  Surely it is possible for there to be either an assessment based on local circumstances or a taper of some sort? The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) mentioned the original £8,000 level suggested in the Green Paper. The Government's response to that has, as I understand it, been that 50 per cent, of all small businesses fell into that £8,000 rateable value category. That is not true: it was 50 per cent, of all hereditaments, including telephone boxes and the like. Those were not all genuine small businesses. However, there should be some sort of tapering arrangement to enable a sensible assessment to be made.
  In relation to hot food, I cannot believe that the Government intend to disqualify all the little food shops that happen to have a pasty counter in the corner from benefiting from this relief. However, that is clearly there in black and white in the Bill at the moment. The qualification is not that the business consists
  "wholly or mainly of the sale by retail of food for human consumption".
  Instead, there is a specific exclusion of
  "the supply of food in the course of catering".
  That needs to be clarified. Could a shop with a microwave in the corner that sold a cold sausage roll to a customer, who then put it into the microwave, be disqualified from rate relief? I do not think that that is the Government's intention, but that is what has been written into the Bill, and it needs to be looked at.
  A large element of discretion still forms part of the arrangements. There will still be patchiness across the country. We have already seen that, wherever
  676
  discretionary rate relief applies, some local authorities are able and willing to do a lot to support smaller businesses; some are willing but not able to do so; and some are neither. I am not arguing against local discretion. The Bill will help to provide a bedrock of mandatory relief, but anomalies will still exist between different areas, sometimes over quite a narrow grid. I hope that they will eventually be ironed out, because the people who have the courage to carry on small businesses in rural areas at the moment need all the help that they can get.
  This is an inadequate Bill. It moves in the right direction, but it is not part of the larger package that I would like to see and that we have discussed on many occasions, which would include the interest-free loans that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned. Incidentally, I think that the banks should play a part in providing those loans, perhaps by being responsible for the interest element. I see no need to use Treasury money for that.
  These issues need to be treated with an urgency that the Government have so far failed to display. This is not an urgent measure of the kind that we need, but it is welcome none the less. I hope that it will have a swift passage through the House, but I also hope that it will be followed by something much more substantial that will give real support to the businesses that are failing at the moment and will continue to do so over the next few months.
  5.38 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Napoleon was supposed to have said, "Let me have lucky generals" when he was asked to appoint a particular man to be in charge of his army. In agriculture, perhaps the one question that should be asked is, "Is this farmer lucky?" In my constituency a number of farms have been put through enormous hell—there is no other way of describing it—and have sought to alleviate their condition by moving into some form of diversification. Some of them seem to have suffered simply because they got their timing wrong.
  I welcome the Bill because, perhaps for the first time in my career, British agriculture faces barriers that are genuinely so great and soul destroying that those affected are under tremendous pressure. For most of my working life, I have listened to the moans of farmers on greater and lesser incomes. The common factor, usually in direct proportion to their affluence, is their ability to complain bitterly about the amounts of money that they receive from various sources. I have therefore not always been as sympathetic as I might have been.
  After many years of subsidised farming, however—there have been two different forms of subsidy, but farming has clearly been supported by taxpayers' money—we are paying an enormous price for the growth of agribusiness and damaging methods of farming. It is therefore important to seek any possible means to help farming communities and rural areas to maintain their services and the facilities that we are discussing today.
  The Bill is useful Of course it is possible to argue, as several hon. Members have done, that if one draws a line, someone will be to the right of it and others to the left, and that that creates anomalies. However, anyone who runs a farm shop successfully, for example, in my constituency, competes with my rural butcher in the middle of Nantwich or Crewe. We are therefore not

  677
  immune from the charge that, by helping one rural community, we are damaging people in the same line of business elsewhere.
  The Bill tries to subsidise particular businesses that are under enormous pressure because they provide an essential service. We should be clear about that. The House has not suddenly decided that the whole of agriculture should be reformed, but we realise that village communities cannot exist without shops and schools. Without village communities, there is a rash of gorgeous but empty villages, which incredibly but continually turn into dormitory areas for people who work elsewhere. That is sterile and cannot be supported.
  Many farm shops will experience some difficulties. I have in mind two farm shops in my constituency. I shall do my advertising bit, and say that I hope that anyone in Cheshire will support Snugberry ice cream, which is home made and of excellent quality, and Mrs. Miranda Shufflebottom's best sausages, which I buy on every possible occasion. Those products are of high quality and the shops provide good service. However, the amount of relief for which the Bill provides, although necessary and welcome, is small.
  We must acknowledge that the sort of support that we can give any business is finite, can continue for only a specific amount of time and can provide only temporary aid. We cannot support rural shops without affecting rural towns; we might otherwise distort competition. Vast distortion already exists because many rural shops pay more for their goods wholesale than supermarkets pay retail. If we are to consider methods of supporting rural industries, we should also examine supermarkets' impact on agriculture, buying patterns and subsidies for business. Those considerations are essential because of their effect on the people whom we are discussing.
  Farm diversification is interesting because I suspect farming communities, especially families who have initiative and do not want to be left in an intolerable position, try to diversify. Many diversify into related businesses such as food. I hope that the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about hot food are wrong, because many farm shops will not only sell some heated food, but will try to expand that provision.
  I am thinking in particular of a business that grew out of the destruction of an entire pig herd. It diversified first into butchery, and then into the provision of teas and light refreshment. Presumably, it might not be able to claim relief. That would be unkind and unfair, and would cause the business great difficulties.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Lady makes a good point. The tragedy for that business, and for the excellent Mrs. Shufflebottom's business, is that they will not benefit: only businesses that are fortunate enough to have been established in the last six months will receive the relief. Mrs. Shufflebottom's business, and the other shops that the hon. Lady has described, will therefore be faced with unfair competition.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I think that Miranda Shufflebottom—whose excellent sausages, pies and hams I hope everyone will buy—will sidle in, because I believe that the diversification took place within the specified period.
  I hope that Opposition Members will speed the Bill's progress, and that it will reach the statute book in time for everyone to benefit from the relief. Farm diversification,
  678
  however, can only ever be a subsidiary to agriculture. It is an extension, and a sensible option for most farming units that are thinking about their economics; but it will never be an alternative to agricultural employment or proper control of the countryside.
  There are those who will eternally carp about the Bill, saying that it is not enough, that it does not encompass everyone, and that it makes difficulties for people in villages that could have been dealt with differently. I hope that when that happens my hon. Friends and I will remind the House that the last Government took no action of this kind, and certainly did not give rural communities the support that they should have given.
  Mr. Green: Uncharacteristically, the hon. Lady has overstepped the mark. As has already been said today, the whole concept of rate relief was introduced by the last Government. It is uncharacteristically unfair of the hon. Lady to say that the last Government did nothing. In fact, this Bill is based on legislation passed by them.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am delighted to learn that the Conservative Government did something right. I pay tribute to them: I cannot think of anything else that they did in almost 20 years on which I could even vaguely congratulate them. I am happy to withdraw my remarks, and to say that the carping tone of the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the Bill clearly does not demonstrate that he does not approve of rate support, but—presumably—demonstrates that he does not think we are providing enough money, in enough ways, at the right time.
  There has been a constant leaching of both population and jobs from agriculture, first into small towns and then into cities, throughout my lifetime. Measures such as this, welcome as they are, constitute only a small step, and only a small part of the process of reversing the damage that has been done to the British countryside over not one generation, but several.
  If the House of Commons is serious, it will begin to address the problems in the next Parliament. One thing that it will have to do is face up to the enormous erosion of power represented by the common agricultural policy. It will also have to explain seriously to members of the farming community that if they go out alone into the cold, hard world of total competition, things will be difficult for them unless they receive some form of support—support which will, I hope, be targeted in a new and completely different way.
  In the meantime, I welcome the Bill. It is a small measure, but a good measure. It is going in the right direction. I am glad that we are doing something for villages and shops; I only hope the inevitable arguments that will arise in my constituency, where people will say, "I am on the wrong side of the line by five yards", will be met with sympathy.
  I have been very impressed by the work of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during the current crisis. I have been very impressed by the hard work of Ministry veterinarians and civil servants, many of whom have given up their free time and worked extremely hard. They are not infallible, but they have done a fantastically good job and I thank them for all that they have done.
  I also believe that the type of change that we are proposing is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that the House has to think clearly about where we want United Kingdom agriculture to be in the next 10 years.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. James Gray: It is a great honour and pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I agreed with almost every word that she said, at least until the last moment, when she offered strange praise to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Many Ministry staff have of course worked very hard and done their best in very difficult circumstances. However, I think that most people in the countryside and on farms would agree that the foot and mouth crisis has been characterised by astonishing incompetence, a general shambles—
  Mr. Bercow: And bungling.
  Mr. Gray: Yes. If the Sunday newspapers are to be believed—perhaps they should not be—I understand that that view is shared in high places in the Government, by people who are talking about abolishing MAFF after the general election and replacing it with a department of rural affairs.
  Although the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was quite right sensibly to praise people working in the Ministry, as do I, and particularly to praise veterinarians—who have done a very fine job in very difficult circumstances—I am not sure that senior officials, and more particularly Ministers, have done anything other than a most abominably incompetent job in the crisis. However, assuming that the Minister for the Environment is right and that there will be a public inquiry into the outbreak—although I understand that the Prime Minister believes that there should not be an inquiry—that fact will undoubtedly emerge.
  I very much welcome the fact that the delay to the general election that was caused by the foot and mouth crisis has enabled the Government to introduce this Bill, which will be of some help to them. It has been a matter of great regret to the Opposition that the Government have found no time at all for a debate on the foot and mouth crisis, whereas the Opposition have found two or three days to debate it. Although Ministers have found time to introduce the perfectly obnoxious Bill to ban the innocent sport of foxhunting, they have found no time to support farmers in a debate on foot and mouth.
  I am therefore glad that Ministers have found time for this modest little Bill, and hope that they will find a way of ensuring its smooth passage through the House. However, as Ministers seem to have thought up the Bill last summer, at the Prime Minister's so-called farming summit, it is perhaps to be regretted that it has taken them until the 11th hour of this Parliament to introduce it—in the reasonably certain knowledge that it is unlikely to become law before the general election, unless cross-party co-operation allows it a very swift passage. There may of course be such co-operation. Opposition Members welcome the Bill, although we think that it has come very late in the day and is very modest and ineffectual.
  We should remember that the Bill's proposals are not related at all to foot and mouth disease, but were announced by the Prime Minister at last year's No. 10 Downing street summit, before the crisis broke, with particular reference to the horse industry. The proposals were consulted on last autumn. By November, however, Ministers decided that proposals affecting only the horse industry would be too narrow and should be widened to
  680
  include farming diversification initiatives. The Bill therefore had nothing whatever to do with the foot and mouth crisis, but was a reaction to the underlying agricultural crisis which long predated the foot and mouth crisis—which in turn merely exacerbated an already disastrous situation.
  It is never otiose to remind the House of the precise nature of the crisis in agriculture. Last year, accountants Deloitte & Touche produced an analysis showing that an average-sized farm of 500 acres earning £80,000 in the mid-1990s is now earning only about £8,000. Such farms may also be supporting two or three farm workers. Farm incomes are down by 90 per cent. across the board. In 2000, total income from farming—TIFF, as the MAFF report calls it—had decreased by 27 per cent. There has been a catastrophe in farming that is quite distinct from the problems that have been caused by the foot and mouth crisis.
  It is therefore not surprising that farmers across the nation have been very actively considering diversification. A recent Farmers Weekly survey discovered that more than one third of farmers are currently considering diversifying into activities other than farming. It is very useful that Ministers have introduced the Bill, which one third of farmers will undoubtedly welcome. None the less, as I said and as the figures in the Bill's explanatory notes show, it is a very modest measure. Paragraph 23 clearly states that
  "farm diversification relief is likely to cost the Exchequer something between £16 million and £65 million per annum over the five year period."
  The relief could be as little as £3 million annually, with another £2 million from local authorities.
  As I said, compared with the gigantic crisis in all farming sectors, this is a very modest Bill. There have been huge losses in farming, rural businesses, rural villages and—particularly because of foot and mouth—the tourist industry, but the Exchequer will be providing only £2 million or £3 million a year to deal with them. That is a minute sum. I very much hope that, after this debate, we shall not be hearing the Millbank spin doctors saying, "Haven't the Government been marvellous about it? Aren't they a fantastic lot? They are helping out the countryside in crisis by introducing this business rate relief Bill."
  The Bill is worth £2 million or £3 million annually, which could amount to only a few thousand pounds to each constituency. The Bill is worth almost nothing in terms of money, although it may be worth a little more in terms of its principle, which can be extended later. However, farming is in a massive crisis, and there must be no suggestion whatsoever that the Bill will do anything about that. It takes only a tiny midge nibble at the edge of the current farming crisis.
  It is reasonable to accept that the Bill will bring about some benefit. As a Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions report states, 33 per cent. of farmers' wives say that they make income from activities other than farming. That is a very important statistic. Many farms can survive only because of their very limited diversified activities. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich quite correctly said, farmers can no longer survive only on farming, but make money from renting out cottages, selling cheese in a farm shop or renting out a barn to an associated business. Farms have a chance

  681
  of surviving only because of such limited diversification. However, people can do that only if they own the farms and do not have a mortgage.
  Farming is therefore facing a catastrophe that can be dealt with only by diversification. What have the Government done about it? They could have done many things, such as exempting all farm businesses from business rates, as they have done in relation to agriculture itself. It would have been perfectly sensible and easy for Ministers to say that any business on a farm occupying a previously used agricultural building will be entirely exempt from business rates, and not to limit relief to a five-year period or only to new businesses or to those with a rateable value not exceeding £6,000. Such relief would have been at least a gesture towards assisting agriculture as we know it to survive. Instead, Ministers have presented their very modest proposals which are tied to so many conditions that few of my constituents who are doing their best to diversify will be able to use them.
  Earlier, in reply to an intervention from me, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions caused some confusion which the Minister may wish to clarify when he replies to the debate. From my reading of the Bill, it certainly seems true that the provisions will not apply to people other than the farmer himself or to other businesses that use the farmer's old barns, for example. They are, under no circumstances, allowed this rate rebate. That, however, is not what the right hon. Lady said, and I am keen to have it clarified. What she said, which will appear in Hansard, becomes law, so it is important that if she made a mistake she should admit it.
  My understanding of what the Minister said in answer to an earlier intervention from me was that all businesses will be eligible for this rate relief. As well as the farmers themselves, that includes tenant farmers and those who rent premises from a farmer. That is a very important concession, and I hope that that is what she meant. In Pinkney Park in my constituency, for example, such a concession would be extremely important to the survival of the 20 or 30 businesses that rent small accommodation from the farm. However, I fear that my detailed reading of the Bill suggests that that was an error on the part of the Minister. She may seek to correct it later in the debate. If it is an error, this is a very modest little Bill.
  I want to address the Bill from a particular viewpoint. I declare a non-pecuniary interest, in that I am chairman of an organisation called the horse and pony taxation committee. It was set up some time ago by Sir Adam Butler, the erstwhile Member of Parliament for Bosworth, and then taken on by Lord Cope of Berkeley, the former Member of Parliament for Northavon. The horse and pony taxation committee is an informal committee of this House which seeks to lobby the Government, as the name suggests, on issues of taxes and rates with regard to horses and ponies.
  I am also an unpaid consultant to the British Horse Industry Confederation, the overall body that tries to bring together racing, sporting interests and all other horse interests in its representations to Government. Although it is an unpaid post, I think it none the less important that the House should know that I speak on behalf of the horse industry.
  The horse industry is involved because one of the primary areas of diversification that may be allowed under the Bill will be from farming into equestrian businesses
  682
  of one sort of another. That was acknowledged by the Prime Minister during the farming summit at No. 10 Downing street last year; it then became a consultation paper, examining how equestrian businesses' rating could be helped by a rate rebate for diversification into horse businesses. It was discovered last autumn that that was much too narrow, which is why the Government introduced this rather wider Bill which includes other rural businesses besides horse businesses. I should however like to address the horse industry for a moment, and consider what the Bill's consequences for the industry will be.
  Equestrian businesses, which are thought by some to be a little elitist, or posh, are worth some £2.5 billion a year to the nation. It is an enormous industry, the second largest in the countryside, and is responsible for 150,000 jobs in Britain. One million people own horses in Britain, and 2.4 million people ride horses every year—an extraordinarily large number of people who are, by no means, nobs and toffs: they are ordinary people of all sorts.
  The horse industry is nevertheless in sharp decline. It has been having very real problems over a number of years, for a variety of reasons, and is nearing crisis. Some 272 riding schools have closed since 1999. They are closing at a rate of about 20 per cent. of the total each year. Many have closed during the foot and mouth crisis and are losing an enormous amount of money.
  In 1992, there were 3,016 full-time registered riding schools in Britain. By February 1999, that number had declined to 2,371, and it has gone down further since then. Riding schools are facing a very real problem during the foot and mouth crisis. It is estimated that between 65 and 85 per cent. of all the income earned by riding schools has been lost during the crisis.
  The Bill would enable a farm to open a riding school or to allow some instruction to go on in DIY livery yards, as they are called, and to benefit from a 50 per cent. rate reduction. However, at the end of the farm drive, an established riding school that may have been there for many years would not benefit from that relief. As a result of the Bill, one business would receive 50 per cent. rate relief while an identical business next door would not.
  The consequence, I fear, would be that most existing riding schools would progressively go out of business. They are already in deep trouble and face a whole spectrum of problems, not least those of taxation, the minimum wage, the bureaucracy involved in registering riding schools and a number of other Government measures. The catastrophe of a neighbouring farm being given 50 per cent. business rate relief could mean very severe problems.
  When this measure was announced during the Downing street summit this time last year, the riding school industry's initial reaction was to oppose it lock, stock and barrel, but people such as Michael Clayton of the British Horse Society, myself and others persuaded the riding school industry that if new businesses were at least allowed to be set up on farms, that might be a toe in the door—the thin end of the wedge—and it might eventually lead to business rates on existing riding schools being reduced.
  If the Government care about riding schools, they will either have to consider that or consider not introducing this measure for farms, which every Member would

  683
  regret. The Government must pay particular attention to the specialist case of riding schools, which are facing catastrophe. The Bill would only add to their problems. We persuaded the Association of British Riding Schools not to oppose it lock, stock and barrel in the hope, and on the understanding, that sooner or later the business rate for riding schools would also be reduced.
  Mr. Bercow: I rather fear that the anomalous position that my hon. Friend has eloquently described will be greeted with some reservations, not to say sadness, by the Addington equestrian centre in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend believe that the differential, and the apparently capricious treatment of new businesses and existing enterprises, is attributable to Government folly or to knavery—or to a combination of the two?
  Mr. Gray: Only my hon. Friend could turn a differential between existing riding schools and those that might be created and benefit from the Bill into a choice between folly and knavery. I, like my hon. Friend, suspect that the Government are guilty of folly and knavery. However, I raise the issue because I hope that they are ready to listen to reason. I hope that they will listen to the horse industry and correct the anomaly, demonstrating that they are guilty neither of folly nor of knavery. If we are holding a similar debate this time next year and we find that the closure of riding schools has accelerated quite considerably, it may be a result of the combination of the two. I hope, however, that the Minister will listen carefully to the arguments of the riding school industry.
  The effects of foot and mouth are evident in other areas of the horse industry. The British Equestrian Trade Association, which represents those in the equestrian industry who make saddles, clothes and provide feed, for example, estimated that in March this year its turnover had declined by some £40 million and in April by some £57 million. These industries are not in rural areas but are nearly all in Labour-controlled constituencies in towns. People who make clothing for the riding industry tend to do so in towns, so Labour Members may wish to take an interest in this matter.
  Those industries are being damaged not only by the foot and mouth crisis but by the decline in riding schools and in agriculture in general, as I described earlier. Industries such as riding schools will not be helped by the Bill. Items such as riding boots and riding clothes are often made in Germany and elsewhere on the continent. The Bill will not help the factories here that make those items.
  The Government might like to consider how to help businesses that are equestrian and rural in nature but are not in country areas and may not be covered by the Bill. Racing, livery and hunting yards all face huge problems and none of them will benefit from—and some will be damaged by—the Bill.
  We need to give careful thought to the issues, as the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions said in its response, published in November, to the consultation paper that it issued last year:
  "All those against the scheme gave consistent reasons for their opposition. They expressed the view that the equine industry is currently suffering a decline, with many parts of the country experiencing an over capacity of equine businesses. They felt that
  684
  those currently in business are finding it hard to survive and operate on very low profit margins. They thought the proposed relief would give newly established farm enterprises an unfair economic edge in this tight market and the industry could not sustain any sudden growth that might be generated without widespread closure of existing establishments. They said this would seriously damage the wider rural economy."
  The Department acknowledges that the cut in business rates proposed in the Bill might have serious deleterious effects on existing businesses in the countryside, which will require careful consideration.
  I have outlined the problems that the Bill might cause, and I shall now focus on possible solutions. One obvious solution lies in the zero rating of farms and agricultural businesses. Equestrian businesses are rated in full, and many of us have lobbied for years for that situation to be changed. The Bill will give relief only to new businesses with a rateable value of less than £6,000, but some livery yards and riding schools are larger and, of course, are more than six months to a year old, and so would not benefit.
  It is a strange anomaly that buildings used for heavy horses for agricultural use and for race horses kept for breeding use receive rate relief, yet buildings housing other kinds of horses used for riding, hunting or any other legitimate purpose receive no rate relief. That was the result of a decision by the House of Lords in, I believe, 1987. It was said at the time that the decision about whether to allow rate relief depended on the nature of the animal. Therefore, a horse bred and kept to be eaten attracts rate relief as an agricultural animal, but a horse designated for riding does not. Curiously, a sheep that is kept not to be eaten but to be shorn does attract rate relief.
  The logical approach would be to give 100 per cent. rate relief to farmers for using buildings and land for the spectrum of equestrian purposes, as it is given for any other agricultural business. All horse activities should be reclassified as agricultural, which almost happened in 1987 but was blocked by the House of Lords decision. At this difficult time for farming and the horse business, that would be the sensible approach. That point was made forcefully by Mr. Owen Tebbs, who serves with me on the horse and pony taxation committee and advises the Thoroughbred Breeders Association on tax matters, to the DETR:
  "If the government wishes to encourage farmers into new fields of farming activity it should remove completely the obstacles in terms of planning and rates which prevent farmers from breeding horses to the point of sale."
  He said that
  "there is no justification for penalising farmers from conducting what can only be regarded logically as a normal farming activity—the breeding and rearing of horses to the point of sale."
  If the Government, who seem very pleased with their little Bill, wish to correct the anomaly that I have described, the easy way to do so would be to designate all horse businesses as agricultural activity and thereby exempt them from business rates altogether. The cost would be small, compared with the losses experienced in the countryside today, but the benefit to farmers would be huge. In North Wiltshire, for example, most farms are small family businesses of 200 or so acres, with perhaps 120 to 150 milking cows and beautiful Cotswold stone farmhouses. Such farmers would benefit greatly from the

  685
  ability to convert their farms into horse businesses, if only they had zero business rates, and there would be huge demand for their services if they did so.
  Mr. Bercow: Once again, my hon. Friend is on to an extremely pertinent point. Does he agree that in addition to the advantage that the universality of relief that he commends would provide, a simple and universal system would save time and expense because businesses would no longer need to study the issue in detail and employ external professional advisers to determine whether they were eligible for relief? That would be a material advantage to such businesses, the overwhelming majority of which are small.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes an astute point. Such businesses are already over-burdened by bureaucracy, and puzzled and confused by regulations. From the Government's point of view, it would also remove the need to create so many regulations and fool around with Bills such as the one before us. It would be clear and straightforward to say that horse businesses are exempt from business rates, and the only downside that I can imagine would be a cost to the Exchequer. If that is the Government's argument against the change, they should produce figures to demonstrate the exact cost. I suspect that the cost would be small, because at present no business rate is charged on a farm. If it converted to a horse business, no business rate would still be charged. It would involve a marginal differential between business rates. The cost would be zero but the advantage to farmers would be huge.
  I hope that the Minister will also address one small anomaly concerning private stables. If a private stable is attached to its owner's house, it is exempt from business rates. If it is apart from the house by even a very small distance, business rates are payable. There is no logic in that, because it is a private yard and no business is involved at all. The mere fact that the loose box is situated a short distance across a yard attracts business rates. The Minister may wish to consider correcting that anomaly.
  Those concerns were brought to the Government's attention by the horse and pony taxation committee, which I chair, in its Budget submissions for this year, for last year and for the previous year. The Minister for the Environment held a meeting to discuss the matters fully—as we hoped—with Michael Clayon, the chairman of the British Horse Society and of the British Horse Industry Confederation, and Anthony Wakeham, the director-general of the British Equestrian Trade Association. The purpose was to discuss the consequences of the foot and mouth crisis on the horse industry, as well as the general malaise in the industry even before the crisis.
  The horse industry was extremely disappointed by the outcome of the meeting. The BHS's press statement, issued on 24 April, read:
  "Keen disappointment has been expressed by the British Horse Society and the British Equestrian Trade Association that the Minister for the Environment, Mr Michel Meacher, made no mention of the plight of the horse industry in his latest report to Parliament on the work of the Rural Task Force on the Foot and Mouth crisis."
  Some 2.4 million people ride horses, and the horse industry is an essential part of rural life, but the Minister made no mention of it. He did not refer to specific measures to help the horse industry or to his meeting with the BHS and the British Horse Industry Confederation.
  686
  In that context, we are particularly disappointed that the Minister for the Environment failed to mention bridleways, which are not opening, although footways in the countryside are. Once again, the horse industry, which is hugely important to the countryside in general, has been ignored.
  It is a shame that the Government pay so little attention to the horse industry, which can easily be dismissed as somehow rich or somehow self-sufficient. Across the nation—not only in the country, but often in suburban areas—the reality is that horse businesses are experiencing huge difficulty, and the terms and content of the Bill run a significant risk of making that difficulty a great deal worse. It is too little, too late and may be rather damaging.
  In contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), from the Front Bench, referred to what the incoming Conservative Government will do with effect from 8 June. I welcome the fact that, unlike the Minister for the Environment, who so notably failed to listen to the horse industry, my hon. Friend has done so with some care, announcing that
  "riding has long been part of rural life."
  Indeed, it is an essential part of the countryside. He continued:
  "The next Conservative Government will exempt new and existing equestrian businesses from business rates."
  There was no talk of new businesses, no talk of small ones, no talk of exceptions—we will simply exempt equestrian businesses from business rates.
  We will also relax planning restrictions that prevent farm buildings from being converted to equestrian premises. Such conversions represent a huge problem and planning restrictions are such that they are difficult to achieve. Anyhow, there is no incentive to convert, because of the lack of business rate relief.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Are we being told that, no matter what the size of a building, no matter what its facilities and no matter where it was sited, planning permission would be given for conversion to a riding school?
  Mr. Gray: No, that is not what I said. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, because I am happy to clarify my remarks. Of course, consideration would have to be given to the size of the riding school, where it was sited and in what circumstances restrictions would be relaxed. Planning restrictions represent an enormous hurdle to overcome and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford has proposed that they should be very much relaxed.
  I would happily have given time to discussing many other measures, but hon. Members have referred to the question of village shops and rate relief for businesses in areas such as Lacock in my constituency. I welcome those provisions, which will make it a great deal easier for such businesses to survive the crisis through which they are going, but my particular interest is the horse industry. I hope that the House will forgive me for having concentrated my efforts largely on that.
  The Government have consistently ignored the industry, although there has been talk of having a Minister for the horse. We think that there should be one. It is

  687
  unclear which Department is responsible for the horse and there are a significant number of anomalies in the way in which horse businesses are rated.
  Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point, because it is not clear which Ministry is responsible for recreational horse riding. There is a clear need for the Government to develop a strategy encompassing not only the points that he has made about the status of businesses, but the provision of an adequate bridleway network to enable people to ride horses safely in the countryside. That would achieve a bonus not only in recreational terms, but in tourism terms.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. When we come to power, I hope to persuade my right hon. Friends to establish within a Department a clear responsibility for the horse. I suspect that that Department will be the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if it still exists, although I hear on the grapevine that it is about to be broken into pieces. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or a department of rural affairs might take charge and a Minister would have clear responsibility for the horse.
  The hon. Gentleman's point about bridleways is extremely good. The recent Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 did not address bridleways at all satisfactorily and it is important that we have a go at producing a sensible network across the nation.
  The horse industry has been ignored by the Government and, to a degree, by previous Governments, but the Conservative party has committed itself to addressing it sensibly and effectively when it comes to power. A central part of our consideration must be the way in which it pays business rates. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on committing the party to giving 100 per cent. rate relief to new and existing equestrian businesses. I call on the Government to match that.
  6.25 pm
  Ms Candy Atherton: I am grateful for the chance to take part in the debate. Last week, I hoped to participate in the rural economy debate, which should have been the parliamentary equivalent of the Radio 4 programme "Just a Minute", with no repetition, deviation or hesitation. Many Members wanted to take part, so that is how I thought the debate would go. Sadly, far too many Members did not follow the rules of the game and spoke for far too long, so I was unable to take part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I know.
  I am pleased to take part in tonight's debate and speak in favour of the Bill, which is relevant to the broader discussion and to my constituency in Cornwall, which represents part of the rural economy. I am one of the Labour Members with a constituency that encompasses coastal towns, former industrial areas and rural areas. There is an interesting symbiosis between them, and I am honoured and privileged to represent such a diverse range of communities.
  We all accept that the unforeseen outbreak of foot and mouth has put great strain on rural areas, farmers and tourism in my area in particular. Worryingly, there are
  688
  specialist businesses whose plight has been worsened, given their lack of a voice or group to represent them. Throughout the crisis, I have been in contact with a local shop selling equestrian equipment—this might interest the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)—whose owner has built up the business over some 20 years only to see it hit with the body blow of foot and mouth. All the local horse shows were cancelled just after she had purchased the prizes and the equipment for this season.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises that identifying businesses that need assistance is not easy, but a case must be made for such businesses, which, by their very nature, are hit so hard—they do not have the might of the National Farmers Union to put their case for them. Of course, that is the job of their local MP, so I ask my hon. Friend please to bear in mind the fact that isolated shops and businesses have been affected by the disease. Their concerns and the real threat to their existence have hardly been heard in the Chamber.
  I am also concerned for recently diversified farms, which are suffering the most in my area. In particular, those farmers who have taken the plunge, converted their barns and considered different land usage such as camping—often, they are the younger ones—are having difficulties. I hope that the Bill will assist some of them.
  Perhaps the Government will go further and look to those farmers who have not sat on their hands and said, "We won't do anything to help ourselves. We'll just keep getting the subsidies." Some have established tourism businesses, particularly in my part of the world, but they find themselves unable to open them because they have been hit by foot and mouth. They cannot allow tourists on to their farms, let alone invite them to come.
  The county of Cornwall is, thank God, only mildly affected by foot and mouth—mostly in the east, adjacent to Devon. We all hope that it will stay that way. Of course, as any Cornish man or woman would say, Cornwall's biggest problem has always been that it is next to Devon. Given the plight of our dearest neighbour, many in Cornwall are justifiably worried about the knock-on effect on the south-west economy at large, particularly our all-important tourism industry.
  It was a relief, particularly for me, to read in last Monday's Western Morning News—the newspaper has regularly featured in debates in the Chamber in recent weeks—that the Falmouth Beach hotel has announced record winter bookings. The hotel was a magnificent 77 per cent. full between November and March. Although foot and mouth had an initial effect on bookings, the situation still looks good and that bodes well. That was a great boost for the town and the county. Over the Easter period, our tourist attractions were well attended and the queues in my patch stretched for miles. There are several reasons for that. One is that it is a sign that the efforts of many—from Ministers to film stars—in spreading the word have borne fruit. They are to be thanked for that.
  In the past month I have welcomed my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to Cornwall. Like many others, they have joined me in putting out the message that Cornwall remains the country's No. 1 tourist attraction and destination. We have a lot to shout about. For example, those hon. Members who have not been to the fantastic Eden project have not lived. Get down there,

  689
  enjoy it and keep going back. It will be an emerging and growing attraction. The maritime museum will also be great for attracting visitors.
  In Cornwall, finding new ways to attract tourists is the way forward, and support from my hon. Friend the Minister's Department and from the regional development agencies is critical to that. We all know that this country has enjoyed a period of sustained growth in recent years, which benefits every region—whether urban or rural—and every sector of the economy. That is why unemployment has gone down dramatically in my constituency since 1997.
  There are deep-rooted problems and reasons for other concerns. The future of post offices and other shops is an obvious example. Villages have had varying fortunes as people change their work patterns and shop in supermarkets. That puts more pressure on village shops. We all know the dangers of that. A visit to some areas of France highlights the risks of a rural economy caught in decline. They include depopulation, empty buildings and the predominance of second homes and British number plates in the Dordogne. I do not want that for Cornwall, and it can be avoided.
  The Government's rural White Paper gave a valuable indication of the way forward for villages and towns alike. The Bill is another step in the implementation of that blueprint for the future. However, we must not stop there. Structural economic change can be both positive and negative, and we would all agree that there are rarely quick and easy solutions. We must look to innovation within the rural economy and to local branding, information technology and—in Cornwall's case—renewable energy. Just because Cornwall currently lags behind other parts of the country, we must ensure that it does not remain so as other areas move forward.
  Difficulties in the rural economy are often most acute in the most rural areas. Equally, the effect of foot and mouth on businesses may follow that pattern. The smallest most vulnerable businesses may suffer the most. However, it is important to realise that they are also the businesses most vital to the preservation of village and rural life.
  Soon after the outbreak began, I conducted a snap survey of local businesses. Some reported, as borne out by the Employment Service, that there had been little effect on employment so far. However, it was no surprise to learn that the effect had been most noticeable in the businesses that organise walking tours, supply bikes for hire or use the coastal footpaths and the open country. They will be helped by the news that the county council will open another 50 miles of the coastal footpath on Wednesday and that the Government have made extra funds available for signing, fencing and the extra staff needed to enable the county council to open the path. No other measure will help the rural economy in Cornwall to overcome the effects of foot and mouth more than the opening of footpaths. Every member of the tourism industry whom I have met in the past two weeks has said the same thing over and over again: "Please open our coast paths."
  I have also argued to Ministers that there is a strong case for a job or wage subsidy in the tourism industry. If a hotel or pub recognises that it has problems in the short term and threatens to lay off staff and to close down, the money for unemployment benefit or the jobseeker's
  690
  allowance could be used to keep people in employment—perhaps with an element of training—while keeping the business open. I believe that Ministers are warming to such a proposal, and I have stressed to them that it is one way of keeping the rural economy and the tourism industry going. It will also help to keep people in work while offering them proper training.
  A number of meetings have been held in villages across my constituency to discuss the rural White Paper. Overall, it has been well received by people, no matter from which political party they come. At last, the Government have looked right across the board at the issues affecting rural areas. Villages are evolving and they are very different from the image that some who live in the M25 corridor might have of them. Many people now work from home, using new technologies, and others commute into local towns and cities. As people shop weekly in supermarkets rather than daily in the village store, that affects local shops. Fewer and fewer people work on the land, and the Government and communities need to wake up to that fact. This Bill reflects the evolving and changing countryside.
  Last week, my mother used our local post office in St. Day in my constituency as a bank, paying in money and changing coins. She did not travel into a local town and that saved her money. More of us need to follow that example and support our village stores and post offices. I am often struck by the fact that calls to save post offices are often made by those who—as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said, in what I was sad to hear may be his last speech in the House—are least likely to have set foot in a post office for many years.
  I have given a cursory outline of several issues relevant to the debate and of the broader issues that affect farmers in the Camborne area and Cornwall. However, those issues form part of a much wider debate and, like many, I believe that if there is one silver lining to the awful foot and mouth disease, it may be that we shall finally have a proper and comprehensive debate on the future of rural areas and of farming in particular. I strongly urge Ministers to ensure that, after the election, we have time on the Floor of the House for such a comprehensive debate.
  Members of the farming community in my area have appreciated the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of his Department and they have asked me to relay their thanks to everyone involved. They tell me that they want the Government to send a clear message about what they want from the fanning community, and that is not too much to ask. If the Government do not want farmers to use subsidies, the farmers say, "Fine." However, they want to hear from the Government and do want to have to second guess their intentions. After BSE, foot and mouth and the other problems facing rural areas, people who live in the towns and who buy from the supermarkets and from farmers' markets are now saying, "Times have got to change. What are the Government going to do?" As other hon. Members have said, the Bill is a step in the right direction. Although we have a long way to go, I am pleased to support it because it makes a start.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Michael JackThe hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) mentioned the radio programme "Just a Minute". I fear that my remarks

  691
  may take a little longer than that, but her comment triggered in my mind questions as to what the cast of "The Archers" would think of this Bill. With the thought that all sorts of rural developments could be encouraged by rating relief, I imagine that Linda Snell would be organising a protest group against them. Whether Brian, on his big farm, would have enough money to diversify given the loss of Borchester Mills is a burning question in the minds of "The Archers" scriptwriters. Would the Bill induce Pat and Tony to open a second organic food shop on Bridge farm? Undoubtedly, the Government's spin doctors will be considering those questions very carefully in trying to influence the scriptwriters of "The Archers" in promulgating the new-found message of hope that the Government want to come from what is palpably a very modest measure indeed.
  This debate, not unnaturally, has included matters connected with foot and mouth disease, but other hon. Members have rightly reminded the House that the Bill is built on proposals made by the previous Conservative Government in recognising the need to pay attention to the viability of businesses in rural Britain and to reduce their rates. To that extent, I am glad that the Government have followed the lead set by the previous Conservative Government, as they have done in so many other ways. The fact that we are debating the Bill is useful, and I certainly would not disagree with it, but let us have a little look at some of the measures because there are some specific points to tease out as well as some more general points to be made.
  I wonder how much new diversification is available in the farming community, because especially in those areas affected by foot and mouth disease, and whatever moneys might be available, the problem is one not of diversification but of survival and it involves restocking the farms and dealing with the consequential losses of having no farm income for the next six, nine or even 12 months.
  I listened carefully to the remarks on the potential for further diversification. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) mentioned that possibly a third of farmers were considering diversification, but when I look around in my constituency—Fylde in Lancashire—hardly an original barn is left to be diversified; they have already been turned into houses or some form of rural enterprise. I wonder about the physical opportunities to develop diversified businesses.
  An aspect that has not been mentioned is the fact that diversification is a great deal easier for those who own the freehold of their farms than it is for tenants. In considering businesses and new ventures, those tenants who do not have a farm business tenancy would, in the first instance, have to seek the agreement of their landlords—the principal landowners—and that may involve some very great difficulties. As we consider farming generally and those areas affected by foot and mouth specifically, I suspect that the tenants will suffer the most, and that, sadly, they will benefit the least from these proposals.
  From where will the money for diversification come? Sadly, the Bill does not give much hope that the Government are trying to encourage new sources of capital to enter agriculture to take up the opportunity of diversification. In my speech on Second Reading of the Finance Bill, I suggested, for example, some changes to
  692
  the qualifying terms of the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme that would enable new money, with the limited tax advantage already conferred on urban investment, to be visited on rural investment. Sadly the Government have not yet responded, but I pay tribute to the Paymaster General, who very kindly said that she would consider those proposals. If the Government are truly interested in diversification, they will have to consider such issues.
  We must focus on an important detail in the notes on clauses that accompany the Bill, and I make no apology for returning to an issue that my hon. Friends have mentioned. Paragraph 7 states:
  "Therefore, farmers face a new rate liability when moving any of their property from agricultural to non-agricultural uses. This is perceived as a barrier to diversification into non-agricultural activity."
  Those very words raise the question of who is the beneficiary of the proposal. The assumption in the Government's own words is that farmers will benefit, yet the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) talked about the use of new technology in the rural environment. She was right to do so because those businesses that, for example, can deal with information technology—data processing, or whatever—may find farm environments very attractive given the lack of rates under the Bill, but will they necessarily be able to take up the advantage, as clause 1 does not make it clear who will be the beneficiary?
  As other hon. Members have said, the Minister suggested that third parties may be able to help, but I hope that, in winding up the debate, the Under-Secretary will make it absolutely clear who will be the beneficiaries of the proposals. Certainly, new forms of agricultural business partnership may well represent the way forward, and farm business tenancies, which I had the pleasure to bring into law, may well find a further boost. They have been popular, they have been taken up, and they provide certain opportunities for tenanted farms to diversify. The people who have adopted such leases will be anxious to ensure that new forms of partnership in the rural areas can be developed.
  The term "rural settlement" has been used in relation to clause 1, and I want to consider the important issue of what is rural. Coincidentally, in my mail today was a letter from my local authority, Fylde borough council. The letter, which was written in the context of the foot and mouth disease outbreak, is headed "Designation of 'Rural' Areas". Fylde borough council has written to the head of the rural development division, Mr. Henry Cleary—who may be known to the Under-Secretary—to debate what is rural. The letter was written by the acting chief executive. In fact, he is now the deputy chief executive; I had forgotten that Fylde has appointed a new chief executive.
  Mr. Bramhall wrote to Mr. Cleary stating:
  "Fylde Borough has an area 16501 hectares, and a population of 75000. Nearly 60 per cent. of the population are concentrated in the narrow coastal strip at Lytham St Annes, while another 15 per cent. inhabit the small adjacent towns of Kirkham and Wesham."
  He points out that 10 per cent. of the population effectively live in what are defined as the urban areas. The land use of the borough of Fylde effectively shows that it is a rural area, but we do not qualify under the designation used for the foot and mouth rate reliefs because we have been judged not to be rural. Colleagues

  693
  have talked about rural settlements of 3,000—plus or minus one person—on cliff edges being included in the measure, but I am not certain whether parts of Fylde that would consider themselves to be entirely rural would benefit from the proposals. I shall send the Under-Secretary a copy of the Fylde borough letter, and perhaps he will be kind enough to acknowledge that he will consider those concerns, which are important to Fylde borough council.
  Paragraph 10 of the notes on clauses refer to
  "a rural settlement of no more than 3,000."
  The Under-Secretary will, no doubt, tell us that that phrase comes from some well-defined source, but I am not clear about what will happen during the proposal's five years. Will there be any creep? Will people consider the figure of 3,000 as of now, or will such an area not qualify if another baby is born there? I am sure that that is not the case, but there is a lack of clarity about how the proposal will work and it is time that that was sorted out.
  As has been said in referring to the definitions of the rate relief, the mandatory relief will be limited to £6,000, whereas the discretionary relief will reach a rateable value limit of £12,000. Again, I am intrigued about how such numbers and limits are set, but, like other contributors to the debate, I am worried that councils such as the hard-pressed borough of Fylde—if it was to be included—would not necessarily have enough money in their budgets to enable them to take advantage of the discretionary relief. What work has the Under-Secretary done to assess whether rural local authorities are actually able to take up the opportunities proposed in the Bill? The proposals will be hollow indeed if local authorities find it difficult to take advantage of the flexibility of the measure.
  I was also intrigued by clause 3. It gave rise to an interesting debate in which the Government say, in effect, that in order to ensure that all the key retail outlets in a rural village are able to benefit from the proposals, a business will qualify if it is "wholly or mainly" for
  "the sale by retail of food for human consumption".
  Questions about the nature of petrol retailing go through my mind. Nowadays, many petrol stations contain a shop, a bakery or a newsagent—one can buy numerous other things there. Such businesses already attract some rate relief because of their importance to the rural community, but there seems to be substantial doubt as to whether a diversified food business will quality.
  If the spirit and purpose of the Bill is to safeguard, develop and sustain the villages of rural Britain—or certainly of England and Wales—why are we nit-picking in that way? Why do we not recognise premises that are central and important to the well-being of a village community? If necessary, we should turn to local authorities and ask them which businesses are important. Why do we not ask parish councils? They know their area; they know which businesses are important. It would have been nice if there had been a little local consultation to deal with these nit-picking points in the Bill.
  The clause contains the phrase
  "excluding confectionery and excluding the supply of food in the course of catering".
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions suggested that if the premises had a few seats for people to have a cup of coffee and a bun, that business would be
  694
  included. However, I have visited places in the Lake district where three old cottages were knocked together—one bit is the post office, one bit is the cafe and one bit is mainly for food sales—
  Ms Armstrong: Those businesses already qualify.
  Mr. Jack: That may be so, but there will be grey areas. If I am wrong, I shall be the first to thank the Minister for clarifying the point. However, we have raised the matter in this debate because the framing of the Bill lacks clarity.
  Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, due to that confusion in the Bill, enormous discretion will be given to the people who will decide whether businesses qualify when the measure is enacted? There could be arguments—businesses could be allowed to benefit in one area, while in another area identical businesses might be excluded. That will lead to even more confusion.
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—my near neighbour in Ribble Valley—for that observation. He understands, from the many small villages in his constituency, what such questions could mean. If we are wrong, I shall be the first to thank the Minister for clarifying the matter. Perhaps the time is right to produce a simple, easy-to-read booklet of guidance on the whole subject. That might save the Minister's correspondence unit time, energy and effort—if nothing else—in replying to all our letters about who will be included and who will be out. I should certainly be grateful if some thought could be given to pulling together the various definitions of what is rural; sometimes, I struggle to find out whether parts of my constituency are included under various schemes.
  I come to the wider context of the Bill. The National Farmers Union, in its representation to Members, rightly drew our attention to the anomaly that the Bill favours new, not existing, diversified businesses. If we are trying to safeguard the rural economy, that issue must be addressed. I support those hon. Members who have raised the five-year period and I am glad that the Government will review that carefully.
  Much has been said about diversification of the rural economy and the fact that the activity of agriculture is suffering in that regard. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is no longer in her place, but I want to qualify some of her remarks. The moaning has not come from the whole agricultural sector, nor is the whole sector subsidised. The poultry, pig and horticulture industries receive no direct subsidy, but they, too, are as interested in the measures as the subsidised sector.
  The Library document rightly reminds us, under the heading "Factors limiting diversification", that:
  "Finance is almost always important in diversification, since investment is almost inevitable".
  One of the issues that we shall have to address—although perhaps not directly through the Bill—is from where new investment in agriculture will come. As hon. Members point out when they comment on the lack or decline of farm incomes during the past few years, the amount of new investment capital in agriculture is significantly limited.

  695
  Table 6 of the English rural development plan—a weighty document—lays out some of the help that the Government purport to be able to give over the next seven years to enable rural Britain to take advantage of some of the provisions in the Bill. According to the table, investment in agricultural holdings in 2002 will, in effect, be only £1.5 million; in the following year, it will be £2.3 million. Those amounts are for the whole of British agriculture.
  In 2002, there will be £6.3 million for the improved processing and marketing of agricultural products—the type of diversified activity that might receive assistance under clause 1; in 2003, the amount will be £8 million. In 2002, £1.8 million will be allocated for the encouragement of tourism; there will be £3.6 million in 2003.
  When we hear talk of £1.6 billion over seven years, the English rural development plan sounds wonderful, but break it down into its constituent parts and we find a pretty thin diet—a limited amount of jam is being spread thinly through the rural economy to enable diversification to take place.
  I conclude my remarks with an observation on another key barrier on which much work is needed. The rural White Paper produced by the previous Conservative Government addressed planning in the countryside. In fairness, the Labour Government have also done so. However, there is great feeling, especially among people who moved to rural Britain because they seek an idyllic life style, and opposition to substantial development. Development on farms will excite a large number of people.
  It is clear that although planning guidance has been changed, we have not yet dealt with all the barriers to developments on farms. If genuinely new enterprises are to develop, there may be a lack of fit between the rural idyll and the needs of the farm. For example, access is one such issue. If an IT-based industry is developed within the curtilage of a farm, using redundant buildings, and 20 or 30 people use cars to go to those premises, one can imagine the concerns that will be expressed in villages.
  I could continue, but such practical issues may act as a constraint on the type of diversification that the measure is supposed to address. I very much hope that when the election is out of the way, we shall return to a full, frank and public debate on and discussion of all these matters. It is important that we maximise the potential of the rural parts of the United Kingdom, just as we try to do in the urban context through inner-city regeneration. This is the equivalent challenge to inner-city regeneration; it just happens to be taking place in the countryside. The same difficult issues present themselves there as in urban Britain. Although I welcome the measure, it is but a small drop in what will be a big ocean when it comes to reviving the rural economy in this country.
  7 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate and apologise for not having being present for as much of it as I should have liked. Unfortunately, it clashed with an interesting scientific exposé of bovine tuberculosis which is ever
  696
  present in my constituency, and the next problem after foot and mouth. There is nothing new in our having to face up to animal diseases.
  In our discussion on how businesses can be helped, we must get right the context within which they operate. The Bill is not an isolated measure; it is part of a raft of Government initiatives. Given that the Government are sometimes criticised for not knowing what is going on in rural Britain, or for not representing it, the hard and fast way in which they have introduced many different policies deserves close examination and hearty congratulations. The rural White Paper is an important document in its own right, and several initiatives have sprung from it. The Bill is not necessarily one of them, but we must start from the perspective that it is integral to it. The action plan for farming is central to the debate. Although we are not dealing with the immediate crisis, we are concerned about the way in which we can help farms and alternative businesses in rural Britain.
  Some issues that I want to raise have already been mentioned; others remain to be highlighted. We must get the Bill right because businesses will need to understand it and call on the help that it offers. I welcome the Government's clarification of diversification as it relates to farming and other businesses in the rural economy. We need to build on that; we cannot wait for the market to make it happen. Intervention is necessary, and some of us want to see more of it. That policy can be delivered by direct Government support or by using the tax or rating system to encourage new businesses to set up, which hopefully will help existing businesses to flourish.
  What I like so much about the Government's approach in the White Paper is that, rather than just talking about the need to help rural industry, they are providing it with resources. That was lacking in the previous Government's attempts. The Government are a decentralising Administration. They are giving resources to the first level of government—parishes and towns. Various schemes are under way, including the parish initiative for transport and the more effective use of resources to bring businesses into operation locally. In addition, we are starting to believe that we can lay down a minimum service provision. That links up with the Government's policy on retention and protection of rural sub-post offices. As I have said before, we need to bring that together and recognise how crucial transport is to rural Britain. We must provide genuine alternatives to the car so that people can get about if they cannot or do not want to drive.
  I welcome the recognition of the important role played by tenant farmers in the rural economy and the difficulties that they face. We must give them particular help. Clearly, that has to relate to the nature of their tenancies. We also have to consider how we can encourage them and give them the wherewithal to diversify so that they can run other businesses alongside their farming activities. I hope that, as it develops, the Small Business Service will play a major part in that by giving advice and financial help. The countryside group, which was set up by the Gloucestershire development agency, is beginning to have an important intermediary role. It is helping to use the rural development regulations to find money that can be invested in different ways. Not only does that work at a county level, but it could be successful as part of a more decentralised structure. I believe that the organisation will take on other roles.

  697
  My only criticism of the Government is in relation to their approach to early retirement. That nettle will have to grasped, as I have said openly before. I welcome the gradual movement towards that. I understand the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about pumping money into supporting dead weight—I do not use that term pejoratively, but in an economic sense. I realise that it would be better to front-end the money and ensure that it is provided effectively. However, an industry with an average age of 58 does not have the best future ahead of it. We must do something about that.
  The Bill is part of a cohesive policy. We should not separate different aspects of that. As the official Opposition said, there is a danger of setting business against business if we do not handle the problem sensitively and sensibly. I hope that the Bill will help us to consider how we can keep shops in operation. They need to be able to source locally and get supplies from local abattoirs. Perhaps greater economies of scale will allow them to keep the sub-post office going. That could be achieved as part of the ratings system. Those are the very costs that businesses want to reduce and I am sure that we can help them to do that.
  We are working through the problems created by the difficulties of the foot and mouth crisis. However, we must move beyond the specific help that is being offered and consider a cohesive way in which we can rebuild the food chain and offer services that do not rely purely on subsidy. Those businesses need to function in their communities in the long term so that people are willing and able to buy into them. It is important that they have a future, not only for the local communities, but, of course, for the people who run them.
  I am always depressed by the fact that when the official Opposition have to find money for rural regeneration—whether it be additional help for rate relief or grants—their answer is to get it by the emasculation of the regional development agencies. I say categorically that if they want a complete vote loser in my constituency, that is it. The regional development agency is pumping in £90 million to overcome the decline of one key industry in Dursley in my constituency. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but they should bear that fact in mind when the official Conservative candidate tries to defend their policy. They must understand that the local rural economy is dependent on the regeneration of that site and it will be greatly damaged if we get rid of the RDA without giving it a second thought. There is a total misunderstanding of the relationship between small communities in isolated rural areas and the market towns on which they depend. The whole point of RDAs is that they provide seedcorn investment to market towns, which creates employment for people in surrounding villages. Getting rid of the RDAs would be vandalism. They are supported not only by Labour Members but by businesses and communities who see the investment that they make. I hope that the official Opposition will reconsider, even at this late stage, their decision to find the money that they need by abolishing the RDAs.
  I have become increasingly aware of how foot and mouth disease directly affects local authorities, which have a key role to play, because, as many hon. Members have said, they know the problems experienced by businesses and communities in their area. Even if we provide help from the centre, largely through mandatory
  698
  rate relief, local authorities have to be allowed a certain amount of discretion. That is the right approach, but we must not leave it to local authorities to find all the funds because that will cause them difficulty.
  On Friday, I will meet the officers of my local authority to talk about the implications of its funding relief for businesses suffering in the foot and mouth crisis. I am sure that central Government will be able to find methods of making additional finance available, but unless we put together a comprehensive package for the rural economy, and not only for the foot and mouth crisis, local authorities will be in a difficult position. It has been said many times that that can only result in higher council tax charges and, potentially, a conflict between methods of raising money and of spending it. We must work with local authorities in rural areas to put in place a funding stream that works properly.
  We must also consider how we value property and lock in place rate support. I know that the notes accompanying the Bill are merely explanatory, but they say that there is not expected to be much call for rate revaluation tribunals. A clear way to provide substantive help would be to reduce rateable values when businesses—particularly, but not exclusively, in rural areas—get into trouble. My experience is that it may be a long time before a tribunal hears an appeal, and if a business was in difficulty, a reduction in the rateable value could make a substantial difference. This is a question not only of resources but of people, and we need to involve them so that tribunals can be held as soon as possible.
  I welcome the Bill, which shows that the Government are in tune with the help that is needed by our rural economy. Individual businesses are crucial to that economy. We need to keep shops and small firms operating, and the Bill will help us to do so. Clearly, it will be subject to further improvement. When the Government are re-elected, they should build on community regeneration, which is also crucial. With that in mind, I am sure that we will send the Bill on its way, having improved it, and put in place the rural support that is needed.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Owen Paterson: This is the first debate on the countryside that the Government have held since the foot and mouth crisis began. We have had three such debates in Opposition time and we have had statements from the Government, but we have not had a full day's debate, and that is appalling. The problem concerns not only farming but the whole rural economy.
  I had a meeting with my county council chief in the early days of the crisis, when I also met the chief executive. In Shropshire, 12 per cent. of the population is engaged, directly or indirectly, in farming activities and 15 per cent. is engaged in tourism and related industries. I went to a crisis conference in Telford. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and I were the only MPs present, but 200 people came along at short notice to stress the immediate crisis that they are facing.
  The Government set up the taskforce, but before that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport came to the Chamber to make a statement. I had already had letters and phone calls from people who were desperate because their business had simply stopped. I asked the Secretary of State whether he had talked to banks about loans or to the

  699
  Chancellor about rates and what he had done about promoting tourism. I was accused of being partisan and of ranting, which I hope you think is an uncharacteristic feature of my performance in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is never knowingly under-ranted.
  Mr. Paterson: I am touched by that endorsement from my hon. Friend.
  Three weeks later, the Minister for the Environment, came to the Agriculture Committee. He talked about the very same interest-free loans, rate relief and promotion and marketing, but he was only talking. The Government are "considering" and saying that they are "sympathetic", and the taskforce is "meeting", but where is the action? We have had an announcement on rate relief for businesses affected by foot and mouth. Businesses in my area went to Oswestry borough council about that, but the council had not been informed. Months after the crisis began, we have this puny little measure. It would be churlish to deny that it will help, and it will provide some small help to some businesses, particularly those which will have to diversify away from basic farming. However, it is too little, too late.
  I would be grateful if the Minister paid attention while I give a few examples of local people who are absolutely desperate. I can see that she is in deep conversation with the Whip.
  Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is very sensible.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must not have interventions from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just trying to get the Minister's attention. I want to be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I want to talk about the second largest industry in the rural sector, which is the equestrian business. It has a turnover of £2.5 billion, 2.4 million riders, 900,000 horses and 20,000 businesses employing 40,000 people, and that is excluding racing. In April, the industry lost about 50 per cent. of its turnover. In May, it is likely to lose 60 per cent. The revenue lost in April was £57 million, and the industry reckons to be losing about £29 million a week. Those losses are simply unsustainable by small country businesses, and the decelerator effect in the countryside will be massive. Farriers, horseshoe manufacturers, tack shops, saddlers, retailers, equestrian magazine publishers, specialist equipment suppliers, feed merchants and competition organisers will all be affected. They are short of cash.
  The other day I went to a large, successful riding school whose name might make the Minister's ears prick up. It is called the Prescott equestrian centre, having the same name as the great Jaguar owner. The school is based in Baschurch near Shrewsbury. It was involved in classic diversification; large barns, originally set up for agriculture, were converted by Mrs. June Haydon. In the past 14 or so years, the school has created a successful business; it owns about 70 horses and employs 20 full and
  700
  part-time staff. When I went there the other Friday, it was quite dead, which is shocking. When one drives past, one can see that there are not many cars around; but to go to such a large establishment, with a huge indoor school, an outside showjumping arena and a dressage arena, and find no activity on a beautiful sunny morning in the run-up to Easter is shocking and brings home how devastating the crisis is.
  The business has weekly overheads of about £3,000, but is nowhere near getting that back. Such businesses will not carry on without an immediate injection of cash to help cash flow, as we have suggested in our interest-free loan proposal, which is considerably better than the Government demanding 8.75 per cent. interest and collateral. As one farrier, whose business is down from 150 horses to just eight per week, told me, that is just a shovel to dig a bigger hole for one's grave.
  Without being churlish, what is offered on rates on new businesses is welcome. However, Mrs. Haydon cannot touch it, as her business has been going for 14 years. Surely, it is iniquitous to create a division in the equestrian business. It cannot be fair that established businesses cannot take advantage of that fairly puny measure. The cost of business rates can make or break diversified business.
  Another constituent of mine, Mr. Richard Matson from Twemlows Hall, had a substantial dairy and pig business, and has diversified. He set up an equine therapy pool for exercising injured race horses; a highly enterprising idea which required considerable investment. However, because of the racing season, it was open for only six to eight months a year and it simply could not bear the cost of business rates. In future, that sort of business would perhaps benefit from this fairly stingy measure. Sadly, however, it is too late for Mr. Matson, who had to close his business because he could not afford the business rates. He is bitter about the fact that the measure will apply only to new equine developments.
  Mr. Matson also made the point that agricultural colleges pay no rates on riding stables, arenas or indoor schools, although they can use them for all sorts of purposes to do with horses. That seems to be another pernicious effect of a two-tier system of rating. It is not fair that established businesses should have to compete, first, with educational establishments that do not have pay rates and, secondly, with a new tranche of people coming in. There has to be a level playing field; if there is going to be a rebate, it must be available to all.
  Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, when the Government say that giving zero rating to equestrian establishments such as those that he has described will cost them £3 million, £5 million or £10 million, they are being slightly misleading? The moment that they get no business rates from a building because it is being used as a farm, which is zero-rated anyhow, all that they will be doing is giving up a potentially much larger figure. The cost to the Government would be nothing at all if they were to give such businesses a zero rate as well.
  Mr. Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his prescient comment. I was just about to go on to a similar point made by my constituent, Mr. Matson. My hon.

  701
  Friend gave an excellent speech and went into great detail about the impact of the measure on the horse industry; what he said is endorsed by Mr. Matson, who said:
  "The most damning point of the document is the reference to cost. Other than administration costs this will cost the Government nothing. If it attracts new equine enterprises the Government/local authority will be in receipt of more business rates—albeit at 50 per cent.—than it would have been without the scheme."
  So my constituent endorses the exact point made by hon. Friend.
  There is therefore not much risk to the Government. The measure demonstrates that they do not take the rural economy seriously. After three or four months of the crisis, this is the first Government debate that even touches on the rural economy; Members now have a chance to come to the House and debate the issue. It is interesting that only two Labour Back Benchers are present; throughout our debate, only one Liberal Democrat has turned up to make a brief intervention for a press release, and he has now bailed out. By contrast, numerous Conservative Members have participated, intervened and made valuable comments such as those made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: He is a Whip.
  Mr. Paterson: He may be a Whip, but there are great merits in being a Conservative Whip with a country background.
  I shall conclude as I know that other Members wish to contribute. I welcome the idea behind the measure, which is that there has to be some diversification—which must, however, be uniform. Clearly, the equestrian sector is the largest area of activity in the countryside which will benefit from rate relief, but that relief must be uniform across the entire sector.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: There was an outbreak of foot and mouth in my north Oxfordshire constituency which had a devastating impact not just on the farming community but on the tourism industry in north Oxfordshire.
  Many people were confused about just who in Government had responsibility for responding to wider concerns about foot and mouth. For a long time, there has been a Cabinet Sub-Committee, chaired by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, but at no point in the disaster has she appeared on the scene. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food then sought to answer questions on a wider brief, but he was overtaken by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who came to the House on a couple of occasions to make statements. Latterly, responsibility was given to the Minister for the Environment, and we were told that the Government had set up a rural taskforce.
  My concern about the Bill, and my reason for wishing to speak this evening, involves the fact that, with the rural taskforce and the Bill, the Government are seeking to give the impression that they are doing an enormous amount for the rural community, rural tourism, village shops, and garages and pubs, when in fact they are doing precious little. The Bill is the sort of measure that will be spun by parliamentary candidates at public meetings in rural
  702
  constituencies in the next few weeks as an indication of what the Government are doing for the rural economy, when in fact they are doing nothing whatever.
  I have constituents whose livelihood and business have been all but destroyed by foot and mouth. The Oxford canal, a beautiful and attractive canal, runs through my constituency, and goes from Oxford up to the Grand Union canal. Oxfordshire Narrowboats at Lower Heyford hires out narrowboats to people on holiday. However, at the outset of the crisis in early March, the board of British Waterways, rightly and understandably, closed all the towpaths. Effectively, no narrow boats could go up and down the Oxford canal or, indeed, any other canal, which of course meant that, almost overnight, Oxfordshire Narrowboats closed down, since it had no customers. Easter is its busiest time for bookings, but it received practically none until Easter week. I am glad to say that, from that week on, things started to improve slightly as the towpaths began to open. However, the closure of those paths was pretty devastating.
  I wrote to Ministers asking whether the Government could explain what the rural taskforce would do for businesses such as Oxfordshire Narrowboats. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Lord Whitty, who, as junior Minister, wrote on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, telling me about things that the Government were doing that could assist my constituents—including providing
  "in depth consultancy support via the Small Business Service helpline."
  Well, that is great and fantastic; it really cheered up my constituents, who were glad that there was a helpline for them to telephone.
  I was also told that my constituents would receive
  "a sympathetic approach to deferred and rearranged payments to Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise."
  That was really helpful, and it might marginally help my constituents with their cash flow. However, they have still got to pay the money; no one is going to say that there is going to be any rebate or remission on Customs and Excise duties or tax.
  Then there was the suggestion that there would be
  "extra cash support to enable rural local authorities to provide hardship rate relief—up to £1,290 for three months for a business with a £12,000 rateable value."
  That was the only positive help in the entire package for a business such as Oxfordshire Narrowboats. If it met the £12,000 rateable value criterion and if the local authority chose to provide rate relief, it could benefit from up to £1,290 off its business rates. Such businesses, which have been devastated by foot and mouth, would consider that pretty small beer.
  The Bill does not do much more. It extends the 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief to all food shops in rural settlements of fewer than 3,000 people. I do not know about my colleagues' constituencies, but most of the villages in north Oxfordshire have more than 3,000 people; or the shops, pubs and filling stations that are left tend, by definition, to be in the larger villages and to serve several smaller villages. So I expect that the proposal will benefit practically no shops, no pubs and no fillings stations in north Oxfordshire.
  Practically all the village shops, village post offices and filling stations in my constituency are in villages of more than 3,000 people, because that is the only way those

  703
  businesses have managed to remain viable at all. It will be interesting to see how many shops, post offices and pubs across the country are helped by the Bill—precious few, I suspect.
  Why 3,000? If the Government really want to help village post offices, village shops and filling stations in rural areas, why not extend or give local authorities far greater discretion to extend rate relief to them? After all, local authorities know and should be able to decide locally which village post offices, which village shops and which village filling stations are worth supporting. The Bill gives local authorities scant discretion and will give—[Interruption.] If, instead of chuntering, the Minister of State would like to intervene, she is welcome to. I realise that we may be detaining her from her dinner, but there are many of my constituents whose businesses are in dire straits.
  Ms Armstrong: I was simply saying that post office relief does not come within the terms of the Bill. It is covered by other legislation which is already in operation. It is also possible for businesses such as those that the hon. Gentleman describes in larger areas—not very small villages—to apply to their local authority for hardship relief. Their local authority has full discretion to award hardship relief, of which the Government fund 75 per cent.
  Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Of course, she is right in her clarification about post offices. However, hardship relief is available only in the immediate circumstances of foot and mouth. The Bill, as I understand it, is intended to carry on for ever. It is not just for this particular period.
  The right hon. Lady may wish to clarify the position, but if a post office or store in a larger village was having difficulties, it could not apply on that basis to the local authority for rate relief. The business would have to get over the hurdle of the case law relating to hardship. There is no statutory definition of "hardship"; it is entirely contained in case law. I hope that at some stage the Government will consider providing a statutory definition of hardship, to help local authorities to decide whether to give relief.
  The Bill will give scant help to a very few rural businesses. I have a wildfowl sanctuary in my constituency. Mabel Warner, who runs it, told me that her busiest two months were February and March. At Easter, the big attractions open, so the sanctuary takes much of its money during February and March. As a consequence of closing because of the foot and mouth disaster, the business has been seriously affected. It is true that Mabel Warner can go through the rather cumbersome process of applying to the valuation office for a reappraisal of her business rates, but with the exception of a modest reduction in their business rates, if the overall rateable value of the business in question is less than £12,000, businesses such as the Wiggington wildfowl sanctuary will get no help at all from the Government.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said from the Front Bench, the Bill is unobjectionable. But I do object to the way in which it will be spun as being of substantial help to rural businesses and to those who have
  704
  suffered from the foot and mouth crisis. It will do nothing of the sort. I suspect that very few, if any, businesses in a constituency such as mine will be helped by the Bill.
  Those on the Government Front Bench demonstrated some surprise when my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said that the Conservatives could do and, I am sure, would do considerably better. One of the ways we would do better would be to save money by abolishing the regional development agencies. The right hon. Lady and any other Government Minister will always be welcome in north Oxfordshire—we have had precious few visits from Ministers in the past four years. Statistics seem to demonstrate that Ministers only visit target seats, but they are always welcome in north Oxfordshire.
  If a Minister went down Banbury high street or Sheep street in Bicester and asked people the name of the local regional development agency, or even asked members of the chamber of commerce to name the regional development agency, I would be extremely surprised if, even at the chamber of commerce, more than 5 per cent. had ever heard of SEEDA—the South East England Development Agency. If SEEDA were abolished, it would be unmourned. No one from north Oxfordshire would waste money sending a wreath to the funeral of SEEDA. It is a total waste of money, so far as Oxfordshire is concerned.
  We have no strategic interest in what is happening in the southernmost reaches of Kent or Surrey. Ours is a strategic area between the Thames valley and the west midlands, and the South East England Development Agency has been a waste of funds. Far better that such development agencies be abolished and the money given to provide real help to rural businesses.
  At the general election, which I expect is not too far away, I very much look forward to going round the village shops, village pubs, village stores and filling stations in my constituency, explaining the genuine help that a Conservative Government can and will give them. That will not be spin; it will be solid substance. What we and the countryside require at this time are not gimmicks or a taskforce which does nothing but direct people to helplines. We want real assistance and solid support.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this very important stage of the Bill's passage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) pointed out, this is our first opportunity since the foot and mouth outbreak began to discuss in Government time anything that relates even remotely to the crisis. We have so far used Opposition days for all such debates. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats used part of one of their days for the same purpose. It is a great shame that the Government have not allocated a whole day for us to discuss the problems that all hon. Members who represent rural constituencies face with the appalling onslaught of foot and mouth.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) asked what the Archers would be thinking. Let me strain the comparison and say that Emmerdale farm would have closed down a long time ago. That would be nothing to do with foot and mouth, but part of the general rural crisis. No doubt a supermarket would be situated there by now.
  The countryside is in deep crisis, but that crisis has not occurred only because of foot and mouth. It has been happening for several years, during which farm incomes

  705
  have declined so much that some farmers must dream about earning even the minimum wage. I have received a letter from Anthony Goldstone, who is chairman of the North West tourist board. He writes about the importance of tourism in the north-west, which provides about £1.5 billion a year and supports 7 per cent. of the work force. That is how important it is. His letter states:
  "The current Foot and Mouth outbreak is putting at risk up to £8 million of tourism revenue and 200 jobs per week in the rural economy."
  Mr. Paterson: Before my hon. Friend moves on from farm incomes, may I remind him that, under the Government whom he so nobly supported, total farming income doubled between 1990 and 1995? It has fallen by 72 per cent. since it reached those heights.
  Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend knows from his rural constituency, some farmers now earn less than £100 a week. The foot and mouth crisis means that some of them have been earning absolutely nothing. We should pay tribute to the agricultural charities. Without them, one of my constituents would have nothing. Fortunately, two charities stepped forward and gave her some cash, but, because of the sort of farming in which she works, she has been unable to move or sell any of her animals. No income whatever has been coming in, so her situation has been desperate. I pay tribute to all the agricultural charities, especially those that deal with daily calls from farmers who are stressed out and at their wits' end.
  Let me return to Mr. Goldstone, whose letter states:
  "The leadership and personal support of the Prime Minister and other Ministers in reassuring the tourism industry and encouraging the consumer, has been big on words, but short on practical substance."
  The Bill sums that up. As has been pointed out, hardly anybody will benefit from the amounts of money that are being provided, which are small in comparison with the deep problem that exists. I said that the help was a sticking plaster for a heart attack, and that is exactly what it is. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said that I was exaggerating, but I am not. There are businesses in deep pain that need direct and immediate assistance from the Government.
  Interest-free loans are at the top of Anthony Goldstone's list of suggestions. Why cannot we have such loans? The Opposition have been suggesting for several weeks that they should be introduced. They should be provided now. It is not as if businesses can wait much longer. No doubt many have already closed and laid people off. They need the money now. Many small businesses owe money to other small businesses that are equally affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth. If they could only get access to an interest-free loan, they could start to pay off their debts to other smaller businesses. The money would then start to fuel the economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should like that idea, as it would not cost him anything in the long term. Once businesses start to earn a profit again, they will begin to pay the money back, so the Exchequer will not lose out. If businesses stay in business, they will pay taxes in future, but if they go out of business, they will pay no taxes whatever. I ask the Government yet again to consider the proposal.
  Earlier today, I asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether he had made representations to the Chancellor on that exact point. He did not answer my
  706
  question. Of course, that was no surprise, as he did not answer any of the questions that he was asked today, but as he did not respond to my specific point, I can believe only that he has made representations to the Chancellor about the matter. We are told that the Chancellor is awash with money, including the £22 billion gained on licences for third-generation mobile phones, but he must have said no. For some strange reason, he does not want to help out the affected businesses.
  Anthony Goldstone ends his letter by stating:
  "Importantly, we are not currently talking about recovery, but survival. This is a passionate, fighting industry, usually a good news industry. It will not survive without significant support. The situation is critical and urgent assistance is long overdue.
  The tourism industry needs your help now more than ever before."
  I ask the Minister to consider carefully what Mr. Goldstone says on behalf of the North West tourist board. I suspect that he speaks on behalf of tourist boards throughout the country, which all feel exactly the same: they need assistance now.
  It is a great shame that the Minister for the Environment, who has responsibility for the rural taskforce, is not using this debate to propose a more substantial package of measures than the Bill. We have said that we will take anything that the Government are prepared to offer, but we must be realistic. The Bill will be spun out of all recognition and presented as the great saviour for rural businesses throughout the country, but it is nothing of the kind. A lot of the farming and tourism businesses in my constituency will not benefit from the Bill at all. The Government keep saying "Diversify away from farming, please", but from where will businesses get the money to make the capital investments that they need to diversify in the first place?
  I remember when the Prime Minister visited a farm in the south-west that had diversified. I think that the visit occurred about two years ago, and that the farm in question was running a form of restaurant. However, not every farm can turn itself into a restaurant, and the Bill does not allow such farms to benefit from the skimpy offering that is being made anyway. We must be realistic about what activities farms can diversify into.
  Ms Atherton: I was present when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited the diversified restaurant to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Farmers from a range of industries were also present; one was a cheese maker who had received £500,000 of Government support to enable him to create his Cornish cheese company. The hon. Gentleman is slightly off target.
  Mr. Evans: I am never knowingly off target; the crisis in farming means that diversification is a problem. Those who want to diversify should be given every encouragement, but we must remember that many farmers want to get on with farming. There are posters throughout the countryside that say, "Keep Britain farming." That is exactly what we should be about, but what can we do to help farmers to keep on farming? By all means, we should support those who want to diversify and who have good ideas about that, but we must also recognise that if all farms turned into restaurants, it would do them no good

  707
  whatever. In three years, we would be talking about introducing a recovery package for every restaurant in the country.
  Mr. Gray: The Prime Minister is no great expert in these matters. Does my hon. Friend remember the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman made about foot and mouth about a month ago in Prime Minister's Question Time? He said that one thing that he would do to help farming would be to remove business rates from farms. Of course, he did not realise that farms do not pay business rates in the first place.
  Mr. Evans: I am not surprised by that statement. It is now well accepted that the Government do not understand the countryside or care much about it. The sooner the general election, the better, because we can then have a Government who know about business and the countryside.
  Mr. Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) described a meritorious enterprise in her intervention—which might have been described as valedictory—it would have taken time to develop the cheese business to which she referred? At the conference that I attended in Telford, it was clear that we had an immediate crisis. These people need cash now, for cash flow reasons. There is no time for investment or marketing; they need cash, and the only answer is an immediate, interest-free loan such as that which we propose.
  Mr. Evans: An interest loan is little use to businesses with no money coming in and debts piling up. The chief executive of my local council spoke to me about the relief that the council could give on business rates and council taxes. He said that the council had to be realistic because those were the bills that farmers would shelve immediately. People with no money and no access to further loans would put their council tax bill and business rate bill at the bottom of the pile. If they had any money left, they would use it to pay their suppliers or as a means of keeping the business going.
  So let us be realistic about the support that exists now and about the help for which businesses are crying out. Three weeks ago, I met 30 business men in the Parker's Arms in Newton. They were crying out for help and the situation has got no better for them. Unfortunately, Easter was not the great gold rush to the countryside that we all hoped that it would be. Those business men thought that if they could get access to cash now, it would greatly assist them and boost their businesses. It would be a lifeline. By all means, let us look at a recovery package afterwards, but let us have a survival package now.
  I know of no patient who has died and gone on to recover. When a business dies, that is it. The only thing that remains is to bury or burn it. We do not want businesses to collapse when there is a sensible, cost-effective means of giving them a lifeline, which, in this case, is the loan that we are asking for.
  The Prime Minister is pretty good, during a general election build-up, at announcing measures that he thinks will be popular, irrespective of whether they cost him
  708
  nothing, such as the baby bonds that were announced the other day. They will cost the Government nothing for 18 years and will no doubt all be grabbed back in the form of higher education tuition fees by the time people turn 18. He still has a few days to come forward with an interest-free loan for rural businesses. If he announces it now, he will have the full support of Conservative Members. We shall not say that he is electioneering; we shall simply welcome the fact that that money is coming through. I ask Labour Members to pass that message to the Prime Minister, who does not come here very often. Let us give those businesses the support that they desperately need now.
  What has shocked us all about foot and mouth is the inter-dependence of many businesses on the countryside generally. It struck me as surprising because I had not given it much thought. The crisis has affected feed merchants, those who sell cars and machinery to farmers, and other businesses involved in tourism. A window cleaner even came to see me, saying that much of his business had disappeared because of foot and mouth, not just because people could no longer afford to pay to clean their windows when money was tight, but because he could not gain access to many houses.
  As was mentioned by a Labour Member following last week's statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the problem also affects trout farms. Nobody is fishing much because people cannot cross farms, and the trout farm in my constituency has a real problem in terms of the welfare of the fish. As they grow, they become vicious in a confined space. The owner told me that unless he can start to get rid of some of his stock, he will have to start killing them. The months of February to May are crucial for trout farmers, as that is when they have to get their stocks out. After that, they have had it. We must therefore look at all sorts of ways in which we can help such businesses.
  I also had a phone call from someone who runs some tea rooms—that is why I mentioned tea rooms earlier—in a village in my constituency and who had to get rid of their staff and close, hopefully temporarily.
  Sadly, the people whom rural businesses employ are often the wives or husbands of farmers, who work in other businesses to help out with their income. They do not have just one job, although given the hours that they work, one would think that they could do no more. Helping out in the tourism trade gives those people another source of income. We should help those people, which is why I could not understand the exemptions in the Bill—which does not go very far anyway—for catering and confectionary businesses.
  I hasten to add that I have no interest to declare. The only business that I possess is in a very urban area and I am delighted on this occasion not to declare an interest for having a business in a rural area.
  I do not understand the exemptions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said, the confusion and stress caused by the discretion in the Bill will lead to many arguments because people will not know whether they qualify. The Minister was nodding when it was suggested that some guidelines should be published explaining to people exactly who is eligible. People should be clear about who is eligible once and for all. I suspect that the Government will spend more on the

  709
  booklet and on advertising the scheme—we know that they spend a lot on advertising these days—than they will ever spend on the scheme itself.
  When the Minister replies, will he say something about the National Assembly for Wales and how it will run the scheme? I gather that it might decide not to introduce it at all. I understood from the Minister that no extra money would come in from the scheme, so it would have to be paid for from existing budgets. That would mean that other expenditure would have to be cut. I suspect that nothing much will be cut and that more will be spent on bureaucracy than on the scheme.
  Will the Minister also say something about assistance to local authorities? I understand the 50 per cent. mandatory grant, but not the discretionary aspect. My local authority tells me that it is already strapped for cash. Many rural businesses are tightly balanced. Many are already applying to their local authority for help with their business rates. Once they start applying for this scheme as well, many local authorities simply will not have enough money. They will have to start putting up council taxes by an enormous percentage. The Government need to look at that again.
  On diversification, the Government need to get their strategy together and decide what they want farming in this country to do. The Prime Minister says that he wants a fundamental review of farming once the crisis is over, but we need to know the Government's strategy for farming. Do we want to ensure that our farmers, who love their industry and are committed to it, and who work all the hours that are sent in their industry, to continue farming? I hope that the answer is yes.
  Farmers' tending of the countryside is value added. They do it for nothing; it is simply a by-product of farming. We now know how important that is because of the number of tourists who have stayed away from the countryside. People go to the countryside because it is beautiful and we should ensure that farming is in such a state that it can continue to produce the goods and at the same time make a profit. Farmers at my surgery say, "Nigel, all I want to do is make a living." The treaty of Rome contains a paragraph saying that that is exactly what farmers should be allowed to do. If that requires a fundamental review of the common agricultural policy, let us have it. However, let us not have the same old CAP reviews that always cost more money. We spend billions on such reviews, while our farmers do not get the money through.
  It would have been far better if the Government had used this opportunity to present a package of measures such as the £10,000 loan, which would help kick-start many businesses that are on their uppers. Over the past four years, the Government have piled billions of pounds of extra taxation on rural businesses. Today, they are giving back crumbs and we are supposed to get on our knees, say thank you and praise St. Tony. It simply will not happen.
  We need honesty in food labelling so that people who want to buy British products can do so in the sound knowledge that the products are British and do not come from somewhere else. British products must not be those that are put on a British farm for a day or products that have simply been processed here. We also need equality in the treatment of goods that enter this country. I am proud that we have high standards and I applaud the
  710
  Government for imposing them, but the Government should go one step further and ensure that all the countries with which we trade match our standards.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions that we have raised today. I also hope that the Minister for the Environment, who is responsible for the rural taskforce and who waltzed into the Chamber briefly during the debate, will come to the House—before the Prime Minister goes to Buckingham Palace to ask for a Dissolution—to introduce a real package of measures. Such a package would not need spinning, because the farmers and people involved in tourism would say themselves that it was good news.
  I hope that the Government are not going to spin this little measure today as the great saviour of our farms and our tourism industry, which are on their knees and need the Government to listen to them. They need the Government to act, and the Government have failed to do that to date.
  8 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I start by declaring my interest as shown in the Register of Members' Interests. I see that the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), wants to have a look at the register. I have a smallholding and an agricultural building and, therefore, on some basis, I might gain from the measures. The right hon. Lady, with her inquisitive mind, no longer needs to bother to look it up; I have told her.
  What really matters is the issue raised by my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans): that, despite the fact that foot and mouth has been ravaging the countryside for two and a bit months now, and that we have not had a single debate in Government time on that dreadful issue or on the way in which it has been handled, the Government can find a whole day for a Bill with just three substantive clauses, for which the Government ran out of speakers by 7 o'clock. They can find time for that, but not for a debate on the much bigger issue that faces the countryside.
  When we consider that it is now six weeks since the First Reading of the Bill, we can understand that the Government are not using the utmost haste to help farmers, even in the way that the Bill proposes. We have heard a number of speeches, including several swan-songs from the Labour Benches: one voluntary one and some involuntary ones. I am impressed by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who seems to believe that the population of Stroud think, sleep and talk of nothing but the regional development agency. That demonstrates why, in five or six weeks' time, the hon. Gentleman will be looking for a new career.
  The background to this debate is the state of agriculture today, after four years of Labour government. My hon. Friends have given various statistics, including the fact that income from farming is down 27 per cent. on a year ago; of course, that is 27 per cent. down on what was already a record low. If we consider agriculture sector by sector, we find that for pigs and poultry, net farm incomes showed a loss of £8,000 a farm last year, compared to a profit of £15,000 two years ago. In the dairy industry, lower support prices—a major factor in the drop in milk prices—have meant that net farm incomes have dropped by 41 per cent. to £8,000 a farm in the past two years.

  711
  In the cattle and sheep sector, the incomes of lowland producers fell to £1,500 last year, and the incomes of hill farmers fell by 50 per cent. to £2,500. Even the arable sector has not escaped. The net income of cereal farms has dropped by 80 per cent. to £8,500 a farm. Not one of those sectors has earned the equivalent of the minimum wage in the past 12 months. The state of agriculture today is such that the net worth of farmers is 25 per cent. less than it was four years ago. That equity has gone out of the agriculture industry. Agriculture's contribution to the national economy is now down to just 0.8 per cent.: it was 1.6 per cent. just five years earlier. Its contribution has halved thanks to many of the Government's policies.
  This debate is not just about foot and mouth disease. Indeed, it is not about the foot and mouth crisis at all, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), for North Shropshire and for Ribble Valley all quite rightly made the point that this measure has to be seen against the background of the crisis, which has come on top of all those years of decline.
  It is always pleasant to stand at the Dispatch Box and welcome the conversion of the Government to a policy that was introduced by the Conservative party. On 21 May 1998, I stood here in an agriculture debate and called for rate relief to be extended to non-farming businesses on farm premises. That is recorded at column 1172 of Hansard. The response of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who was then Minister of State responsible for these matters, at column 1173, was that he was not sure that he could agree with me on the subject of rates. I always welcome a sinner who repenteth.
  I realise that the Conservative party understands more fully the situation in the countryside and the needs of agriculture. It is absurd that business rates are not paid if a stable or loose box contains pigs or calves, but are paid if it contains a horse. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, the situation is not even as clear as that. If a heavy horse is kept in a stable, rates are not paid, but if a light horse is kept in it, they are. That is plainly nonsense. Simply to extend the idea of 50 per cent. rate relief, as the Bill does, does not overcome that completely anomalous situation.
  We must also consider extending the definition of agriculture to provide the agricultural exemption for land-based industries that are closely allied to mainstream agriculture. I mentioned the horse world, but another important sector is the game farming industry, in which we can see comparisons with what goes on elsewhere in Europe. Anyone who studies the sporting magazines in the spring will find a legion of advertisements for French-sourced game birds and eggs. This country is currently receiving, week after week, tens of thousands of French game eggs. In a few weeks' time, it will be receiving day-old—and older—chicks. The French Government value the role of game farming in the national agricultural and rural economy: this Government do not. It is essential that game farmers should be considered part of mainstream agriculture—as they will be under a Conservative Government—and receive full agricultural exemption.
  712
  We have heard a great deal about the role of diversification. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made the point that it is not necessarily the panacea for all farming. Indeed, most agricultural advisers to whom I have spoken over the years have said, "Do not even contemplate diversification or think about a different sector of enterprise until you have got your farming business as efficient and modern as possible." For most people, diversification is merely an adjunct to their farming business, not a wholesale replacement for it, although there are examples of diversification taking over. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said, after the catalogue of disaster in the agriculture industry that I have recited, the question that arises is, who has the resources to invest in such diversification enterprises in the first place?
  We cannot talk about the future of farming without considering its role in the countryside. Many hon. Members have referred to the tourist industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred at some length to the importance of that industry, and to why it is suffering. We have to understand that the features that encourage tourists to come to the British countryside are there because of farming, not in spite of it. Tourism is the root of so many farm-based visits. Visits to open farms, pony trekking and all sorts of other activities stem from people wanting to enjoy our countryside.
  Listening to the Government, one sometimes might believe that the landscape existed in spite of farming, not because of it. No one planned the landscape and then considered how to farm it; it is the result of millenniums of farming. Farmers have created it for farming needs. To claim, as Ministers often do, that farming no longer matters and that we must concentrate on the landscape and the environment, turns thousands of years of agricultural development on their head. Only a party that did not fully understand the countryside could make such a claim.
  The debate has raised several issues. First, there is the problem of the five-year period. It appears that, for the first five years of the Bill's existence, people who fulfil the criteria will receive the mandatory relief, but that those who take up the option in four years' time will receive only one year's relief. It is common sense to provide the relief only as a start-up aid, but granting it solely for five years, starting today, is not. The Minister suggested that she did not understand that the Bill would provide for that. The measure should grant any business five years' relief as long as the legislation remains in place. Businesses would thus know that they had five years in which to ease into paying full business rates on their diversification.
  Secondly, let us consider third-party occupiers. Again, the Minister implied that her interpretation was different from that of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The purpose of diversification is to generate further income, and most business advisers would tell farmers to get their farming right before starting to adopt skills that they did not have. Many farmers would prefer not to move into new ventures, but to allow others to use their buildings for such purposes. Various proposals for third-party occupancy of a stable include garden machinery, metalwork, woodwork and even do-it-yourself livery. It is therefore essential for discretionary rate relief to apply when the farmer leases part of his premises to someone

  713
  else. It is part of diversification and an attempt to generate income from agricultural assets, albeit by using them—perhaps temporarily—for some other purpose.
  Thirdly, we should consider several activities that are closely allied to agriculture. It is absurd that neither mushroom farms nor on-farm processing are deemed to be agriculture. For years, farmers carried out some processing in the dairy sector, but that is no longer considered to be agriculture. Machinery rings constitute an effort by farmers throughout the country to share the enormous overheads on farm equipment. They are not deemed to be straightforwardly agricultural, and are therefore not entitled to the exemption.
  Fourthly, we should examine planning. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire made several comments that excited the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who has apologised for her absence during the winding-up speeches. My hon. Friend's point was crucial. If farmers are to generate extra income, a relaxed attitude to planning is essential. The Conservative party will therefore provide deemed planning consent for all farmers for use of up to 1,500 sq ft of their agricultural property for non-farming activities.
  Several hon. Members have referred to equestrianism, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire brought his considerable expertise and knowledge to bear on the subject, including the dreadful decline in riding schools of some 21 per cent. in the past 12 years. Indeed, 272 such schools closed in the past 12 months. As my hon. Friend said, the Association of British Riding Schools and the British Horse Society have expressed anxiety that the aid for which the Bill provides could disadvantage existing equestrian establishments compared with new schools. He also reminded us that the horse industry is the second largest in the rural economy, accounting for some £2.5 billion.
  The Government claim that providing five years' relief for start-up businesses was the right way in which to avoid the long-term disadvantages to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire referred. I do not believe that that is the case. There is a problem of striking the right balance between helping new businesses without disadvantaging existing businesses. That principle extends beyond equestrianism, but the only way to tackle the problem for equestrianism is to adopt the suggestions of my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire and for Ashford (Mr. Green) and provide the full agricultural exemption for all new and existing equestrian businesses.
  The Bill also refers to village shops and we have had much debate about tea shops and what can be classified as a food shop. In my constituency, post offices are under threat in many villages—for example, in Fordham and Cottenham. Neither the Bill nor the Postal Services Act 2000 will help them because Government policies have put the future of our sub-post office network at risk. That problem cannot be resolved by a small amount of rating relief.
  Clearly, it would be absurd to oppose a step in the right direction, especially as Conservative Members called for it three years ago. As my hon. Friends said, it will not make much difference on its own and, as I have shown, the foot and mouth crisis follows many years of declining incomes.
  Some people view the crisis as an opportunity for restructuring. Indeed, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food described that opportunity only
  714
  yesterday as the silver lining to the foot and mouth cloud. Many farmers will find that comment offensive. It is offensive that anyone could find a good story in so much tragedy. Reform of agriculture policy is essential and overdue, but doing it on the back of a national disaster is bound to lead to a distortion of long-term policy.
  Farming is and must remain the centre of the rural economy; it is not simply an add-on. Many other rural businesses depend for their livelihoods on trade with farmers. Until we develop policies that allow farming to continue, measures such as the Bill will ultimately fail. We must restore agriculture to the position of strength that it enjoyed only five years ago.
  8.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I am pleased to respond to the debate. Over the weekend, I contracted some sort of germ and I sound like a tractor that needs its tappets adjusting. I apologise for that, but I hope that I can make myself understood.
  It has been acknowledged during the debate, albeit grudgingly by some Opposition Members, that the new rate reliefs for which the Bill provides will help farmers and village communities. The measure fulfils commitments that we made in the action plan for farming, the local government finance Green Paper and the rural White Paper. Farmers who wish to diversify will pay less to set up new, non-agricultural businesses, and more help will be given to village businesses to provide essential services to the community.
  The National Farmers Union and other rural bodies have welcomed our proposals for farm diversification, and a wide range of respondents to the local government finance Green Paper welcomed our proposals for extending village shop rate relief. The Country Land and Business Association has welcomed the Bill; it has written to my right hon. Friend the Minister to urge its implementation as quickly as possible.
  Many hon. Members have contributed to the debate. I apologise in advance in case I do not pick up all hon. Members' points. If I miss any and hon. Members raise them with me later, I shall ensure that they receive a response. I shall do my best to respond to as many points as possible now.
  In what he described as his swan-song, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) spoke knowledgeably about his constituency and also about wider issues of policy. He said what a good time he and his constituents had had under the present Government. I hope that when he considers what a good time he has had under the present Government, he will not forget what a wonderful regional Whip he had for most of that time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) welcomed the Bill, but asked—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—for it to be part of a more comprehensive review. Indeed, both recognised that the Bill constituted only a small element of a more comprehensive programme.
  A procession of Opposition Members suggested that the Bill did not do this, that or the other. In fact, the Bill introduces two measures, in response not to foot and mouth but to the rural White Paper. In an intervention,

  715
  the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) suggested that our proposals had been plucked off the shelf and presented at the last minute. If he had read the White Paper—as we would expect him to, as a Member representing a rural community—he would have seen the proposals on pages 25, 89, 96 and 97. I commend the document to him and hope that, even at this late stage, he will read it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne and several others asked about the definition relating to food stores. They asked whether, if hot food—not surprisingly, my hon. Friend mentioned pasties—was served as a secondary operation, relief would be ruled out. The store's main business must be the provision of food: if hot food is provided as a side activity, it will not be ruled out.
  The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) got into a bit of a tangle in regard to hereditaments. In terms of rating law, a hereditament is any unit of property that is subject to business rates. References to hereditaments in the Bill mean that all farm premises that are currently exempt from business rates which would immediately become liable under present legislation in the event of diversification will receive relief under the Bill. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman about inheritance have nothing to do with the Bill, and he need not worry on that score.
  Mr. Gray: The Minister makes an interesting point. He might like to have a word with the House of Commons Library, which has given me a four-page extract that is all about hereditaments. I still cannot pronounce that word as well as the Minister, despite his flu. Every single definition suggests that a hereditament must be capable of being inherited if its holder dies. At no stage does the extract say what the Minister has just said.
  Mr. Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman will not be reassured by me, we may have to engage in lengthy correspondence, which will bore both him and me.
  Along with others, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) raised the issue of definitions of a rural area. Discretionary relief is available to all businesses, but the special grant is being made available to local authorities that are looking after completely rural areas. Given that the problems experienced by the rural community have a specific and greater impact on totally rural areas, 151 local authorities have been defined as needing additional assistance. There is nothing to stop local authorities that straddle rural and urban or rural and suburban areas giving rate relief to businesses in difficulty; central Government pick up most of that in any case. It was felt, however, that additional help was needed for local authorities representing remote and totally rural areas because of the disproportionate impact on them. That is the only reason and, as I have said, it does not prevent other businesses from being eligible.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the population limit of 3,000, and wanted to know how it would work over time. A limit must be drawn somewhere, and the measures we propose are designed to maintain the viability of small rural areas. It is for local authorities to keep registers detailing which settlements in their areas contain more or fewer than 3,000, and which will or will not be eligible for relief on that basis.
  716
  The hon. Member for North Wiltshire mentioned stud farms and other horse interests. He will know that stud farms already benefit from reduced rates: they all receive a reduction of £2,500 in their rateable values, currently worth a maximum of £1,075 off their rate bills. We propose to increase 1he reduction to £3,000 to bring it into line with the maximum mandatory relief for new farm enterprises, which is worth £1,290 off the rate bills of all stud farms. The Bill will extend the discretionary top-up relief for the farm diversification scheme to new stud farms on the terms that apply to other farm businesses.
  Several Opposition Members, including Front Benchers, mentioned the apparent rate relief anomalies arising from the exemption of agricultural land from business rates. I should point out that those anomalies have existed for a long time; indeed, they existed throughout the 18 years for which the Conservatives were in power. Opposition is a wonderful way of becoming enlightened, and Opposition Members seem now to have discovered the existence of those anomalies, which they have described as disgraceful. I simply remind them that they did nothing about them when they were in government, and that they did nothing because the anomalies are greatly complicated and difficult to remove. Any attempt to redefine agriculture to remove those anomalies would have to be very carefully thought out, or even greater anomalies could be created.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that those who are not in designated areas could be excluded from the relief scheme. However, I think that I have already addressed that issue. He also said that he believes that there should be fundamental reform of the rate system. In last year's local government Green Paper, we consulted on that issue and proposed a rate relief scheme for all small businesses. Although there will have to be continuing discussion on the issue, any attempt to address it will, as I said, give rise to various anomalies.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome also asked about the need for primary legislation to provide relief for shops—whereas such legislation was not necessary to provide relief for garages and pubs—but he seemed unable to understand the answer I gave him. I tried to answer the question as clearly as I could, and it is very difficult if he cannot or will not understand what I say. However, the issue is very simple. The original legislation refers specifically to sole general food businesses, and that provision cannot be modified without further primary legislation. Such a situation did not pertain in the legislation on garages and public houses.
  Opposition Members have said that the Bill does not tackle the problems and issues facing rural Britain. However, we have consulted on our proposals and said that we would introduce them at the earliest possible opportunity. We are doing so. Consultation ended on the same day that the Bill was presented to Parliament, and—with the co-operation of the Opposition—we now have a parliamentary opportunity to implement those proposals. We should take that opportunity.
  No one is trying to suggest that our proposals are the answer to every question. Nevertheless, Opposition Members should recognise that, since 1997, the Government have taken various action to provide financial assistance to farmers. The fact is that £1.35 billion has been injected into the sector, including about £785 million in agrimonetary compensation and annual supplements of about £3 billion in direct common

  717
  agricultural policy payments to United Kingdom farmers. Several initiatives introduced in early 1998 were worth more than £150 million, including £85 million of agrimonetary compensation. In November 1998, a further £120 million aid package was introduced.
  All of those actions were taken before our current efforts to deal with the current difficulties caused by foot and mouth. Opposition Members who say that the Bill is a response only to the current difficulties are deliberately ignoring our long record on providing assistance to the sector.
  Mr. Jack: The Minister was very generously dealing with the points that hon. Members have raised today, many of which concerned clause 1 and the question of whether third parties who invested on a farm would be eligible for help. Clarification of the point is needed, and I should he grateful if he would provide it.
  Mr. Ainsworth: Small businesses that fall within the definitions and scales provided in the Bill—in relation to exempt agricultural businesses and non-exempt agricultural land, for example—will be eligible. The businesses do not have to be run by farmers themselves. Farmers may well have someone else to run the businesses on those premises, thereby constituting diversification. That is not necessarily a problem, but we may need to spell things out in Committee and make people understand exactly what we are proposing.
  Conservative Members said that they would do a lot more were they to get back into power. They went on to say that the main way in which they would pay for that would be to abolish regional development agencies, by which they would save more than £100 million. However, the administration costs of RDAs was only £62 million last year—8 per cent. of their total spund—most of which was spent on the wages of those employed on regulatory programmes.
  718
  If the Conservatives are to transfer the powers and funds of RDAs they will have to keep the staff in employment, and because they will lose the economies of scale, they may employ far more and at a far higher cost than is the case at present. Even that ignores the fact that the Conservatives are effectively double counting savings that do not exist, because the shadow Chancellor has already spent the money from the abolition of RDAs. It is already part of the £16 billion worth of cuts that will pay for the tax cuts that the Conservatives are promising.
  Are Conservative Front-Bench Members telling us that they will not follow that programme and would not make those tax cuts because the money that the shadow Chancellor has already spent on them will be redirected to additional assistance for the farming industry? They must say one thing or another—they cannot simply double count money that is probably not there in the first place.
  In conclusion, the Bill takes forward important measures that provide rate relief for rural businesses. It will help farmers to diversify into non-agricultural activities by reducing the costs of doing so, and it will ensure that all food shops in small villages benefit from mandatory rate relief in addition to the sole general store. These measures are not the answer to the recent problems facing the countryside, but they are part of a continuing programme introducing measures to assist diversification, the strengthening of the rural economy and the viability of life in small villages. The Bill is part of the proposals contained in the rural White Paper last year. Our countryside needs effective measures to eradicate the current foot and mouth problem as well as on-going assistance, and that is what it will get from the Government.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill (Programme)
  8.37 pm
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill:
  Standing Committee
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 8th May 2001.
  3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
  Consideration and Third Reading
  4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Six o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Three o'clock on that day.
  5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Four o'clock on that day.
  6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
  Lords amendments and further messages from the Lords
  7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any Lords amendments, or on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
  I do not intend to delay the House for too long. The motion suggests a sensible timetable for the consideration of this small but none the less important Bill. It provides that Standing Committee consideration will be concluded on 8 May—that is, in two sittings—and that the remaining stages be concluded in about four hours. In line with the new programming procedures, the terms of the motion have been agreed through the usual channels, giving the Opposition parties a real say in how Government business is to be conducted.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Green: The Minister deserves a small award for chutzpah when she says that the programme motion gives the Opposition parties an opportunity to contribute. It has become apparent in the course of our debate this afternoon how much improvement the Bill needs.
  The Government and their business managers will no doubt be relieved that I am not about to make the speech that they are accustomed to hearing from this Dispatch Box about their appalling conduct over programme motions—although it is richly deserved every time it is delivered—because we believe that time is of the essence in delivering relief to rural areas. We have made it clear throughout the debate that we have no desire to delay even the small and peripheral measures contained in the Bill because we welcome any help for rural businesses in the current crisis.
  720
  When the Under-Secretary wound up on Second Reading, he was honest enough to say that the Bill would not solve the problems. I part company with him when he says that it is part of an on-going programme, because it is so far the only concrete measure that the Government have produced to help rural businesses, although I agree that it is an aid—albeit a relatively small aid—in the face of the crisis that rural businesses now face.
  I also wish to pick the Minister up on his claim that today was the first opportunity the Government have had to introduce the Bill, and that they have rushed it through. Not only have we had a mysterious six-week gap between First Reading and today, but the Minister knows—as does every other hon. Member—that when the Government introduced the Bill on First Reading, they assumed that today we would be two days away from a general election. The idea that the Government ever intended to get the Bill on to the statute book before an election is so much hogwash, and the Minister need not try to convince the House otherwise.
  We do not intend to oppose the programme motion, but it is important to set out some of the issues that the Government should address before remaining stages, especially if they are to be rushed through. The Government will have heard hon. Members raise several issues today—especially the fact that in relation to the equestrian issue the Bill as it stands would be incoherent and perverse, and would not achieve the Government's purposes. On several other issues, hon. Members on both sides of the House have reached the same conclusion about the Bill's effect but Ministers have assured us that the effect would be different. We need some clarity, especially about farm buildings that are not used by the farmer himself and on the issue of fairness, both geographically and in terms of businesses set up at different times—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot have a repeat of the Second Reading debate. I remind him that we are considering the programme motion.
  Mr. Green: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sought to explain to the Government that we are not opposing the programme motion, but that several important issues remain to be addressed in Committee. The Government will also need to table amendments before the Bill reaches Committee, because the programme motion will truncate the normal length of the Committee stage. It is therefore important that the Government take seriously the issues that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The programme motion will mean that we will rush through all the remaining stages of the Bill, and it is clear that it must be severely improved if it is to achieve the Government's ends—which we share—of making a small improvement in the desperate condition of so many businesses in rural areas.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I too, shall be brief. We have all heard the standard speech on programme motions which has been repeated week in and week out recently, and the fact that we accept this motion does not make our criticisms of the Government's approach any less valid. They have consistently failed to consult appropriately or to try to reach an accommodation with Opposition parties about areas of dissent.

  721
  In the case of this Bill, the difficulty is compounded by the fact that we know that it has been sitting on a shelf somewhere since 16 March and could have been introduced earlier as a matter of urgency. Many of us have argued that it is a matter of urgency and that, however modest its intentions, it should reach the statute book as early as possible. However, I admit that the time made available in the programme motion is not dissimilar to that which would have been available had we dealt with the matter as secondary legislation in the same way as other amendments to the rating regime, so it would be wrong to suggest that there is a need for prolonged consideration in Committee or on Report.
  Having said that, I ask Ministers to take careful account of the points made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). The consideration period is being truncated and we do not want unnecessarily to extend our debates, but Ministers should, where possible, consult with representatives of the Opposition parties to agree on clarificatory wording before the Bill is discussed in Committee. There is no great division between any of the parties on the content, but there is a division on the interpretation of some provisions.
  Some of us detect ambiguities and, while Ministers may not at the moment be prepared to accept that they exist, if they reflect, they may realise that, potentially, they do, and that it would be far better to agree a Government amendment to deal with them rather than take up time in Committee or on Report.
  I do not intend to divide the House and I hope that we will be able to proceed in good order so as to put the measure on the statute book ahead of the events of the next few weeks. My party is happy to make sure that, with the Government's co-operation, the Bill will achieve what they claim it will, however modest that may be.
  Question agreed to.

  RATING (FORMER AGRICULTURAL PREMISES AND RURAL SHOPS) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT (MAY)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic Adjournments),
  That this House, at its rising on Thursday 3rd May, do adjourn till Tuesday 8th May.[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  POSTAL SERVICES SECTOR
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10544/00, and welcomes it as a useful framework for the future liberalisation of the postal services sector in the European Union provided appropriate safeguards are in place to maintain the universal postal service at a uniform tariff.
  AVIATION SAFETY
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14329/00, a draft Council Regulation on establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation and creating a European Aviation Safety Agency; considers that the establishment of a high uniform level of aviation safety in the Community can best be achieved by the establishment and implementation of common rules which are developed and monitored centrally; agrees that the operation of the single market would also be improved by the establishment of a Community body for the certification of aeronautical products; supports the Government's position that the model mapped out in the draft Regulation could provide the building blocks to meet these objectives by improving the present European safety regulation system, the key elements being that the Agency is endowed with the necessary powers and sufficient autonomy to exercise its responsibilities, to attract high quality staff and to make certification decisions efficiently and effectively; and supports the Government's intention to press for this approach in the EU.
  IMMIGRATION POLICY
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11529/00, a Commission Communication on a Community immigration policy; and supports the Government's active participation in the debate on the Communication and the Government's intention to ensure that the UK's immigration policies are broadly in line with those of other Member States, whilst retaining domestic control over immigration policy and avoiding measures that could undermine the integrity of the UK's frontier controls.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION
  That the draft Asian Development Bank (Seventh Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 6th April, be approved.[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.
  COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICE
  Ordered,
  That the Community Legal Service (Funding) (Counsel in Family Proceedings) Order 2001 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Asbestos-Related Diseases (Compensation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
8.47 pm
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Like many Members of Parliament, over the past few years I have been contacted by constituents about asbestos and the terrible diseases that it causes within communities. Members need no information about asbestos-related diseases, because their constituents will have described in graphic detail their true horrors, so I shall not waste time discussing them. However, in recent months a great deal of concern has been caused by the appalling case of Chester Street Holdings, the insurance company that collapsed under the weight of compensation claims for asbestos-related diseases. I know that the mailbags of many of my colleagues have been swelled by letters about the matter and many constituents have visited their surgeries to discuss it.
For some sufferers, that collapse has not caused a problem, as a claim can still be pursued against individual employers if they can be traced, or against the insurance industry if the claim is post-1972 and made through the Policyholders Protection Board. However, many victims find themselves without cover owing to the fact that their claim is pre-1972, or because the company for which they were working when they contracted a disease cannot be traced or does not have the assets to handle such a large claim. It has been estimated that there are some 10,000 such victims in Tyneside and 50,000 nationally.
Tens of thousands of men find themselves in such a position following the scandalous collapse of Chester Street Holdings. I shall give a brief history. Chester Street Holdings was previously Iron Trades Holdings Ltd. That company had been the employers' liability insurers for the shipyards and other sectors of heavy industry throughout the country. In 1989, the Iron Trades Employers Association dumped all its pre-1990 policies, most of which were asbestos related, in Chester Street Holdings. The most solvent part of the business—the post-1990 policies—stayed with lion Trades.
Once freed from its liabilities for asbestos, Iron Trades was bought in January 2000 by an Australian company, QBE International Insurance Ltd. The whole deal was set up by a character called Robert Hardy, the former chief executive of Iron Trades, who—to put it in a nutshell—bought an off-the-shelf company in 1997 called Chester Street Holdings. He then deliberately set it up to fail by loading it with Iron Trades' asbestos liabilities. He sold the profitable side of the business that was left to QBE Insurance for £75 million less than its value and, in the process, earned himself an annual pay increase of £460,000 a year—an amount equivalent to the compensation for between six and 12 of the people who die of mesothelioma each year.
To add insult to injury, the liquidators have decided that Chester Street has the assets to cover only 5 per cent. of the tens of thousands of asbestosis compensation claims that should have been compensated in full over the next 40 years or more. Even worse, the first people who have a claim on the assets under the scheme drawn up by the liquidators are Chester Street's very own solicitors.
724
It is worth putting, the scandal of Chester Street into context, because it is fundamentally not about money but about people's lives. The TUC has estimated that a victim dies of an asbestos-related disease every 10 days in my area of south Tyneside. For example, Mr. Garrett of Cedar grove, Hebburn is a sufferer. He has mesothelioma, and that means that he is condemned to die. He is not interested in the money for himself; it is for those who have nursed him. He would like to live. He contracted the disease in the shipyards where he worked as a blacksmith and his claims has been accepted. However, as the situation stands at the moment, he will end up with nothing.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: A widow came to see me in my constituency the other week after the long battle that she and her husband, who died a horrible long and lingering death because of asbestos, had had in the courts. The courts awarded her £200,000 but, as my hon. Friend said, she will unfortunately only receive 5 per cent. of that if she is lucky. That is the horror of the story. People die horrible deaths and are awarded compensation but those who survive them do not see a penny of it.
Mr. Hepburn: My hon. Friend highlights one case, but there are 50,000 of them nationally. That shows just how important this debate is.
I asked for this debate to highlight the scandal and to ensure that the victims are not forgotten. With that in mind, I have two basic demands. The first is that the Government and the, insurance industry will undertake that the victims of asbestos-related diseases will get nothing less than the 100 per cent. compensation to which they are entitled. The second is that there should be a full public inquiry into the Iron Trades and Chester Street Holdings scandal.
The victims of this scandal have never been big earners. They earned an honest living in the shipyards—unlike the morally deficient boards of directors who have caused such heartbreak. The victims helped to build the wealth of Tyneside and Britain. Many of them even helped to build the defences the nation when that was needed during the second world war when they worked all sorts of shifts—at the very time when there were air raids and their lives were threatened—to make sure that ships were repaired and built to go out to fight the Nazi menace. In return, they were poisoned in their thousands by employers who did not care about anything other than their shareholders' profits. We cannot let those victims down.
8.53 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on securing the debate and thank other hon. Members for their interest in the topic.
The Government fully understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised. We are sensitive to the anxieties of those most affected, not least because of the meetings and representations that we have received. I have had representations from hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, and the Government have also received significant correspondence on this issue. Furthermore, we very much understand the concerns of those suffering from

725
asbestos-related diseases, especially where their condition is the result of employment in firms whose employers' liability insurance is provided by Chester Street.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues raised, and to update my hon. Friend on progress on this matter. I should like first to explain the Government's approach to asbestos in the workplace, then to give an explanation of the different sorts of compensation available and to conclude by discussing the issues raised to do with Chester Street Holdings.
For many decades, asbestos was used by many employers, especially those involved in heavy industries and manufacturing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow has said. Those industries that had an extended reliance on the use of asbestos in the production process included shipbuilding, drop forging, steel production and insulation manufacturing. During that time, the substantial risk to the health of employees who handled asbestos was unknown.
Asbestos is made up of many particles that can cause considerable damage if they enter people's lungs. The most common conditions related to exposure to asbestos in the workplace include pleural plaques, asbestosis and mesothelioma. Those conditions can be extremely unpleasant and are often fatal; and for those reasons, the Government were committed to addressing the dangers of asbestos as soon as we came to office.
In 1999, we fulfilled that commitment by banning the importation, sale and use of all forms of asbestos. Unfortunately, we are only now seeing the damage that years of inaction by previous Governments has caused. We have addressed the problematic source by removing the threat of asbestosis for future generations, but we as a society need to care for those who are ill and their families.
I should like to stress that the Government have in place two well established no-fault schemes to provide some financial support for those who were exposed to asbestos by their employers and have now developed one of the conditions that I have mentioned. First, there is the industrial injuries disablement benefit, which is administered by the Department of Social Security. The scheme provides an allowance payable to people depending on the level of disability caused by the exposure to asbestos.
Over and above those arrangements, the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 provides compensation for sufferers of certain dust-related diseases, or for the dependants of sufferers who have died, to the extent that they are not able to claim damages from their employers because the latter have gone out of business or there is no realistic chance of pursuing a court action. The scheme provides for a variable lump sum payment, again depending on the level of disability caused by exposure to asbestos in the workplace. Since 1980, that scheme has provided compensation to around 9,300 workers and their families, at a cost of approximately £83.4 million.
On employer liability: if the employer still exists, it is important to remember that the employer remains liable for the employee if the exposure to asbestos occurred as a result of that employment. The employee can therefore bring a civil case against his or her employer if the exposure to asbestos and the development of an asbestos-related condition were caused through employment with that employer.
Mr. Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend will be aware that only very small amounts are payable under the scheme when an employer cannot be traced. Will she consider how the scheme may be run? For example, would it be possible to consider including the insurance industry in the scheme to make the lump sums a little better? I accept that, generally, people who have asbestosis or mesothelioma cancer also have a disablement assessment; nevertheless, the lump sums paid under the scheme are very small, and that needs to be considered.
Miss Johnson: I cannot give my hon. Friend an undertaking on that this evening, but I will certainly consider the subject further as a result of his representations.
Of course, to be able safely to provide for their employees if one falls ill or is involved in an accident while working, employers regularly take out employers' liability insurance policies. Indeed, the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 made it mandatory for certain firms to take out such policies. In return for a premium to an insurance company, such an insurance policy decreases the financial risk to employers of claims that may be made against them by their employees.
The easiest way to envisage that arrangement is to imagine two relationships—the first between the employer and the employee; the second between the employer and the insurance company. If the second relationship is broken as a result of the insolvency of an insurance company, the first relationship—between the employer and the employee—remains intact. The liability of the employer to the employee thus still exists, irrespective of whether the insurance company is insolvent. Hence the employer remains liable for any claims made against them by employees or former employees; that is the case for all employers, whether in the private or public sector.
The commercial compensation schemes provide protection in the form of a compensation scheme for policyholders whose insurance company remains insolvent. I shall now turn to the arrangements under that scheme—
Mr. Hepburn: I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend, but what we want tonight are answers. Are these people going to be compensated? Are we actually going to get together with the insurance industry and threaten it with regulation unless they receive their money? They need their money; they understand that the insurance companies are to blame and that those companies should pay. Furthermore, will there be a full public inquiry to find out how that board of directors could set up that scam and put people in that position?
Miss Johnson: As I explained at the beginning of my speech, I shall come to that point in due course; I hope that my hon. Friend will be patient. I reiterate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the topic—the Government are making it clear to the insurance industry that it cannot merely walk away from this matter. I shall return to that point in a moment.
The Policyholders Protection Act 1975 was established to protect the interests of policyholders of insolvent insurance companies. For a few specific types of

727
insurance, including compulsory employers' liability insurance policies where the policyholder is the employer, the 1975 Act provides 100 per cent. protection for eligible claims, to the extent that the insolvent insurer is unable to meet the claim in full.
The costs of protection provided to such policyholders under the Act are met by a levy on the insurance industry, and are administered by the Policyholders Protection Board—set up under the 1975 Act. It is important to stress that if the employer no longer exists and the claim relates to a compulsory insurance policy, the individual who had a claim against the employer can take the claim to the insurer, or in this case, to the PPB direct.
It is in the context of the compensation available for those suffering from asbestos-related conditions that Chester Street has been raised by my hon. Friend. I shall not go into the history of Chester Street in too much detail—my hon. Friend has already touched on several aspects—but it was complicated, involving several subsidiaries.
By the 1980s, the company was subsidiary to the Iron Trades Employers Association. In the late 1980s, it was decided that it would be preferable to write all new policies in the subsidiary of the Iron Trades Employers Association. Those employers who had previously taken out policies with the association renewed their policies with the subsidiary. The association stopped writing new business but remained 100 per cent. owner of the subsidiary, with all profits accruing to the benefit of the policyholders of both the Iron Trades Employers Association and the Iron Trades Mutual Insurance Company. The subsidiary also took that opportunity to simplify its name to Iron Trades Insurance Company Ltd.
The change took effect from the start of 1990, and from that point onward I understand that the subsidiary made good progress, with two results. The first was that the subsidiary made profits and could pay dividends to the association. Secondly, as the business expanded, the value of the subsidiary as a fixed asset to the association also grew.
Mr. Clapham: My hon. Friend explains, in effect, that the scandal was created by Iron Trades dumping its asbestos liabilities in Chester Street Holdings, leaving insufficient assets to meet them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) explained, those liabilities are in respect of the ordinary person who is the victim of asbestos from his workplace. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that that cannot happen again? It is clearly a scandal and, if we do not act, it is likely recur because insurers want to get rid of asbestos claims. That is precisely what Iron Trades did—it dumped its asbestos liabilities.
Miss Johnson: My hon. Friend is right to say that, as the pre-1990 claims matured, it was necessary to realise assets other than those from the profits accruing from the subsidiary. As that was the main fixed asset of the organization, the value locked within it, in the form of existing policies and future profits, had to be realised. It was decided that the subsidiary should be sold on as a business to create liquid assets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said, that subsidiary was sold to QBE International Insurance Ltd. in early 2000. The money that
728
was made was invested and could be used to meet claims. The names were changed as part of the deal when Iron Trades was sold to QBE, and the remaining holding company changed its name to Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd.
Earlier this year, information on developments in asbestos claims showed that, despite all the efforts and the preventive measures, Chester Street could no longer meet its liabilities. The directors announced insolvency and appointed provisional liquidators on 9 January. A scheme of arrangement was drawn up which was agreed unanimously at the creditors meeting on 5 February and sanctioned by the court. The role of a scheme of arrangement is to ensure that the assets of an insolvent insurance company are identified, maximised and protected for the benefit of all outstanding and future claims—in this case, against Chester Street. It is the responsibility of the scheme administrator to ensure that policyholders receive whatever they are due from the insurance company under the scheme of arrangement.
As for an inquiry into the reorganisation of the Iron Trades Employers Association, we are looking closely into the issues raised by Chester Street. Our priority is the plight of the individuals affected by its collapse. It is for those people that the time scales are the most demanding, and we are keen to resolve the issue as soon as possible. However, in the event that information comes to light as we examine the history and circumstances which would suggest impropriety of any sort, I assure the House that the Government will take it very seriously indeed.
The issue of individual claims by employees whose employer no longer exists and whose claim relates to a non-compulsory insurance policy held by their former employer was raised.
Mr. Frank Cook: On the insurance company, does my hon. Friend concede that if Iron Trades is allowed to get away with its actions, that will give any insurance company carte blanche to offload its liability and move its assets wherever it wants? That is tantamount to the practice prevalent in the travel industry before the creation of the Association of British Travel Agents, with its reservoir funding for affected companies. Surely we need to impose something similar; we do not need to argue about that. We should engage the industry, in partnership, to establish a similar funding structure.
Miss Johnson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the industry cannot stand by and let individuals suffer as a result of the collapse of Chester Street. However, he will appreciate that his remarks contain assumptions with which I cannot directly agree.
We are considering complex issues with regard to individual claimants. The Government are working with the insurance industry on Chester Street and the position of employees whose claims relate to a non-compulsory insurance policy held by a former employer who no longer exists.
We are currently awaiting further information from the insurance industry, but as I said, we have made it clear, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that it cannot walk way from Chester Street. We expect the industry to take a constructive approach to the issue. The Government recognise that this is a difficult issue that has to be resolved within demanding time

729
constraints, and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow that all those involved are working very hard to resolve the issue as soon as possible.
I repeat that the Government understand the concerns expressed in the debate, especially of those who are suffering from asbestos-related diseases as a result of their exposure in the workplace, and of their families. We are
730
monitoring the situation carefully, in the interests of all who are affected by the insurance company's insolvency. I thank my hon. Friends for their role in making sure that the issue is seriously considered and dealt with.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Chinook Air Accident
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the E5 fault code found on the FADEC of RAF Chinook ZD576. [158185]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The E5 fault code which was found in the memory of the DECU of RAF Chinook ZD576 indicated that a soft fault had occurred at some point over the life of the DECU since delivery. A "soft fault" cannot affect the safe operation of the control system and is therefore one that has no impact on the normal control of the aircraft.

  The rotational speed (N2) of each engine's Power Turbine Spool is detected by two sensors. The E5 code would be displayed either because of a power interrupt (switching from the Auxiliary Power Unit to main generators, or the reverse) or if a discrepancy of 5 per cent. or more is detected between the two N2 signals. When such a discrepancy is detected the lower N2 signal is disregarded (or locked out). If the other signal is then lost, the original locked-out signal will be re-acquired Should both signals be lost, the fuel to the engines will be maintained at the pre-failure rate.

  The "E5" fault on the pre-production software that caused the Wilmington incident was significant as the system at that time operated differently. The team undertaking the test at Wilmington did not appreciate the significance of the E5 signal, which was displayed due to a discrepancy of 5 per cent. or more between the two N2 signals, causing the lowest signal to be latched. The team then removed a connector which resulted in the loss of the only remaining N2 signal. With the one signal latched, and the loss of the remaining N2 signal, unlike the system now, the pre-production software did not re-acquire the original locked-out signal. Instead the DECU "saw" an N2 value of zero, and in order to restore the N2, the system provided more fuel to increase the speed of the power turbine. This caused the rotors to accelerate which seriously damaged the aircraft.

  After the Wilmington incident the software was amended hence a similar incident could not have caused the Mull of Kintyre accident. Moreover, as I informed the hon. Member on 21 February 2000, Official Report, column 730W, the Air Accidents Investigation Board's report of their technical investigation into the accident found no evidence of a technical malfunction that could have contributed to the accident with the possible exception of a radar altimeter system fault.

  New DERA
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost of changing the name New DERA to QuiniteQ will be. [158864]
  446W
  Mr. Hoon:
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 24 April 2001, Official Report, column 233W, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George).

  Marine Richards
  Sir John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will complete his(a) disciplinary and (b) other inquiries into the death of Marine Richards; and how many cases involving deaths of service men in the UK have yet to have all proceedings and investigations completed. [159682]

  Mr. Spellar
  The disciplinary and other inquiries related to the death of Marine Richards are legal procedures and are wholly outside MOD Ministers' control in terms of their scope, their duration, and the conclusions they reach. The next stage in the process is the Coroner's Inquest, scheduled for 4–25 June 2001. Due process demands that only after its conclusion can a Military Police investigation be completed. This will be submitted to Headquarters Royal Marines who will then consider whether to recommend disciplinary action against any person or persons in connection with the death. If such a recommendation is made disciplinary action should follow, either summarily or by court-martial. Once any legal or disciplinary proceedings have been concluded, a Board of Inquiry will be convened. Its findings will be conveyed and explained to Marine Richards' next of kin. Though it is impossible to estimate accurately, these procedures are at the least expected to take a number of months to complete. They continue, however, to be pursued with as much speed and diligence as are consistent with thoroughness and proper respect for the rights of all those involved.

  We have taken "proceedings and investigations" yet to be completed to include outstanding Coroners' inquests, service and civil police investigations and service Boards of Inquiry. These include not just training accidents but numerous other cases such as road traffic accidents and incidents involving personnel not on duty. For service men in the UK, the figures are:

  Army: 81 cases

  RAF: 18 cases

  RN and RM: 11 cases.

  Sir John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons he has drawn from the death of Marine Richards; and what procedures have been put into place to avoid deaths in similar circumstances. [159683]

  Mr. Spellar
  The key lesson reinforced by Marine Wayne Richards' tragic death is that, whenever live ammunition is carried during training, procedures to prevent its being mistaken for blank must be continually monitored and frequently reviewed to ensure they are as fail-safe as humanly possible. The Army's independent Training Accident Investigation Team (TAIT) report, completed a month after this fatality, recommended improvements to the orders and procedures for carriage and identification of live ammunition on Woodbury Common. These improvements have been implemented, together with a timetable of frequent checks on compliance with revised orders and procedures, and were jointly reviewed by the TAIT and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in January 2001. The HSE raised no substantive comments.
  447W
  The TAIT report has also been promulgated through the Army chain of command, and general recommendations aimed at preventing any recurrence have been issued throughout the armed services.

  COSMIC Security Classification
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the types of information covered by the COSMIC security classification. [159675]

  Mr. Spellar
  The term COSMIC is not a classification but a qualifying marking used by NATO. It signifies that the information is the property of NATO and remains the property of the originator and may not be passed outside NATO without the originator's consent. This qualifying marking is used only with top secret information, the unauthorised disclosure of which would result in exceptionally grave damage to NATO. "COSMIC top secret" is the highest classification marking in NATO and it is equivalent to "UK top secret".

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Minister of State's letter of 15 March, D/Min (AF) TS 0301/01/M, what consideration he is giving to the problem of lymph node analysis. [158779]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence continues to consider what appropriate research is required in respect of DU, and we propose to expose our conclusions to independent scrutiny in due course. In the meantime, I have nothing further to add to the information given to my hon. Friend by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces in his letter of 15 March, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  European Armaments Agency
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the establishment of a European armaments agency; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the 'Masterplan for the European Armaments Agency'. [159282]

  Mr. Hoon
  Work by the nations of the Western European Armaments Group to examine the possible creation of a European Armaments Agency is making steady progress, with the aim of providing advice to national defence Ministers on its principles of operation this autumn. I am placing a copy of the "Masterplan for the European Armaments Agency" dated 17 November 1998 in the Library of the House. Revisions to the Masterplan which take into account developments since its original publication, including to its timetable of activities, are under discussion by the Group's officials.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Policy
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what account she takes of religious freedom in developing countries when deciding levels of UK development assistance; [159395]
  448W
  (2) what plans she has to make compliance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a feature of UK aid policy; [159394]

  (3) what discussions she has had with aid recipient countries about compliance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; [159391]

  (4) if she will list the UK aid programmes that have freedom from religious persecution as their primary objective. [159390]

  Clare Short
  The objective of my Department is the elimination of poverty. Our central focus is therefore respect for the human rights of the poor. Frequently the poorest are ethnic and religious minorities that face discrimination and social exclusion. Our strategy on human rights is set out in "Realising human rights for poor people" published in October 2000.

  Special Advisers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [158548]

  Clare Short
  Departmental special advisers from my Department undertook two visits abroad in an official capacity between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001. There are no non-departmental special advisers working for my Department.

  Helplines
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what telephone helplines to assist the public are administered by her Department and its agencies. [159503]

  Clare Short
  DFID operates a Public Enquiry Point which handles written, telephone and email inquiries from the general public. In the period 2000–01, the Public Enquiry Point dealt with a total of 10,410 inquiries.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Operation Rose
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the trials of those accused of serious offences arising from Northumbria police's Operation Rose will be restarted; and if he will make a statement. [159529]

  The Solicitor-General
  Operation Rose is a large scale investigation by Northumbria police into allegations of historic physical and sexual abuse made by former residents of local authority care homes in the counties of Tyne and Wear and Northumberland, dating back to the 1960s. Operation Rose began in 1997, and the first prosecution was brought in the same year. The first trial of an Operation Rose case took place at Newcastle Crown court in 1998.

  Thereafter, Operation Rose continued, in a number of distinct phases, throughout 1998, 1999 and 2000. The investigation is now almost complete, and there have been a number of prosecutions during this period.
  449W
  So far, 27 defendants have been charged with various offences. Nine separate Crown court trials have taken place within the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 March 2001 and one retrial has taken place.

  Of the 27 defendants prosecuted, five have been found guilty, eight acquitted by a jury and two have been found not guilty at the direction of the judge. Indictments in respect of seven of the defendants have been stayed by the trial judge in three separate trials, two defendants have died awaiting trial and three defendants are to be tried later this year at Newcastle Crown court.

  Trial dates have been set for June and September 2001, in respect of two of the outstanding cases, and it is anticipated that the trial of the final case will take place before the end of the year, although a firm date has yet to be fixed. No further prosecutions are anticipated at this time.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Research and Development
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list funding for scientific research and development in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) from the United States from (i) Government (ii) industry and (iii) charities for the year 1999–2000, in absolute terms, as a percentage of total research and development and as a percentage of gross domestic profit. [158803]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The latest data from ONS for expenditure on R&D performed in the UK in 1999 are:

  Sector providing the funding

  Total £ million

  Percentage of total

  Percentage of GDP

  Government Departments

  2,299

  13.8

  0.25

  Research Councils

  1,199

  7.2

  0.13

  Higher Education Funding Councils

  1,157

  6.9

  0.13

  High Education Institutions

  143

  0.9

  0.13

  Business enterprise

  8,235

  49.4

  0.91

  Private non-profit

  701

  4.2

  0.08

  Abroad

  2,930

  17.6

  0.32

  Total

  16,664

  100.0

  1.84

  Data for previous years can be found in Table 6.3, on page 71 of SET Statistics 2000 (Cm 4902) a copy of which is in the Library of the House, and is also available from DTI's website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/setstats.

  The ONS surveys do not identify the source country for expenditure from abroad.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the funding for scientific research and development from(a) Government, (b) industry and (c) charities for each of the years since 1997, in absolute amounts and as a percentage of total research and development spend. [158802]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The information requested can be found in Table 6.3 on page 71 of SET Statistics 2000 (Cm 4902) a copy of which is in the Library of the House and is also available from DTI's website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/setstats.

  Ultra-low Sulphur Fuel
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects ultra-low sulphur diesel and ultra-low sulphur petrol will be made readily available at all petrol stations. [159374]

  Mr. Hain
  Ultra-low sulphur diesel has been widely available across the UK since the latter part of 1999. Current information is that it is available at the vast majority of retail petrol outlets in the UK.

  The latest estimates produced by my Department are that, as of early April, over 80 per cent. of total UK petrol retail sites were converted to supply ultra-low sulphur petrol (ULSP). This means that ULSP accounts for 94 per cent. of total sales of petrol in the UK. All oil companies in the UK are making supplies of ULSP available to petrol stations in the UK. However, the logistical problems of supplying some of the smaller, more remote stations make it difficult to give a date by which all petrol stations will be selling ULSP.

  Broadband
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to fast track regulatory changes, in anticipation of establishing OFCOM, in order to speed up broadband access in the UK. [159478]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The Government's plans to facilitate roll-out of higher bandwidth and broadband services are set out in "UK online: the broadband future", which was published on 13 February 2001. These plans are not dependent on regulatory changes. Legislation to establish OFCOM, as proposed in "A New Future for Communications" (Cm 5010) published on 12 December 2000, will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets his Department has(a) for broadband access by UK households and (b) for the number of companies providing broadband access to UK households. [159479]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: As the Government announced in the recent White Paper "Opportunities for All in a World of Change", our goal is for the UK to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. This commitment was backed up by the publication of an action plan, "UK online: the broadband future", which set out how the Government will facilitate the roll-out of higher bandwidth and broadband services across the country.

  "UK online: the broadband future" also described the difficulties in assessing how quickly demand for these services will grow at such an early stage of this market. This analysis still holds and we believe that it would be premature to set targets of the sort that the hon. Member describes. DTI in collaboration with the e-Envoy, and aided by the recently established Broadband Stakeholder Group, will continue to monitor and assist the development of this important new technology.
  451W
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to ensure that Oftel will be equipped with adequate personnel with the relevant technical expertise to regulate competition in the broadband market. [159477]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The staffing of Oftel is a matter for the Director General. Total resources for Oftel have been increased by 18 per cent. for 2001–02 compared with 2000–01. I and my colleagues meet the Director General from time to time to discuss a range of issues including the development of the broadband market.

  Below-cost Sales
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the reasons given by the Competition Commission not to make recommendations when it had identified adverse effects associated with the sale of products below cost. [159570]

  Dr. Howells
  The Competition Commission, in their report on supermarkets, made an adverse finding in relation to persistent selling below cost of some frequently purchased items, but recommended that no action be taken. In the press notice he issued when the report was published (10 October 2000), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry outlined the reasons for this conclusion—essentially, the possible remedies would themselves have adverse effects and the intervention and monitoring required would be disproportionate to the problem.

  Religious Freedom
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the(a) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and (b) Secretary of State for International Development about educating UK businesses to employ business practices that promote religious freedom overseas. [159393]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: There have not been any discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his colleagues at FCO and DfID on this issue.

  However, promotion of human rights is at the heart of the UK's foreign policy and HMG regard religious freedom as a fundamental human right. The Government condemn instances where individuals are persecuted because of their faith, wherever it happens and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned.

  The Government acknowledge that UK businesses operating in international markets can play an important role in promoting human rights and are keen to help encourage this as part of the work to promote Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Last year I was appointed as Minister with responsibility for corporate social responsibility with a remit including improving co-ordination of activity across Government to promote CSR, including establishment of an Interdepartmental Group of officials. Both FCO and DfID are among the Departments represented on this group.
  452W
  Government are working in a variety of ways to promote business awareness of human rights. For example, DTI supported Business in the Community's report "Winning With Integrity" which includes practical advice to businesses on how they can ensure their operations respect human rights. The DTI is actively promoting the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprise which refer to businesses respecting human rights and works closely with other Government Departments in these efforts. FCO has established a Global Citizenship Unit with a remit to work with Trade Partners UK, other Government Departments, individual companies, NGOs and posts abroad in support of global citizenship initiatives. British Trade International recognises that companies applying corporate social responsibility principles will have a better understanding of key social and environmental issues and will manage such risks in a more effective and competitive manner.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 19 March on behalf of his constituent, Mr. R. G. Reeve. [159691]

  Mr. Byers
  As indicated in the response from my office dated 23 April, the letter has been transferred to the Health and Safety Executive for reply, as the matters raised by Mr. R. G. Reeve fall within its area of responsibility.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ensure that the request by Holne Chase Hotel in Dartmoor National Park under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme in respect of a loan of £250,000 is agreed to; and if he will amend his Department's guidelines for the scheme in respect of hotels and tourist attractions in National Parks to take account of the foot and mouth crisis, with particular reference to companies which have already, had a loan guaranteed under the scheme. [159607]

  Ms Hewitt
  Applications can be considered only from lenders once they are satisfied there is a viable business proposal that meets Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme criteria and are prepared to make the loan available, subject to a Government guarantee. All loans guaranteed before April 1993 are not counted towards the maximum borrowing under the Scheme. There are no plans to extend this criterion further.

  Chelsea Village Plc
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he began an investigation into share trading with the public listed company Chelsea Village; how many hidden trusts own Chelsea Village plc shares; how many of these hidden trusts are registered in the West Indies; and if hidden trusts have traded Chelsea Village shares between themselves. [159527]

  Dr. Howells
  I cannot discuss the affairs of individual companies but if my hon. Friend has information to suggest that there should be an investigation into the ownership of shares of Chelsea Village plc the Department will consider it.

PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions between 5 June 2000 and 31 March 2001 special advisers of the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [158549]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Prime Minister's Office (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions his(a) Chief of Staff, (b) Chief Press Secretary and (c) other members of his office travelled abroad on official business between 5 June 2000 and 31 March 2001. [158591]

  The Prime Minister
  Between 5 June 2000 and 31 March 2001, my Chief Press Secretary, my Chief of Staff and other members of my office have travelled overseas on official business, including accompanying me on official visits, on 39 occasions. All visits have been made in accordance with the rules set out in the Civil Service Management Code.

  These arrangements follow the practice of successive Administrations.

  Policy Unit (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions members of the Number 10 Policy Unit travelled abroad on official business between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001. [158592]

  The Prime Minister
  Between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001 members of the No. 10 Policy Unit have travelled overseas on official business on 63 occasions. All visits have been made in accordance with the rules set out in the Civil Service Management Code.

  These arrangements follow the practice of successive Administrations.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister which UK companies, in receipt of funds from the European Investment bank since 1997, have lobbied him over UK participation in the euro; which business leaders on the boards of the above companies have been associated with the Britain in Europe Campaign; and if he will make a statement. [158752]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly meet a wide range of business leaders. The European Investment bank's annual report lists companies which have received funds from them. A list of Britain in Europe board and council members is available on its website www.britainineurope.org.

  Motorola
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Motorola on the future of its mobile phone factory in Bathgate; and if he will hold similar discussions with Ericsson of Worksop Notts, on the future of its mobile telephone plant. [159120]
  454W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: I spoke to Motorola on Tuesday 10 April in support of the company choosing to maintain production at Easter Inch, the largest, private sector manufacturing site in Scotland, rather than closing it to focus all its production at the company's plant at Flensburg.

  Now Motorola has made its decision the Scottish Executive will pursue with the company future options for the Bathgate site. There are a variety of options to explore with the company—ranging from sale as a going concern including to a contract manufacturer of mobile phones or another related business. The other alternatives include new employment for a new employer purchasing the site. We regret the redundancies, and Invest UK has already begun to assist the Scottish Executive with the task of future options.

  In order to assist the individuals affected the Scottish Executive is setting-up a Taskforce with Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, Employment Service, West Lothian Council, the Careers Service, Benefits Agency and the STUC. The Taskforce will draw up an Action Plan specifically to meet the needs of the Motorola workers. Subject to the agreement of Motorola, this is likely to include an on-site jobshop, business start up workshops and other support to assist people to find jobs. The Taskforce has already begun work today.

  Ericsson announced on 26 January 2001 that it will cease manufacture of telephone handsets throughout the world and that in consequence it intends to dispose of its plants making handsets, including Carlton near Worksop and Scunthorpe. The Government have kept in regular contact with the Managing Director responsible for the two sites and with Ericsson HQ in Sweden over new developments. Through the Regional Development Agencies, Government Offices and Invest UK, we are working closely with the company to find a buyer for the sites. Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, Local Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies have also visited the Carlton and Scunthorpe operations in order to gain a better insight. I know my hon. Friend will shortly meet with the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the terms of reference for the public inquiry into the foot and mouth crisis referred to by the Minister for the Environment in his Statement on 23 April 2001,Official Report, column 25. [159556]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on 5 April 2001,Official Report, column 251W.

  Wal-Mart International
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 6 May 1999,Official Report, columns 445–46W, on planning, on what date he met the President of Wal-Mart International for a short courtesy call. [159800]
  455W
  The Prime Minister
  It is public knowledge that I met the President of Wal-Mart International in 1999. However it is not the normal practice of Government to provide the precise details of meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) of 31 January 2001,Official Report, column 224W, and to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood of 6 April 2001, Official Report, column 290W, if he will make a statement on the precedents he followed in not giving details of his meetings with individuals, foundations and companies. [158542]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 454W.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what reasons underlie the practice of Ministers not providing details of meetings held when requested in parliamentary questions. [159731]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 454W.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pakistan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Pakistani authorities over the subject of the treatment of Christians resident there. [159516]

  Mr. Wilson
  On 3 April, my noble Friend Baroness Scotland raised our concerns about the position of religious minorities with the Pakistani Attorney General and Minister of Law, Justice and Human Rights, Ms Shahida Jamil.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues concerning the Tamil community in Sri Lanka have been discussed by his Department with the Sri Lankan Government over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [158732]

  Mr. Wilson
  We continue to raise with the Sri Lankan Government our concerns about the situation in Sri Lanka, including human rights, the Bindunawewa massacre, the safety of journalists and the need for food and medical supplies to reach citizens in the Vanni. We urge the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to work together with Norway to secure a settlement to the conflict that meets the aspirations of all communities in Sri Lanka.
  456W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what areas of Sri Lanka the British High Commissioner and her staff have visited during the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [158733]

  Mr. Wilson
  The British High Commissioner and her staff regularly visit different regions in Sri Lanka. In the last six months, the High Commissioner has visited Trincomalee, Puttalam, Batticaloa, Galle and Nuwara Eliya. During her visits, she met Government officials, representatives of the security forces, non-governmental organisations, Tamil and Muslim communities and the Catholic clergy to discuss, among other things, the impact of the internal conflict on local communities.

  East Timor
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 2001,Official Report, column 797W, (1) if he will make a statement on when the relatives of the British newsmen killed at Balibo, East Timor in 1975 were informed of the investigation of the United Nations; and by whom; [159517]

  (2) if he will publish the FCO advice offered to British citizens resident in East Timor at the time of the Balibo conflict in 1975; [159515]

  (3) what communications have taken place between the relatives of the British newsmen killed at Balibo, East Timor in 1975 and the FCO over the last 12 months; [159519]

  (4) if it remains the view of his Department that the deaths of the British newsmen at Balibo in East Timor in 1975 were accidental; [159514]

  (5) what investigations into the death of the British newsmen killed at Balibo, East Timor in 1975 were already under way prior to the formal UN announcement; [159518]

  (6) what communications have taken place between the Australian Government and the FCO over the attack by Indonesian troops at Balibo in 1975. [159520]

  Mr. Battle
  Following the arrival of the UN Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), a number of people volunteered fresh information about the events in Balibo in 1975. In the light of this, in August 2000, the UN Prosecutor General took the decision to open an investigation into the deaths. While the investigation continues it would be inappropriate to prejudge its findings.

  The UK was not formally notified in advance of 15 September 2000, when UNTAET formally announced this decision to open an investigation. The FCO therefore did not have an opportunity to inform the relatives of the British journalists who died at Balibo beforehand. However, over the past year we have kept in regular touch with the relatives. I wrote to them most recently on 19 March. We have also maintained regular contact with the Australian Government.

  There was no formal mechanism to issue travel advice to British citizens prior to the establishment of the FCO Travel Advice Unit in 1990.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  GM Crops (North Essex)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for allowing GM crop trials in the North Essex constituency in the next 12 months; what consultation there has been with local communities and their representatives; and what representations he has received about such trials from them. [157577]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The public register of releases shows that no GM crops are presently being grown in the North Essex constituency under research consents. I also understand that no National List trials of GM crops are presently taking place in Essex. My Department announced the locations of the spring 2001 Farm Scale Evaluations on 3 April; two of these sites, near the village of Wivenhoe, are in the North Essex constituency (TM051 221 and TM056 221). Details of any further GM crop releases, including their locations, will be placed on our web site at www.detr.gov.uk or in the case of National List Trials, on MAFF's web site at www.maff.gov.uk.

  East Devon District Council

  £million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  92001–02

  Revenue support grant1

  2.510

  2.173

  2.086

  1.742

  2.063

  Income from national non-domestic rates1

  3.924

  3.949

  4.272

  4.738

  4.738

  Housing investment programme

  20.518

  0.671

  1.007

  31.715

  43.220

  Capital receipts initiative

  0.162

  0.495

  0.000

  n/a

  n/a

  Mid Devon Council

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  92001–02

  Revenue support grant1

  1.917

  1.842

  1.769

  1.695

  1.894

  Income from national non-domestic rates1

  2.096

  2.118

  2.286

  2.567

  2.547

  Housing investment programme

  20.744

  0.667

  0.747

  31.772

  42.554

  Housing revenue account subsidy

  0.570

  0.324

  0.182

  50.191

  —

  Capital receipts initiative

  0.171

  0.581

  0.538

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash incentive scheme

  0.100

  0.080

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  Loan charges defective housing

  0.047

  0.047

  0.047

  60.047

  60.047

  Capital challenge (supplementary credit and basic credit approvals)

  0.120

  0.080

  0

  0

  0

  Devon County Council

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  92001–02

  Revenue Support Grant1

  7266.389

  155.634

  158.924

  150.930

  166.866

  Income from national non-domestic rates1

  7205.912

  138.460

  151.558

  173.050

  170.054

  Local government reorganisation supplementary credit approval

  1.812

  0.765

  0

  0

  0

  Transport supplementary grant

  1.738

  1.238

  1.861

  0

  0

  Transport annual capital guideline

  1.738

  1.238

  1.861

  0

  0

  Transport block supplementary credit approval

  2.560

  1.214

  2.842

  10.281

  20.703

  Rural bus challenge grant8

  0

  0

  0.640

  0.300

  10—

  Rural bus subsidy grant

  0

  1.409

  1.409

  1.409

  1.799

  Capital challenge (supplementary credit and basic credit approvals)

  2.694

  2.257

  1.554

  0

  0

  Notes

  1 The 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.

  2 1997–98 HIP allocation inherited from the previous Government's spending plans. Present Government introduce CRI from 1997–98.

  458W
  My officials have written to parishes and local authorities in which a Farm Scale evaluation is to take place to provide information about the trial and to offer speakers for any public meetings the parish may wish to hold. We have received correspondence from members of the public in the Wivenhoe area about the siting of FSE sites in the parish.

  Departmental Policies (Tiverton and Honiton)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Tiverton and Honiton of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157808]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to East and Mid Devon district councils and Devon county council in the years 1997–98 to 2001–02 is shown in the tables. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on Tiverton and Honiton constituency. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.
  459W

  3 Single housing pot introduced from 2000–01 resulting in CRI being merged with HIP.

  4 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. East Devon's MRA allocation for 2001–02 is £2.274 million and, for comparison purposes, is included in the 2001–02 HIP allocation. Mid Devon's MRA allocation for 2001–02 is £1.712 million.

  5 Provisional.

  6 Estimated.

  7 Devon 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. The figures for 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 exclude the amount for the areas covered by the city of Plymouth and the borough of Torbay.

  8 Rural bus challenge figures represent awards—actual spend profiles for schemes may cover more than one year.

  9 Where known

  10 Not known

  Departmental Policies (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Ribble Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157846]

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue Support Grant1

  0.5

  0.7

  0.6

  0.5

  0.6

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates1

  1.6

  1.7

  1.8

  2.0

  2.0

  Housing Investment Programme2

  1.8

  2.0

  2.3

  3.9

  4.3

  Capital Receipts Initiative2

  n/a

  1.0

  1.1

  n/a

  n/a

  Challenge Fund3

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  1.1

  1.4

  ERDF Funding4

  0.01

  0.04

  1.0

  —

  —

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  3.7

  1.7

  2.9

  0

  0

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  2.1

  1.6

  1.5

  0

  0

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval5

  4.9

  3.1

  5.2

  511.0

  28.0

  1 These figures are for Ribble Valley district council. They have not been adjusted to make year on year comparisons possible.

  2 Figures for Lancashire county council

  3 There are two SRB initiatives in the Lancashire area, both of which could impact on the Ribble Valley:

  Raising Achievement of Young People in Lancashire—Round 2

  A seven year thematic scheme covering the whole of Lancashire targeted at raising the achievement and enhancing the employability of young people who are disenchanted with the system. The aim is to reduce long-term benefit dependency, alienation and anti-social behaviour while enhancing the chances of individual prosperity and quality of life.

  Challenge Fund Total: £3.4 million—Scheme Total: £11.6 million

  Lancashire Tourism Partnership—Round 3

  A seven year scheme to improve the competitiveness of the Lancashire tourism industry and develop Lancashire as a major tourism destination. The schemes primary objectives are economic development aimed at generating income, employment opportunities and investment in the County.

  Challenge Fund Total: £7.5 million—Scheme Total: £36.8 million

  4 East Lancashire are eligible to bid for Objective 3 European Social Funding resources of around £240 million for the North West. A second bidding round is now under way, launched on 2 April 2001 with bids to be submitted by 25 May

  5 2000–01—This figure is from Lancashire county council's provisional Local Transport Plan settlement.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conditions attach to the most recent tranche of public finance made over to Railtrack; and if he will make a statement. [158302]

  Mr. Hill
  The agreement in principle to the re-phasing of grants to Railtrack announced on 2 April 2001,Official Report, columns 8–9W, was subject to a number of conditions. The main points were enshrined in an agreed general Statement of Principles, copies of which have been placed in the House Library.
  460W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal funding which this Department has provided to Lancashire county council and Ribble Valley district council in 1997–98 to 2000–01 is shown in the table. This includes grants and borrowings approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much money has been spent on the Ribble Valley. It is for the local authorities to decide where within their boundaries these resources are applied.

  In addition to delivering long-term savings to the taxpayer, this agreement provides the basis for a new relationship between the company and Government, including a commitment from Railtrack in consultation with Government to appoint a non-executive director to its main Board with a remit to provide a powerful public and consumer voice. The Statement of Principles also sets out a new competitive framework for procuring large enhancement projects. This will allow third party finance and project delivery skills to be deployed through public private partnerships to deliver enhancement projects, enabling the company to give more attention to the management of the core rail network.

  Appointments (Age Limit)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [158110]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to equality of opportunity and to increasing the diversity of those appointed to public bodies. For this reason, the DETR places no upper or lower age limit on appointments to its public bodies and all appointments are made on merit.

  Rural Pubs
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of rural pubs that will receive 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief under the new Non-domestic Rating (Public Houses and Petrol Filling Stations) Order 2001. [158905]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  These figures are not held centrally. Under the Order, 50 per cent. rate relief is available to the sole pub with a rateable value of less than £9,000 in a designated rural settlement with a population of fewer than 3,000. We estimate that there are about 8,000 public houses with a rateable value of less than £9,000 situated in local authorities whose areas are predominantly rural. However, this figure includes public houses that are located in market towns and in settlements with more than one pub, neither of which would qualify for relief under the Order.

  Disability Discrimination Act (Railways)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has taken to ensure that the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1994 will be met by the railway industry by the 2004 deadline. [158834]

  Mr. Hill
  The provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) will require that, from 2004, service providers take reasonable steps to remove physical barriers to access. The Act does not set prescriptive accessibility requirements but the Disability Rights Commission will be publishing a revised Code of Practice which will give guidance on the new duties.

  In addition, my Department is producing a guidance document "Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure", which will be available shortly. It is intended to give guidance to transport operators and local authorities on current best practice to help them in preparing to meet the requirements of the DDA.

  When assessing bids for replacement franchises, the Strategic Rail Authority will consider better access to the network, particularly for disabled people. All proposals will be tested for compliance with the SRA's Code of Practice (which was transferred from the Office of the Rail Regulator and is currently being revised).

  More generally, our Ten Year Transport Plan "Transport 2010", published in July 2000, demonstrates the Government's continued commitment to improving accessibility. The rate and level of new investment will
  462W
  ensure that improvements in the accessibility of transport are brought forward more quickly. The Plan is also clear that building in accessibility for disabled people in all investment is a condition of public money being spent.

  Crime Prevention
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the implementation of the commitment in the 1998 White Paper on the future of transport relating to the adoption by public transport operators of crime prevention strategies contained in Guidance on Public Transport-Guidelines for Operators; how many public transport operators have formally adopted this guidance; and if he will instruct the Strategic Rail Authority to make it a condition of future franchise contracts that operators must formally adopt these guidelines. [158835]

  Mr. Hill
  These Guidelines have been widely distributed to transport operators, local authorities and other interested parties. As the Guidelines are not required to be implemented by the transport operators, we do not keep records on how many operators have adopted the Guidelines; nor do we have plans to make implementation mandatory. However, Local Transport Plans are required to address personal security issues in all modes and across the whole journey, and we will be undertaking a review of Local Transport Plans to see how local authorities have improved personal security.

  On rail, there are no plans to include the Guidelines in replacement franchise contracts, although we would expect operators to be aware of them.

  Gender Audits
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many public transport operators have undertaken gender audits in line with the Department's document, Women and Public Transport: the Checklist; what plans he has to ensure that more operators undertake gender audits; and if he will instruct the Strategic Rail Authority to ensure that gender audits are a requirement of future franchise contracts. [158826]

  Mr. Hill
  The Checklist has been widely distributed to transport operators, local authorities and interested parties. As the Checklist is not required to be implemented by transport operators, we do not keep records on how many operators have undertaken gender audits; nor do we have plans to make implementation mandatory. However, the Checklist is highlighted in 'Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans' as a useful tool to promote social inclusion, and we will be undertaking a review of Local Transport Plans to see how many local authorities have used the Checklist (and other departmental guidance) in their work to promote social inclusion.

  On rail, there are no plans to include the Checklist in replacement franchise contracts, although we would expect operators to be aware of it.

  Secure Stations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many stations have received secure station accreditations; and if he will instruct the Strategic Rail Authority to make it a
  463W
  condition of future franchise contracts that all appropriate stations should be brought up to secure station accreditation standard within a given timescale. [158832]

  Mr. Hill
  There are currently 97 stations accredited under the Secure Stations Scheme. The Secure Stations Scheme, which was launched in April 1998, is designed to improve and standardise good security practices at all overground and underground stations. To become an accredited Secure Station, each station operator needs to work with their local British Transport Police Crime Reduction Officer to ensure that their station meets the national standards on design and management to cut down crime. The standards relate to such measures as staff training, Help Points, CCTV, lighting and information. Operators also have to conduct an independent passenger survey to see whether passengers feel safe at the station and provide evidence that crime rates are low.

  We are aware that a number of stations are currently working towards accreditation and we will continue to work with the rail industry to encourage further accreditations. The Strategic Rail Authority is seeking to include Secure Stations and Secured Car Park accreditation at all appropriate locations as part of the franchise replacement process.

  Town and Parish Councils
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many town and parish councils were abolished in each year between 1990 and 1997. [158799]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Local Government Act 1972 contains no provision for the abolition of parish councils. However, this legislation provides for the dissolution of parish councils where the population of a parish falls below 150. Dissolution in such circumstances is carried out by order of the district council. We have no record of any dissolution orders.

  The Local Government Act 1992 made provision for the abolition of parishes by the Secretary of State following a recommendation by the Local Government Commission. No parishes were abolished as a consequence of the structural review of local Government during 1992–97.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many town and parish councils have been created by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [158798]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The following table shows the number of new parishes that have been created in each of the last 10 years:

  Year

  Number of parishes created

  1991–92

  10

  1992–93

  6

  1993–94

  10

  1994–95

  4

  1995–96

  18

  1996–97

  9

  1997–98

  1

  1998–99

  20

  1999–2000

  42

  2000–01

  16

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list measures he has taken to tackle domestic violence since 1 May 1997. [159420]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Since May 1997 my Department has put in place the following initiatives/ measures to help women who are fleeing from domestic violence, and who in many cases are threatened with homelessness as a result.

  Supporting People

  This new programme, to be implemented from April 2003, provides housing-related support services for vulnerable people, including survivors of domestic violence. The framework document "policy into practice" (January 2001), sets out how services will be planned and delivered. We are appointing two specialist co-ordinators and publishing further guidance to help local Supporting People partnerships develop their strategies for addressing domestic violence within the Supporting People programme.

  The Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund (SCSHF)

  This provides £120 million of capital and £17 million of revenue funding over three years, to be administered by the Housing Corporation (match-funding to be provided by local authorities) for housing and support services for a range of people, including women and children fleeing domestic violence.

  Grant Aid to Women's Aid Federation of England

  Since 1997 we have continued to support Women's Aid Federation of England through the Department's special grants programme, to develop a range of projects addressing the needs of survivors of domestic violence.

  Extending the Priority need categories of homeless people

  We will shortly be consulting on a proposal to extend the categories of people who have a priority need for accommodation under the homelessness legislation to include applicants who are vulnerable as a result of fleeing domestic violence or other violence.

  Interdepartmental initiatives

  My Department has contributed to the following interdepartmental initiatives and publications:

  Break the Chain

  Multi-agency guidance for addressing domestic violence

  Relation ship Breakdown, a Guide for social landlords.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what public funding has been paid to rural businesses under the schemes announced by the Minister to help them during the foot and mouth crisis, up to Friday 20 April. [159048]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The measures we have adopted in the last few weeks to help severely affected rural businesses respond to the impact of foot and mouth disease are expected to benefit business by around £230 million at the latest estimate, but clearly many depend on take up and application by affected businesses. It is not yet possible to estimate expenditure to date by all the agencies and local partners involved.

  Unadopted Roads
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what rebate is given to residents of unadopted roads within the council tax system; [159239]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the value of local services given to residents of unadopted roads. [159192]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There are no specific reductions for residents who live on unadopted roads in the same way that there are no reductions for people who do not have children at school. This is because the council tax is essentially a means of contributing towards the cost of providing a range of services throughout a local area rather than a charge for specific services used or enjoyed directly by individual households. However, when assigning a dwelling to a valuation band any factor which might affect the value of a dwelling, such as its being on an unadopted road, is taken into account.

  Heathrow
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to BAA over preparatory works in hand for Terminal 5. [159249]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  None. The enforcement of planning controls is a matter for the relevant planning authority.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require all new bicycles to be sold with lights attached. [159545]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions carried out a public consultation exercise in 1998 and concluded that there was insufficient justification for amending current legislation to require all new bicycles to be sold with lights attached, as many pedal cycles are never used after dark.

  Furthermore, there is already a requirement under the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 that front and rear position lamps, meeting a prescribed standard, must be fitted and must be lit on pedal cycles when ridden at night.

  Transport Information Provision
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library details of research commissioned by his Department into transport information provision and Transport Direct. [159230]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: Details of the travel information research commissioned by my Department were published in April in the "Roads and Local Transport Research Programme, Compendium of research projects 2000–2001", pages 101–111. A copy of the "Compendium" is available on my Department's website and has now been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Partnership Investment Programme
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding European Commission approval of the five new land and property regeneration schemes designed to partially replace the partnership investment programme. [159861]

  Ms Armstrong
  The European Commission has now approved all of the five new schemes which have been designed to partially replace the Partnership Investment Programme, as follows:a direct development scheme;
  two gap funding schemes, one for developments for a known end-user, the other for developments for disposal on the open market;
  a scheme for community regeneration, and
  a scheme for environmental regeneration.

  All the approved schemes are now in effect. As a result, Regional Development Agencies and English Partnerships will be able to support a wide range of land and property regeneration projects, including projects which can be taken forward in partnership with the private sector.

  Direct development involves the public sector acquiring the land to be redeveloped, carrying out the works, and selling the reclaimed site at open market value.

  Under gap funding, the public sector bridges the gap between development costs and the likely end value, allowing property developers to bring contaminated, derelict and disused sites back into full economic use. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) will be eligible for assistance under this scheme anywhere in England. Where the developer is not an SME, the project must be located in an Assisted Area.

  Under the Community Regeneration scheme, funding is made available to local organisations so that they can take forward small-scale regeneration projects. Funding is only available for projects which are put forward by non-profit making bodies working in the community or voluntary sectors.

  The purpose of the environmental regeneration scheme is to improve the environment by reclaiming derelict or potentially derelict land and providing a cover of vegetation. Subsequent uses of the site may include public open spaces, nature conservation areas and playing fields.

  We now intend to build on this success by continuing to press the Commission for a new regeneration framework, under which state aid would be permitted for the regeneration of derelict or disused land throughout England and the rest of the European Community.

  New Deal for Communities Programme
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he is prepared to make available to Round 2 partnerships under the New Deal for Communities Programme. [159928]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I am delighted to announce that we have today offered the NDC Round 2 partnerships funding of over £1,100 million to implement their strategy for change. We have also made funding available to the remaining pathfinder partnership.
  467W
  Following receipt of delivery plans in March, I am today allocating funding to the following 22 NDC partnerships:

  £ million

  District

  Neighbourhood

  Funding award

  Hartlepool

  West Central Hartlepool

  53.79

  Sunderland

  East End and Hendon

  53.89

  Oldham

  Hathershaw and Fitton Hall

  53.53

  Rochdale

  Old Heywood

  52.0

  Salford

  Charlestown and Lower Kersal

  53.0

  Sheffield

  Burngreave

  52.0

  Doncaster

  Central Doncaster

  52.0

  Derby

  Derwent

  38.0

  Coventry

  Wood End, Henley Green and Manor Farm

  54.0

  Birmingham

  Aston

  54.0

  Wolverhampton

  All Saints and Blakenhall

  53.5

  Walsall

  Blakenall

  52.0

  Luton

  Marsh Farm

  48.835

  Plymouth

  Devonport

  48.73

  Southampton

  Thornhill

  48.7

  Brent

  South Kilburn

  50.06

  Islington

  Finsbury

  52.92

  Haringey

  Seven Sisters

  50.12

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  North Fulham

  44.28

  Lambeth

  Clapham Park

  56.0

  Lewisham

  New Cross

  45.0

  Birmingham

  Kings Norton

  50.0

  The remaining Round 2 partnership, Knowsley, will take advantage of the additional three months they were given at the end of Phase 2 to work on community involvement and strategic linkages with key agencies. The partnership will submit a Delivery Plan in June 2001 with an announcement to follow shortly after.

  This brings the total resources allocated to NDC partnerships to just under £2,000 million over the next 10 years.

  Designated Airport Status
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what work has been undertaken by the Government, as part of the developing aviation white paper process, on the possibility of extending designated airport status to other airports in the UK. [159528]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  In the integrated transport White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" the Government announced their intention to prepare a UK airports policy looking 30 years ahead and bring forward new policies on civil aviation. The extent to which Government should rely on regulation to influence the environmental effects of aviation, and whether there should be greater reliance on economic instruments and voluntary agreements, is among the issues examined in the Government's recent consultation document on air transport policy—"The Future of Aviation". The closing date for responses to that consultation was 12 April 2001 and they are presently being studied.

  Transport Act (Contracts)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the maximum length of a contract for a subsidised service as set out in Section 90(1) of the Transport Act 1985. [159280]
  468W
  Mr. Hill
  None at present, although we have undertaken in the Rural White Paper to look at the possibility of extending the maximum period from five years to 10.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Policies (Luton, South)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Luton, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156162]

  Mr. Wills
  Outlined are details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Luton, South constituency and Luton local education authority.

  Beacon Schools

  There is one Beacon School in the Luton, South constituency: Hillborough Junior School.

  Schools with specialist status designated since 1997

  There is one Specialist School in the Luton, South constituency: Ashcroft High School, which has Technology College status.

  Education Maintenance Allowance

  Luton LEA is one of the new EMA pilot areas. Since September 2000 just over £260,000 has been paid out in EMAs to 569 students.

  School Achievement Awards

  15 Schools in the Luton, South constituency have been awarded a total of £121,250.00 under this scheme. The schools and awards are as follows:

  £

  Beech Hill Community Primary School

  12,030

  Dallow Infant School

  7,500

  Dallow Junior School

  7,310

  Denbigh High School

  29,880

  Denbigh Infant School

  8,800

  Foxdell Junior School

  5,350

  Hillborough Junior School

  5,520

  Orchard Centre PRU (formally Charles Street Tuition Centre)

  2,820

  Putteridge Infant School

  5,460

  Sacred Heart RC Infants School

  3,990

  Slip End Lower School

  3,410

  Someries Junior School

  6,450

  St. Mary's RC Lower School

  6,020

  Tennyson Road Primary School

  4,840

  Wigmore Primary School

  11,870

  Class Sizes

  Luton LEA

  £

  Revenue

  Capital

  1998–99

  0

  58,000

  1999–2000

  130,000

  574,396

  2000–01

  618,615

  79,500

  2001–02

  635,881

  0

  The September 2000 figures show that there are now only 380 (6.2 per cent.) pupils remaining in infant

  469W
  classes of 31 or more. The figure in January 1997 was 2,427 (42 per cent.).

  Luton Performance Data

  Key Stage 2, percentage of pupils achieving level 4

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  English

  LEA average

  72

  68

  61

  58

  England average

  75

  71

  65

  63

  Maths

  LEA average

  65

  62

  51

  54

  England average

  72

  69

  59

  62

  Science

  LEA average

  82

  74

  61

  63

  England average

  85

  78

  69

  69

  GCSE—percentage of pupils achieving

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  5+ A*—

  LEA average

  39.7

  35.8

  35.0

  34.3

  England average

  49.2

  47.9

  46.3

  45.1

  5+ A*—G

  LEA average

  91.4

  92

  92.4

  89.9

  England average

  88.9

  88.5

  87.5

  86.4

  Luton LEA capital funding

  £000

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Total

  Credit approvals

  ACG

  1,356

  2,918

  556

  201

  171

  5,202

  SCA

  —

  217

  1,033

  240

  40

  1,530

  Grants

  NDS Condition Funding

  392

  —

  —

  —

  —

  392

  NDS

  —

  2,275

  691

  322

  288

  3,576

  NGfL

  914

  625

  326

  374

  —

  2,239

  VA grant

  127

  239

  98

  73

  102

  639

  Schools devolved formula capital

  —

  1,344

  —

  —

  —

  1,344

  Science labs

  134

  134

  —

  —

  —

  268

  Energy

  —

  —

  —

  51

  —

  51

  AMP support

  —

  —

  25

  —

  —

  25

  Seed challenge

  161

  146

  —

  —

  —

  307

  Infant class size

  —

  110

  545

  57

  —

  712

  Security

  46

  65

  65

  57

  46

  279

  SSLUs

  54

  61

  —

  —

  —

  115

  Schools Access Initiative

  232

  17

  —

  —

  —

  249

  NDS Devolved Formula

  1,109

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,109

  Outside Toilets

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  6

  Nursery provision

  —

  64

  —

  —

  —

  64

  Total

  4,525

  8,215

  3,339

  1,381

  647

  Further Education

  Student numbers at all Further Education Funding Council funded institutions where home postcode is in the local authority district of Luton are given in the table.

  1996–97 to 1999–2000

  FEFC funded

  Non-FEFC funded

  16–18

  Adult

  16–18

  Adult

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1996–97

  3,238

  794

  657

  9,042

  88

  368

  69

  633

  1997–98

  2,995

  1,130

  769

  10,810

  81

  307

  69

  604

  1998–99

  3,316

  723

  824

  10,441

  105

  534

  71

  799

  1999–2000

  3,385

  817

  817

  10,159

  112

  379

  179

  1,068

  470W

  GCSE—percentage of pupils achieving

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  No Passes

  LEA average

  3.2

  3.2

  2.1

  4.3

  England average

  5.6

  6.0

  6.6

  7.7

  Average Point Score

  LEA average

  36.7

  35.5

  35.9

  n/a

  England average

  38.9

  38.1

  37.0

  n/a

  A/AS level and Advanced GNVQ

  2000

  1999

  1998

  Average points for 2 or more A/AS levels

  LEA average

  13.6

  13.4

  14.1

  England average

  18.5

  18.2

  17.8

  A/AS average per entry

  LEA average

  4.5

  4.4

  4.6

  England average

  5.5

  5.5

  5.4

  Average point score GNVQs

  LEA average

  8.1

  9.0

  9.5

  England average

  10.1

  9.9

  9.6

  Funding per pupil

  In Luton LEA, funding per pupil has increase by £520 real terms between 1997–98 and 2001–02.
  471W
  Modern Apprenticeships

  Information on Modern Apprenticeships for all English constituencies will be placed in the Library by the end of March.

  New Deal for Young People

  In the Luton, South constituency, 966 young people had joined the New Deal to the end of December 2000. 386 have found jobs, 299 of which are sustained.

  Labour market statistics

  The working age employment rate in Luton in autumn 2000 was 71.9 per cent., below the UK rate of 74.7 per cent. The rate in autumn 1997 was 77.0 per cent., in autumn 1998 73.0 per cent., and in autumn 1999 74.9 per cent. These figures are volatile at this level, and our best interpretation of the trend in the employment rate for Luton since 1997 is that it has been broadly flat.

  The claimant unemployment rate has fallen from 5.3 per cent. in February 1997 to 2.7 per cent. in February 2001 in the Luton, South constituency.

  Departmental Policies (Great Grimsby)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Great Grimsby constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156248]

  Mr. Wills
  Outlined are the details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Great Grimsby constituency and North-East Lincolnshire LEA.

  Sure Start

  There are two Sure Start programmes in North-East Lincolnshire.
  Nunsthorpe and Bradley Park: The programme was approved in January 2000. The level of grant approved was a maximum of £2,304,430 up until 31 March 2002 of which £785,000 for capital projects and £1,518,930 for revenue costs. The catchment area covers Nunsthorpe and Bradley Park, which is about two miles outside Grimsby and covers 550 0 to three-year-olds. Nunsthorpe and Bradley Park is a local authority led programme which offers services such as Story Sacks where parents work with an Adult Education Tutor to boost their involvement in their children's learning, a versatile information service which can be booked into various locations (schools, clinics etc.) and a Family Literacy Programme. The programme has close links with the Early Excellence Centre, which is adjacent to the main Sure Start Centre.
  East Marsh: A round 4 programme, which covers 800 0 to three-year-olds and is in an early stage of development. The programme is currently working to draw up its outline plan, which is due in the Sure Start Unit on April 25. Deadline for full delivery of the plan is 18 July 2001.

  Beacon Schools

  There is one Beacon school in North-East Lincolnshire Strand Infant School, which started in
  January 2001.

  Schools with specialist status designated since 1997

  There are three Specialist Schools in North-East Lincolnshire. Hereford School and Western School are jointly designated (Technology) and The Lindsey School (Arts).
  472W
  Education Action Zone

  North-East Lincolnshire has one EAZ. Grimsby EAZ is a first round zone, which was established in September 1998. It has been approved for extension from three to five years, taking it to August 2003. The zone consists of 11 primary, three secondary schools and a nursery school (details follow). The zone receives up to £1 million in additional public and private sector funding each year.

  The zone's key activities are:
  Open school TV programmes taking the classroom into the living room via local TV station.
  Secondary schools as ICT Centres of excellence linking primary schools.
  Virtual classroom via the Internet.
  Daily sessions focusing on literacy, numeracy and IT for all pupils in the zone.
  In-school units for years eight and nine to reduce permanent exclusions.

  The zone has had some very encouraging results. Between 1998 and 2000 the proportions of zone children achieving level 2 in reading, writing and maths at key stage 1 have increased by 15 per cent., 15 per cent. and 16 per cent., compared with 4 per cent., 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. seen nationally. At key stage 4, the proportions of pupils gaining 5+ A*-C, 5+ A*-G and 1+ A*-G have increased by 4 per cent., 7 per cent. and 7 per cent., compared with national gains of 3 per cent., 1 per cent. and 1 per cent. respectively.

  Class sizes

  £

  Revenue

  Capital

  1998–99

  0

  518,483

  1999–2000

  377,000

  171,532

  2000–01

  715,302

  448,212

  2001–02

  646,908

  0

  The September 2000 figures show that there are now only 98 (1.8 per cent.) pupils remaining in infant classes of 31 or more. The figure in January 1997 was 2,393 (38 per cent.).

  North-East Lincolnshire Performance Data Key Stage 2, percentage of pupils achieving level 4

  2000

  1999

  1998

  English

  LEA

  71

  66

  58

  England

  75

  71

  65

  Maths

  LEA

  68

  66

  53

  England

  72

  69

  59

  Science

  LEA

  80

  73

  62

  England

  85

  78

  69

  473W

  GCSE—percentage of pupils achieving

  2000

  1999

  1998

  5+A*-C

  LEA

  35.8

  35.5

  33.3

  England Average

  49.2

  47.9

  46.3

  5+A*-G

  LEA

  87.0

  84.8

  82.7

  England Average

  88.9

  88.5

  87.5

  No passes

  LEA

  6.7

  7.8

  10.1

  England Average

  5.6

  6.0

  6.6

  Average point score

  LEA

  33.5

  32.3

  30.8

  England Average

  38.9

  38.1

  37.0

  North-East Lincolnshire LEA capital funding

  £000

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Annual Capital Guideline (ACG)

  191

  601

  957

  1,075

  474

  Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA)

  —

  228

  119

  38

  20

  New Deal for Schools (NDS)

  —

  2,173

  1,600

  1,472

  328

  Voluntary Aided (VA) grant

  38

  53

  203

  199

  36

  Seed Challenge Initiative

  151

  138

  —

  —

  —

  Public Private Partnerships (PPP)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Formula Capital (Including additional)

  —

  259

  —

  —

  —

  National Grid for Learning (NGfL)

  847

  587

  390

  520

  —

  Science labs

  133

  133

  —

  —

  —

  Early Excellence Centre grant

  —

  153

  67

  —

  —

  Assist Management Plan (AMP) Assistance

  —

  —

  24

  —

  —

  Access at 85 per cent.

  232

  —

  3

  1

  —

  Security

  41

  60

  60

  59

  47

  Outside toilets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Energy

  —

  —

  —

  60

  —

  Class Size Initiative

  —

  492

  91

  518

  —

  Nursery Provision

  —

  60

  —

  —

  —

  Secondary Learning Support Units

  43

  49

  —

  —

  —

  NDS Devolved Formula

  675

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Additional NDS Devolved Formula

  351

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS Condition Funding

  495

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Education Maintenance Allowance

  In September 2000 we extended the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) scheme to 41 additional pilot areas, one of which is the North-East Lincolnshire LEA area. This is one of five pilots designed to identify the extent to which transport costs are a barrier to learning. There are currently over 700 young people in receipt of an allowance. Recent published evaluation

  1996–97 to 1999–2000

  FEFC funded

  Non-FEFC funded

  16–18

  Adult

  16–18

  Adult

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1996–97

  1,081

  368

  416

  5,715

  58

  314

  55

  771

  1997–98

  1,158

  381

  292

  5,628

  100

  274

  26

  855

  1998–99

  1,237

  360

  344

  5,653

  44

  281

  32

  827

  1999–2000

  1,272

  388

  300

  6,601

  40

  280

  62

  1,143

  Modern Apprenticeships

  Information on Modern Apprentice ships for all English constituencies will be placed in the Library by the end of March.
  474W

  A/AS level and Advanced GNVQ

  2000

  1999

  1998

  Average points for fewer than 2 A/AS levels

  LEA

  2.6

  2.8

  3.1

  England Average

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  Average points for 2 or more A/AS levels

  LEA

  16.2

  15.9

  14.1

  England Average

  18.5

  18.2

  17.8

  Advanced GNVQs

  LEA

  8.5

  6.9

  10.8

  England Average

  10.1

  9.9

  9.6

  Funding per pupil

  In North-East Lincolnshire LEA, funding per pupil has increased by £590 in real terms between 1997–98 and 2001–02.

  reports show that EMAs are making a positive difference to young people's lives. On average, an additional 5 per cent. of eligible 16 and 17-year-olds are staying in education in the pilot areas because of EMAs.

  Further Education

  Student numbers at all Further Education Funding Council funded institutions where home postcode is in the local authority district of Great Grimsby are given in the table.

  New Deal for Young People

  In the Great Grimsby constituency, 1,974 young people have joined the New Deal to end December 2000. 991 have found jobs, 701 of which are sustained.
  475W
  Labour market statistics

  The working age employment rate in North-East Lincolnshire in autumn 2000 was 68.6 per cent., below the UK rate of 74.7 per cent. The rate in autumn 1997 was 66.6 per cent.

  The claimant unemployment rate has fallen from 8.9 per cent. in February 1997 to 6.5 per cent. in February 2001 in the Great Grimsby constituency.

  Departmental Policies (Sandwell)
  Mr. Bailey
  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 borough, the effects of his Department's policies and actions on the metropolitan borough of Sandwell since 2 May 1997. [156378]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: Outlined are details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the metropolitan borough of Sandwell.

  Sure Start

  Sandwell local education authority has one initiative made up of three residential areas which includes Brickhouse, Rowley and Springfield estates.

  Schools with specialist status designated since 1997

  Wood Green High School has specialist arts status.

  Failing Schools

  St. Mary's RC and Willingsworth Schools are both in Special Measures.

  Private Finance Initiative (PFI)

  This scheme is to rebuild five primary schools and that complements regeneration proposals in the authority. One of the 5 schools included, Great Bridge Primary, is in the West Bromwich, West.

  School Achievement Awards

  Thirteen schools within the West Bromwich, West constituency achieved the awards for improvement. This amounted to £95,510 for the constituency.

  Education Action Zone

  An EAZ began operation in January 2000. It involves 4 secondary and 11 primary schools in the Wednesbury area and concentrates on strategies to raise achievement in literacy, numeracy and information and communications technology by means of new teaching and learning methods. The majority of the schools involved in the EAZ fall within the West Bromwich, West constituency.

  Class Sizes

  Figures for September 2000 show that Sandwell had 1.0 per cent. of infant pupils (99) taught in large classes with more than 30 pupils. This compares with 1.9 per cent.

  Sandwell LEA capital funding

  £000

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Total

  Credit approvals:

  ACG

  494

  1,251

  1,006

  673

  2,481

  5,905

  SCA

  —

  202

  148

  282

  1,586

  2,218

  PFI credits

  —

  12,200

  —

  —

  —

  12,200

  Grants:

  NDS Condition

  788

  —

  —

  —

  —

  788

  NDS

  —

  4,687

  2,527

  464

  808

  8,486

  NGfL

  1,472

  1,056

  366

  406

  —

  3,300

  476W
  nationally. Sandwell has received capital funding of £1.5 million to build 19 additional classrooms, and revenue support of £3.3 million for 158 extra teachers.

  Sandwell performance data key stage 2, percentage of pupils achieving level 4

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  English:

  LEA

  65

  59

  54

  52

  England average

  75

  71

  65

  63

  Maths:

  LEA

  60

  56

  45

  46

  England average

  72

  69

  59

  62

  Science:

  LEA

  77

  66

  54

  51

  England average

  85

  78

  69

  69

  GCSE—percentage of pupils achieving

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  5+ A*—C

  LEA Average

  31.7

  29.7

  28.7

  26.9

  England Average1

  49.2

  47.9

  46.3

  45.1

  5+ A*—G

  LEA Average

  84.9

  84.0

  83.3

  80.2

  England Average1

  88.9

  88.5

  87.5

  86.4

  No Passes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  LEA Average

  7.9

  8.8

  9.7

  12.3

  England Average1

  5.6

  6.0

  6.6

  7.7

  Average Point Score

  LEA Average

  30.7

  30.1

  28.7

  n/a

  England Average

  38.9

  38.1

  37.0

  n/a

  A/AS level and advanced GNVQ

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  Average Points for two or more A/AS levels

  LEA Average

  10.6

  11.8

  12.3

  11.1

  England Average

  18.5

  18.2

  17.8

  17.3

  A/AS average per entry

  LEA Average

  3.2

  3.7

  3.8

  n/a

  England Average

  5.5

  5.5

  5.4

  5.3

  Average point score GNVQs

  LEA Average

  9.5

  10.6

  8.6

  n/a

  England Average

  10.1

  9.9

  9.6

  n/a

  Funding per pupil

  In Sandwell LEA, funding per pupil has increased by £610 in real terms between 1997–98 and 2001–02.
  477W

  Sandwell LEA capital funding

  £000

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Total

  VA grant

  108

  120

  90

  69

  69

  456

  Schools' formula capital

  —

  2,211

  —

  —

  —

  2,211

  Science labs

  194

  194

  —

  —

  —

  388

  Nursery provision

  —

  69

  —

  —

  —

  69

  Energy

  —

  —

  —

  90

  —

  90

  AMP support

  —

  —

  41

  —

  —

  41

  SEED challenge

  234

  208

  —

  —

  —

  442

  Infant class size

  —

  5

  5

  96

  —

  1,531

  Security

  73

  104

  106

  103

  82

  468

  SSLU's

  78

  89

  —

  —

  —

  167

  Schools Access Initiative

  349

  9

  3

  —

  —

  361

  NDS Devolved Formula1

  1,795

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,795

  Total

  5,091

  8,752

  4,563

  1,228

  959

  20,593

  1 Formerly School's formula capital

  Further Education

  Student numbers at all FEFC funded institutions where home postcode is in the local authority district of Sandwell, are given in the table.

  1996–97 to 1999–2000

  FEFC funded

  Non-FEFC funded

  16–18

  Adult

  16–18

  Adult

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1996–97

  3,002

  1,405

  2,256

  15,604

  200

  206

  171

  365

  1997–98

  2,949

  l,605

  1,982

  16,146

  198

  277

  152

  425

  1998–99

  3,030

  1,531

  1,771

  15,270

  185

  418

  256

  706

  1999–2000

  3,175

  1,560

  1,828

  16,212

  180

  509

  295

  776

  Modern Apprenticeships

  Information on Modern Apprentice ships for all English constituencies will be placed in the Library by the end of March.

  New Deal for Young People

  In the West Bromwich, West constituency, 1,565 young people had joined the New Deal to the end of December 2000. 742 have found jobs, 567 of which are sustained.

  Labour market statistics

  The working age employment rate in Sandwell in autumn 2000 was 66.1 per cent., below the UK rate of 74.7 per cent. The rate in autumn 1997 was 69.2 per cent., in autumn 1998 71.5 per cent., and in autumn 1999 66.6 per cent. These figures are volatile at this level, and our best interpretation of the trend in the employment rate for Sandwell since 1997 is that it has been broadly flat.

  The claimant unemployment rate has fallen from 6.7 per cent. in February 1997 to 4.8 per cent. in February 2001 in the West Bromwich, West constituency.

  Child Care Workers
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the effectiveness of the campaign to recruit child care workers. [158109]

  Ms Hodge
  The response to the campaign has been very positive. By 16 April 2001, the media advertising had generated over 64,000 calls to the national recruitment orderline and over 70,000 booklets have been sent out to callers. The latest survey of callers to the 478W
  orderline shows that over 70 per cent. of all respondents have taken or intend to take action to find work or training in the sector. A survey in January suggested that six months after contacting the orderline 16 per cent. of the sample had found work in the sector, 21 per cent. of an earlier, larger, sample of callers had attended a training course and that many others intended to do so.

  Primary Schools (Year 6)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much time is spent in primary schools in Year 6 on core subjects as a proportion of all teaching; and what the proportion was in May 1997. [158536]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The average percentage of Year 6 teaching time currently spent on the core subjects is 60 per cent. (27 per cent. for English, 22 per cent. for mathematics and 11 per cent. for science). This compares with an average of 53 per cent. (22 per cent. for English, 19 per cent. for mathematics and 12 per cent. for science) in 1996–97.

  We welcome the fact that primary schools are now spending more time teaching English and mathematics, where standards were unacceptably low in 1997. Since 1997, we have introduced the daily Literacy Hour and mathematics lesson, which have improved the quality of teaching and raised standards of achievement, not only in English and mathematics but also in science and the foundation subjects of the National Curriculum, which schools are required to teach.

  Truancy
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the average level of fine imposed on parents for allowing their child to truant. [158842]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Absence from school for no good reason is a serious matter. That is why we have introduced a range of measures designed to reduce the level of truancy. This includes a higher penalty for parents convicted of school attendance offences, which came into force on 1 March 2001.

  Parents convicted of school attendance offences can, as before, face a fine of up to £1,000 per parent per child. However under the new higher penalty for persistent and aggravated truancy, they could be fined a maximum fine of £2,500 per parent per child.

  While full details on the average level of fine imposed on parents convicted of school attendance offences are not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, we do know that fines were often as low as £20 under the previous fines regime. Under the new arrangements, however, magistrates will be able to impose a higher level of fine, typically £100-£200, that matches the seriousness of the offence. In addition, if prosecuted under the higher penalty, parents will have to turn up in court and face the consequences of their action. If they do not do so, they face arrest.

  Value Added Tables
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received with regard to the introduction of value added tables; and what plans he has to introduce value added tables. [158848]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: We have received a number of representations about the use of value added measures in school performance tables. Their introduction is supported in principle by the head teacher associations and overwhelmingly by those who have responded to past consultation exercises.

  We are committed to supplementing the information already published in school performance tables with value added measures showing how far schools help their pupils to progress between the stages of their education. We will do this as soon as we have the necessary information about individual pupil performance and have tested successfully the processes involved.

  We intend to run a pilot this year on the calculation and presentation of value added measures from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 and from Key Stage 3 to GCSE/GNVQ and to publish those measures for all schools in the secondary tables in 2002. We will then publish a value added measure for primary schools in 2003 after piloting in 2002. Following the introduction of "Qualifying for Success" reforms, introduction of value added in the 16–18 tables will necessarily have to wait at least until the first full set of results under the new framework has been awarded.

  Connexions
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff are employed by the Connexions Service National Unit; and what is its planned yearly running costs [158997]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The Connexions National Unit now has responsibility for a number of different policy strands. As at 1 April 2001 95 (Full Time Equivalent) staff are employed, developing core activities and services for Connexions. A further 65 are included in the National Unit who are employed in the administration of programmes related to Connexions, for example Millennium Volunteers, the Neighbourhood Support Fund, New Start and the Learning Gateway. The National Unit's running cost budget for the year 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 is £6.4 million. This includes the running cost budget for the administration of the programmes referred to.

  Employment Zones
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people who have found jobs through the Employment Zones. [159003]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The latest figures available show that from April 2000 to the end of March 2001 the contractors running the Employment Zones had claimed for 8,057 people into jobs. This is an under-representation of the actual number of jobs achieved as the figure does not include those jobs for which contractors have yet to provide the necessary evidence.

  East Ravendale School
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the outside toilets for children and staff at East Ravendale School, North-East Lincolnshire. [159354]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have asked officials within the Department to prepare a report on the particular problems faced by East Ravendale School for discussion when I meet my hon. Friend, the head teacher and Chair of Governors of the school and the Leader of North-East Lincolnshire Council, on Thursday 3 May.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 16 March on behalf of Mrs. Martin. [159687]

  Mr. Wills
  My right hon. Friend will reply to the right hon. Gentleman's letter of 16 March today.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Repairs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what estimate has made of the total cost of repairs to the Church of England's places of worship likely to take place in the 12 months from 1 April 2001. [158169]
  481W
  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Churches Main Committee—an ecumenical body—recently commissioned a study of the cost of repairs and maintenance to the buildings of several of the main Christian denominations. This indicated that in 1999 the cost of repairs to the Church of England's 16,250 parish churches and cathedrals was in the region of £29 million, with maintenance adding a further £11 million.

  Tenant Farmers
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what his policy is for assisting farmers who are tenants of the Church Commissioners. [158173]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners acutely aware of the problems facing their farm tenants, including the severe effects of Foot and Mouth disease. Cases of hardship are considered individually and the Commissioners try to be as helpful as possible.

  Circumstances vary, but rent review settlements have typically seen reductions of an average of some 12 per cent.

  Churches (Alternative Uses)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what advice the Commission gives churches on their use for purposes other than worship. [158174]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners' primary responsibility is the management of their assets to support the Church of England's nation-wide ministry. Advice is provided to parishes on the care, use and development of churches by the Council for the Care of Churches and at local level by the 43 Diocesan Advisory Committees for the Care of Churches.

  Unlisted Places of Worship
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will extend his commitment to help listed places of worship via the proposed grant scheme to unlisted places of worship. [158175]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has given priority to listed places of worship because of the specially costly burden borne by congregations who strive to care properly for their historic buildings.

  But I shall continue to remind him of the concern, expressed by the Churches Main Committee among others, as to the burden of VAT on places of worship that are unlisted, in the hope that it may in time prove possible to extend relief to them also.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Creative Industries
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his assessment is of the contribution of creative industries to the cultural and economic performance of the UK. [158146]
  482W
  Janet Anderson
  The creative industries in the UK generate revenues of around £112.5 billion and employ some 1.3 million people. Exports contribute around £10.3 billion to the balance of trade, and the industries account for over 5 per cent. of GDP. In 1997–98, output grew by 16 per cent., compared with under 6 per cent. for the economy as a whole.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about his Department's support for the UK's creative industries. [158162]

  Janet Anderson
  We published in March a new Creative Industries Mapping Document which estimates the industries generate around £112.5 billion in revenue, contribute some £10.2 billion in export earnings, employ 1.3 million people, and account for over 5 per cent. of GDP.

  My Department has sought to co-ordinate efforts across Government in support of the creative industries. Through the efforts of the Creative Industries Task Force, we have investigated generic issues which impact on the creative industries, and recommend changes in areas such as skills and training, finance for creative ventures, intellectual property rights and export promotion. These changes have resulted in better careers guidance on the creative industries; more efforts at regional level to provide appropriate finance for creative businesses; improved information services on intellectual property for creators, users and the general public; and a more streamlined and focused range of support for exporters.

  Sporting Events
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the Government's policy is towards the hosting of major sporting events in the UK. [158147]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are committed to attracting top international major sporting events to this country because they attract world wide audiences and can showcase the UK as well as helping to boost participation in sport. UK Sport's Major Events Strategy is aimed at ensuring that all bids are properly co-ordinated and based on sound financial planning. It is important to consider not just the sporting event itself but the wider opportunities presented for community regeneration and social cohesion.

  National Stadium (Wembley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Football Association to discuss progress of building the new national stadium at Wembley. [158149]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I meet Geoff Thompson, the Chairman of the Football Association, from time to time to discuss a range of issues. I last met with him last week, and we did indeed discuss the Wembley project when we met.

  Royal Parks
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on the reopening of those royal parks which are closed because of the foot and mouth outbreak. [158150]
  483W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I received representations both for and against the reopening of these parks. The parks were reopened on 11 April.

  Museum and Gallery Visits
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people have visited museums and galleries sponsored by his Department in the last two years. [158153]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In 1999–2000 the number of visits to museums and galleries sponsored by my Department was 26.08 million. Based on recent data returns the figure for 2000–01 is 30.50 million.

  The 2000–01 figure represents an increase of over 20 per cent. on 1998–99 the last year before DCMS began to extend free entry at its sponsored museums and galleries.

  I believe that these figures represent a considerable success for my Department's access policies and reflect a great deal of hard work and commitment on behalf of the sponsored bodies involved.

  Arts Projects
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has to assist local authorities in promoting arts projects. [158154]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published "Creating Opportunities". The preparation of a local cultural strategy in accordance with this guidance document will help local authorities to develop a coherent vision for cultural activities and projects.

  Television Licences
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will introduce measures to allow televisions in communal areas in homes where all residents are over 75 years old to have a free licence. [158156]

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will introduce measures to allow televisions in communal areas in homes where all residents are over 75 years old to have a free licence. [158163]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government have received a number of representations from hon. Members and members of the public on this subject. We are currently considering the matter.

  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how people in sheltered housing have been affected by changes to the television licensing regime; and if he will make a statement. [158161]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The only recent change relating specifically to sheltered housing has been an amendment to the regulations governing the £5 Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) concessionary licence scheme in April 2000. This brought the qualifying age for men and women into line at 60. Information is not available on the number of additional beneficiaries resulting from this change.
  484W
  An estimated 500,000 people live in sheltered housing which qualifies for the ARC scheme. About 80 per cent. of these residents are aged 75 or over and therefore now qualify for the free licences introduced by the Government in November last year. The number of people living in sheltered housing which does not qualify for the ARC scheme is not known, but any residents who are 75 or over are also entitled to a free licence.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his estimate is of the costs of care and maintenance of the Millennium Dome from the date of the disposal of the majority of its contents by auction to 7 June. [158158]

  Janet Anderson
  The auction of the majority of the Dome's contents was completed on 2 March 2001. The cost of care and maintenance of the Dome site and structures from that date to 7 June is forecast to be about £1.6 million to £2 million covering rates, utilities, site servicing, security, and insurance, and a proportion of the IT and staffing support relevant to the care and maintenance function.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the Millennium Commission has spent on the Millennium Dome; and if he will make a statement. [158151]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Millennium Commission has approved total grant to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) of £628 million for the Millennium Experience at Greenwich and its associated national programme of events and activities.

  Culture Online
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place the tender documents for Culture online in the public domain. [158159]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My Department has not tendered for third parties to deliver materials and services for Culture online. This will be a matter for Culture online itself once it has been established as a statutory corporation. We ran a tendering exercise to appoint consultants to develop a business case for Culture online, between October 2000 and January 2001. Copies of this tender document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The business case will be completed by summer 2001.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what space for poetry will be made available in Culture online. [158165]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The provision of online poetry is within Culture online's broad remit. However, it will be a matter for Culture online itself to decide the amount of space that will be provided for individual projects and themes, including poetry, once it has been formed as a statutory corporation.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to his oral answer of 26 March 2001,Official Report, column 663, on tourism

  485W
  and foot and mouth, what estimate he has made of the loss of tourism businesses as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak in the past four weeks. [158160]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Our best estimate on the basis of the information so far obtained is that losses of revenue by the English tourism industry will be around £140 million per week averaged over the eight month tourist season. I do not have any estimate of the number of businesses which may be lost as a result of foot and mouth. It is precisely in order to prevent such losses that the Government have introduced a package of measures to help small and rural tourism businesses.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about financial compensation for tourist businesses adversely affected by foot and mouth. [158152]

  Janet Anderson
  A package of financial measures to help tourist businesses affected by foot and mouth was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and chairman of the Rural Task Force, on 20 March.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from the Youth Hostels Association in respect of the damage it has suffered as a not-for-profit organisation within the tourist industry during the course of the recent foot and mouth experience; if he will take special measures to assist not-for-profit organisations in these circumstances; and if he will make a statement. [159348]

  Janet Anderson
  The Department has received representations from the Youth Hostels Association on the effects of the foot and mouth disease outbreak on the Association.

  A range of relief measures are now available in rural areas and we have provided additional funding for promotional work by the English Tourism Council and British Tourist Authority. However, we have no plans to introduce special measures for not-for profit organisations at this time.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from(a) the English Tourism Council and (b) the British Tourist Authority on the cost of additional marketing campaigns to combat the economic impact of foot and mouth disease. [159386]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The English Tourism Council(ETC) has made representations for additional funding in support of the Government's aim to reinforce the message that Britain is open for business and to enable them to assist with the recovery plan following the foot and mouth outbreak. On 6 April, my Department announced that £3.8 million in additional funding was being made available to the ETC for an advertising and promotion campaign to restore public confidence in visiting the countryside. The British Tourist Authority (BTA) has also made representations for additional funding in support of the Government's aim to reinforce the message overseas that. Britain is open for business. On 6 April, my Department announced that £2.2 million in additional funding was being made available to the BTA for the pro notion of tourism overseas.
  486W
  On 25 April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in the House that more money will be allocated to tourism promotion work. A further announcement will be made in the next few days.

  Tourism
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about recent initiatives to encourage tourists to come to England. [158164]

  Janet Anderson
  The British Tourist Authority promotes England, along with the rest of Britain, as a tourist destination through its work in 27 markets overseas.

  England accounts for some 85 per cent. of all overseas visitors to Britain (estimated at over 25 million in 2000) and around 90 per cent. of overseas visitors' spending (estimated at £12.75 billion in 2000).

  Recent BTA initiatives aimed at attracting overseas visitors to England include promotions of film and TV locations, such as the locations used in the forthcoming 'Harry Potter' film, English gardens, and sporting venues and events.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the work of the British Tourist Authority in promoting Wales abroad. [158148]

  Janet Anderson
  The British Tourist Authority (BTA) works with the Wales Tourist Board (WTB) as equal, strategic partners in promoting Wales abroad. The BTA has an Overseas Marketing Agreement with the WTB, which sets out their respective roles, responsibilities and working relationships in the overseas promotion of Britain and Wales. In addition, the Chairman of the WTB is a member of the BTA Board, representing Welsh interests and advising on strategic and policy matters whenever key decisions are taken.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements he has made for his Department to monitor visitor numbers to major attractions and tourism destinations in rural areas. [159347]

  Janet Anderson
  The Department of Culture, Media and Sport, the English Tourism Council (ETC) and the Regional Tourist Boards are liaising regularly with a number of tourism-related bodies in order to monitor the impact of foot and mouth on tourism in both rural and urban areas. The ETC also conducts an annual survey of visits to visitor attractions, although this does not at present have a separate rural category.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to restore a marketing function to the English Tourism Council. [159346]

  Janet Anderson
  The English Tourism Council (ETC) was set up following the publication of the Government's tourism strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", in 1999. The ETC was given the role as a strategic body for tourism in England—undertaking research, ensuring quality, promoting best practice and innovation, overseeing systems for data collection and promoting sustainable tourism in England and wise growth.
  487W
  The ETC has neither been asked nor funded to carry out routine promotion campaigns—Ministers have taken the view that the marketing of English Tourism is best undertaken by the British Tourist Authority for marketing the country as a whole to overseas visitors and by the Regional Tourist Boards (RTBs) for their particular parts of England. These arrangements are reflected in the funding agreement between DCMS and the ETC. However the agreement has recently been amended to enable the ETC to carry out marketing for the recovery plan specifically prepared for the foot and mouth outbreak. The ETC has received an additional allocation of £3.8 million to help restore public confidence in visiting the countryside. To date, it has set up an English Visitor Hotline, launched a national advertising and promotional campaign and, working with the RTBs, it is providing public information leaflets.

  Arts (School Pupils)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on encouraging more school pupils to participate in the arts. [158155]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Ensuring everyone has access to high quality arts education, from pre-school through to lifelong learning, is a key priority for my Department. We are working closely with partners on a range of policies to deliver this, including the Department for Education and Employment's £270 million Music Standards Fund, the £30 million Lottery funded National Foundation for Youth Music, the £130 million Spaces for Sport and Arts initiative, which will create around 300 multi-purpose sports and arts facilities for primary schools in some of the most deprived areas of the country and the new Artsmark award scheme which has been available to schools since January. We are also establishing 16 Creative Partnerships, targeted on deprived areas, ensuring every school child in the Partnership area has access to an innovative programme of artistic and creative opportunities.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the decision by the Italian Government to legislate for analogue switchover in 2006; and what discussions officials from his Department have had with the Italian Government concerning their decision. [159599]

  Janet Anderson
  It is not for me to comment on a decision taken by the Italian Government about a matter of domestic policy. However, my officials have had informal discussions with their Italian colleagues, which emphasised the differences between the broadcasting markets of the two countries.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Government's criteria to be met before analogue switchover occurs will be applied on a regional basis. [159598]

  Janet Anderson
  The criteria we have set out for digital switchover are UK-wide. Whether it will be appropriate to proceed on a regional basis will depend on the speed of take-up across the country.
  488W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he(a) is taking and (b) intends to take to promote digital television; and if he will make a statement on his target date for the switching off of the analogue transmitters. [159601]

  Janet Anderson
  Initiatives such as the digital television labelling scheme, the digital neighbourhood trials and plans to increase the power of digital signals on eight key transmitters have recently been announced. We will continue to work with broadcasters, manufacturers, and retailers on the promotion of digital television. The target timetable for switchover to digital television remains at 2006–10.

  Richmond Park
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he intends to open Robin Hood Gate into Richmond Park. [159692]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, William Weston. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from William Weston to Mr. Tony Colman, dated 30 April 2001:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State to reply to your Parliamentary Question about reopening Robin Hood Gate in Richmond Park as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  We intend to reopen Robin Hood Gate on Wednesday 9th May. We have been refurbishing the gate as part of a planned programme of refurbishment and took the opportunity to carry out the work while the park was closed to traffic. Unfortunately we were unable to complete the work before the park reopened.

  Special Advisers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [158557]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  During the period 31 March 2000 to 31 March 2001, special advisers in this Department travelled overseas on official business on four occasion; to Venice (Italy), Berlin (Germany) and Apeldoorn and Haarlem (Netherlands).

  Appointments (Age Limit)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [158112]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In appointing people to the boards of public bodies sponsored by my Department, we are committed to equality of opportunity and to increasing the diversity of those appointed. This includes the principle of selection based on merit which matches the abilities, experience and qualities of individuals to the needs of the public appointment in question. There is no age limit.

  Ealing Studios
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received regarding the future of Ealing Studios; and if he will make a statement. [159400]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: I have received 226 letters about Ealing Studios; 224 of which have asked me to consider adding some of the buildings on the site to the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The buildings are, in fact, already under consideration for listing and I hope to announce my decision soon.

  Analogue Licences
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if existing analogue licences will be automatically renewed by those applying for digital licences. [159275]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: Any national or local analogue independent radio service which has secured a place on a relevant digital multiplex may apply for its analogue licence to be renewed. The same system does not apply to television.

  Premier Christian Radio
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will grant automatic renewal to Premier Christian Radio's analogue licence. [159264]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The Radio Authority is required automatically to re-advertise, in an open competition, all analogue local licences in areas where the number of persons, aged 15 years or over, resident in the coverage area of that service exceeds 4.5 million. The only analogue services exempted from this requirement are those who broadcast, or are committed to broadcast, on a digital multiplex in the relevant area. As Premier Christian Radio is prohibited t y current legislation from holding a digital licence, its analogue licence cannot be automatically renewed. The Government are committed to bring forward communications legislation which would remove this prohibition.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will publish a daily total of the numbers of animals, by species, awaiting slaughter under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme; [156904]

  (2) how many animals broken down by species, have been accepted for slaughter under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. [156908]

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals were removed from farms under the welfare disposal scheme from the beginning of the foot and mouth outbreak to 31 March. [156923]

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals were slaughtered in the animal welfare slaughter scheme as a consequence 490W
  of the current foot and mouth outbreak in the period to 20 April; and how many animals remain to be slaughtered. [158601]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 9 and 26 April 2001]: As at close on 25 April 2001 the cumulative totals of animals by species which have been registered under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme, slaughtered or withdrawn are as given in the table:

  Species

  Animals registered

  Registered animals withdrawn

  Animals slaughtered

  Total backlog

  Sheep

  893,068

  57,746

  310,781

  524,541

  Pigs

  340,501

  29,419

  146,740

  164,342

  Cattle

  96,007

  2,894

  17,867

  75,246

  Deer/goats/llamas

  5,394

  7

  439

  4,948

  Total

  1,334,970

  90,066

  475,827

  769,077

  A daily report of progress under this scheme is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if vaccinations for foot and mouth of(a) exotic animals and (b) rare breeds of domestic animals which are not intended for export would compromise disease-free status. [156652]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The European Commission have agreed that each member state may resort to emergency vaccination of susceptible species in zoos with endangered species listed on the red list laid down by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

  The vaccination of any susceptible animal, even where limited to special categories of animals not primarily concerned with trade, would usually affect an EU member state's foot and mouth status. This leaves unresolved the question of the UK regaining foot and mouth disease-free status if the Government decide to proceed with the vaccination of particular categories of animals. It is unlikely however such special cases would present a serious problem to the resumption of trade.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to use trained hunt kennel men to augment slaughter teams. [156015]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Hunt kennel men are already being used within slaughter teams, particularly in Cumbria. The Countryside Alliance is providing details of kennel men to the Ministry. This information is then disseminated to the slaughter teams.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many doses of foot and mouth vaccine are in stock. [156009]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The International Foot and Mouth Vaccine Bank at Pirbright holds stocks of an emergency vaccine which would protect against the O-type virus which is causing the present outbreak in the UK. 500,000 doses are ready to use in case they are needed. The acquisition of stocks of additional vaccine strains is considered annually, based on the perceived threat to International Vaccine Bank member countries.
  491W
  The European Vaccine Bank holds 5 million doses of a suitable vaccine. Effective vaccines are also available commercially.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action will be taken to identify sheep that have recovered from foot and mouth infection. [156014]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Serological examination for antibodies to foot and mouth disease can identify when sheep have been exposed to infection. Serosurveillance is currently being used for diagnostic and epidemiological purposes, and as part of the process of relaxing infected area status. Over the longer term serology will underpin the strategy to resume disease-free status.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he is issuing in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic to farmers disinfecting their vehicles when entering and leaving farm land. [157020]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: All farmers are advised to spray the wheels of all vehicles entering or leaving their premises with an approved disinfectant, and it is recommended that only essential visits or deliveries to farms are made.

  The MAFF website www.maff.gov.uk contains a list of approved disinfectants for use against foot and mouth disease, a list of suppliers of these disinfectants and guidance for proper use of disinfectants.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what impact the drainage system at Throckmorton airfield(a) has had and (b) will have on (i) excavating trenches for carcase disposal, (ii) discharges into local watercourses and (iii) the amenity lakes on the south side of the airfield. [157781]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: A Soil and Water Engineer is on site working closely with consulting engineers to ensure that any impacts are minimal. A senior hydrologist from the Environment Agency was also consulted prior to burial. A number of conditions were imposed upon the operation, which have been met.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the pigs at the farm of Keith Mallaber, Grove Farm, Whittington Hurst, Staffordshire, will be removed under the welfare disposal scheme. [156924]

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a decision will be reached on the application by Mr. Tim Dunkley of Greenfield Farm, Upton Warren, Bromsgrove, for disposal of his stock under the welfare disposal scheme; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in making this decision. [157013]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 5 and 9 April 2001]: It is not possible to comment on the position of individual applications made under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. Major efforts are under way to provide appropriate help to applicants under the scheme. Details of work on welfare issues have been sent to all hon. Members by my noble Friend Baroness Hayman.
  492W
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support he is giving to the agricultural supply industry during the foot and mouth outbreak. [156281]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: We are aware that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease is having serious consequences for many businesses. The Task Force chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced measures on 20 March to assist businesses affected by the outbreak, such as agricultural suppliers, and alleviate the effects of foot and mouth disease. The Task Force is continuing to consider the economic impact of the disease and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is collecting information relating to this from all parts of the country.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will discuss with Department for Education and Employment the issuing of temporary work permits to Australian veterinary surgeons on holiday in the United Kingdom. [156012]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Responsibility for the issue of work permits lies with Works Permits (UK), part of the Department for Education and Employment and with the Home Office. The Ministry has been in discussion with both these Departments regarding the issue of work permits to vets from abroad who want to work with the Ministry during the current outbreak.

  The Home Office has no objections to those qualified vets who are currently in the UK under the Working Holidaymaker Scheme taking up full employment on behalf of MAFF for the duration of the crisis without the need to obtain an additional work permit.

  A qualified vet currently in the UK as a visitor may make an application for leave to remain for the purposes of providing veterinary services to MAFF during the crisis. In those circumstances, consideration will be given to the granting of a period of six months leave to remain for the purpose of permit free employment with MAFF.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to offer financial support fir day-to-day living costs to farmers who have confirmed outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and who wish to save the compensation received for slaughtered stock for purposes of restocking when their farms are declared clear. [157061]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: Compensation is paid for the full market value of all animals slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease. However, in addition to this MAFF is paying £156 million in optional agrimonetary compensation to livestock farmers. We have also ensured that, where animals slaughtered are the subject of a current subsidy claim, subsidy entitlement will be preserved as a result of the application of EU rules on force majeure. Overall, we have committed over half a billion pounds to farmers so far in the course of this outbreak.

  The Government's priority at present remains the eradication of the disease. However, the possibility of taking further action in order to assist the recovery of the agriculture industry is being given consideration.
  493W
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the Bruhn Newtech EOD Frontline hazard pre diction system with regard to the airborne dissemination of foot and mouth virus. [156919]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: The Ministry is aware of the system referred to and expert advice is that it would not deliver any additional capability over the models currently being used to predict airborne spread of foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many RSPCA inspectors who are qualified slaughtermen are being employed in the foot and mouth cull. [156901]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: There are no RSPCA inspectors currently dedicated to full-time foot and mouth slaughter duties. However, RSPCA inspectors (328 inspectors as of 19 April) are working with the Intervention Board, local MAFF Divisional Offices and the Meat and Livestock Commission, to slaughter stock in extreme cases, where there are animal welfare difficulties.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received on the protection of rare breeds during the foot and mouth crisis; and if he will introduce(a) blood tests to spare those in a firebreak situation and (b) the use of vaccination to protect irreplaceable breeds; [156277]

  (2) what representations he has received on vaccinating rare breeds against foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [157019]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answers 2 and 9 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 26 April 2001, Official Report, column 346W

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is on(a) reducing to a smaller area and (b) lifting altogether the designated foot and mouth infected area around Stonesby, Leicestershire. [156466]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The infected area around Stonesby in Leicestershire was lifted on 19 April by the Foot and Mouth Disease (Revocation) Declaratory Order 2001.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the post-slaughter clean-up to begin at Grange Farm, Little Chesterton, Oxfordshire. [155438]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: The holding in question is split into to two premises. Post-slaughter clean up began, with preliminary cleansing and disinfection of both premises, immediately after slaughter. The final cleansing and disinfection of Grange Farm, the home premises, was completed on 11 April and was completed on the second premises on March 27. Restocking can begin 21 days after the final cleansing and disinfection has been completed. Restrictions will be lifted only when it has been shown that none of the animals has developed any clinical signs of foot and mouth.
  494W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if fat cattle farmers in restricted areas may be licensed to take 30-month-old cattle to a licensed abattoir in the same restricted area. [155333]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The over30-month scheme is temporarily suspended. However all livestock, including cattle over thirty months of age, where they face serious insurmountable welfare problems due to the foot and mouth disease control measures, may be entered by their owner into the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he issued to farmers, and when, on the requirements for applications for licences to move livestock with effect from 23 April; and if he will make a statement. [158874]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Due to foot and mouth disease movements of livestock are not allowed unless under licence to slaughter or for welfare reasons. From 23 April it has been possible to move animals that are in an infected area but outside a surveillance zone to slaughter. Guidance on applying for a licence was made available prior to this date on the MAFF website and from local authorities who are responsible for issuing the licence.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has collated recently of vaccinated meat entering the UK from(a) France, (b) Holland, (c) other EU countries, (d) Argentina and (e) South Africa. [158961]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: None. Within the EU, the Netherlands is the only country vaccinating against foot and mouth disease. Vaccinated animals are being slaughtered and meat from them is not being placed on the market. The importation into the UK of fresh meat derived from foot and mouth susceptible animals originating in South Africa and Argentina is currently prohibited. Prior to the prohibitions meat from vaccinated animals could not be imported from South Africa. Meat from vaccinated animals could be imported from Argentina but it had to be deboned and fully matured so as to remove any risk of live foot and mouth virus being present.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has calculated the effect on pigmeat exports of the introduction of a vaccination against foot and mouth disease. [158882]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: It is difficult to predict the effects of a vaccination programme on pigmeat exports. Given the scale of the outbreak we have suffered, we can expect that other countries will want to be satisfied that the disease has been fully stamped out. This will be the position whether we vaccinate or not.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when(a) he and (b) his officials were first alerted to (i) the possible presence and (ii) the confirmed presence of foot and mouth disease in Britain. [153364]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the document available in the Libraries of the House entitled "Discovery and Confirmation of Foot and Mouth Disease in Great Britain: 19–24 February 2001".
  495W
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the vaccine manufacturers, stockists and distributors(a) currently supplying (i) advice, (ii) services and (iii) materials and (b) working (A) for and (B) on behalf of (x) his Department and (y) agents of Government in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic who were contacted (I) by his Department and (II) on his Department's behalf before 19 February. [156410]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: We are not aware of any contacts with any manufacturers, stockists and distributors prior to 19 February. However, the UK is a member of the Foot and Mouth Disease International Vaccine Bank (IVB). The UK together with other stakeholders of the IVB and the Commission of the European Communities hold annual meetings to discuss Foot and Mouth Disease vaccine availability.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is on the use of vaccination(a) as an alternative to and (b) as a supplement to the policy of mass slaughter as a method of combating the foot and mouth epidemic. [156212]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: Vaccination has always been and remains an option which we keep under constant review in the light of veterinary and epidemiological advice. We have given serious consideration to vaccinating cattle in North Cumbria and, possibly, Devon as a supplement to our existing strategy. However, without the support of a substantial majority of the farming community, veterinarians, the wider food industry and consumers, such a programme would be very difficult to implement on the ground.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to immunise those dairy cows which are destined for the over-30-month slaughter scheme against foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [156744]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: The Government are currently considering using vaccination as part of the strategy for controlling foot and mouth disease. Scientific and veterinary advice is that a limited programme of vaccinating cattle in North Cumbria and, possibly, North Devon, is justified as a means of protecting animals.

  Vaccination in other areas has not been ruled out. But the weight of infection and the ratio of cattle to sheep distinguish these two areas from any others.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 9 April 2001,Official Report, columns 705–07, what plans he has to vaccinate deer in deer parks which are neither wild animals nor kept for food production in order to protect them from foot and mouth. [158220]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: At present we have no plans to vaccinate deer. The risk of wild deer spreading foot and mouth disease is low and the risk to park deer of catching foot and mouth disease from the public is also low.
  496W
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the(a) minimum and (b) maximum period of time that he has decided should elapse before lifting a designated foot and mouth infected area; [157487]

  (2) what his policy is on deciding when a foot and mouth infected zone can be lifted. [157488]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 9 April 2001]: The procedure for lifting infected area restrictions involves a process of checking that there are no infected animals in the area surrounding the infected premises. Periodic veterinary inspections are made of all susceptible animals on holdings within 3 kilometres of an infected premises. These inspections continue for at least 21 days following the slaughter of animals from, and satisfactory preliminary disinfections of, the infected premises. This is then followed by blood tests of a statistical sample of all sheep and goats, within the 3 km zone.

  The infected area can be revoked 30 days after slaughter of animals and disinfection, provided all the samples are negative and there are no signs of clinical disease, or further confirmed or outstanding cases within the area. This period may be longer if surveillance suggests that disease may be present in the area. The effectiveness of this procedure will be kept under review.

  There is no maxi mum period before an infected area can be lifted. If disease continues to be present in an area, restrictions cannot be lifted.

  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make arrangements for the release of foot and mouth vaccine to zoos that include endangered species that are susceptible to foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [157520]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The Standing Veterinary Committee of the European Commission recently authorised member states to vaccinate endangered species but only in very restricted circumstances. Any decision to vaccinate could be made only after the zoo had put in place a wide range of biosecurity measures including, if necessary, closure of the whole or part of the zoo.

  We are currently considering whether to pursue this option.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information(a) has been and (b) will be provided to parish councils in the vicinity of Throckmorton airfield about his Department's plans for carcase disposal; and if he will make this information available to all interested parties. [157782]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The parish councils have been kept informed of developments on the site and members of parish councils have carried out an accompanied visit to the site.

  We will continue to liaise with parish councils particularly over any operational changes which may be necessary.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many lorry loads of fuel he estimates will have to be transported to Throckmorton airfield on a daily basis, and over what period, to permit the burning of animal carcases; [157063]
  497W
  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications for (a) local farms and (b) residential properties near Throckmorton airfield of burning animal carcases on the site; [156980]

  (3) what assessment he has made of (a) wind strength and direction and (b) the presence of birds and rats attracted to Hill and Moor landfill site on the suitability of Throckmorton airfield site for the burning and burial of carcases; [157892]

  (4) if the combustion materials being stored at Throckmorton airfield will be used to burn animals on that site; and if he will make a statement. [158187]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 5, 10 and 23 April 2001]: There are currently no plans to burn animal carcases at Throckmorton airfield. The site provides a convenient and central storage facility for pyre materials.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications for livestock farms in the immediate vicinity of Throckmorton of the use of the airfield as a disposal site for culled animals. [156995]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: The disposal of carcases at Throckmorton Airfield is carried out under close supervision. The burial site is isolated on all sides from livestock farms.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what types of lorry will be used to transport animal carcases to Throckmorton for burial; and what safeguards will be employed to prevent the spread of the virus from these lorries. [156994]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: Carcases are transported in clean, disinfected, leak-proof and covered transport. The load is disinfected and enclosed in plastic sheeting. Sawdust is used as an absorbent material. The tailgate of the lorry is sealed and the lorry covered with a suitable tarpaulin.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he made of the geological conditions of Throckmorton airfield before deciding to dispose of culled animals there; and if he will make a statement. [157060]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: Prior to agreeing with MAFF the location of the disposal site at Throckmorton, the Environment Agency undertook a risk assessment of the geological, hydrogeological and hydrological conditions at the airfield. This included an assessment of risk to local groundwater and surface water potable supplies.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) at what time on Thursday 29 March his Department notified(a) the Ministry of Defence, (b) Wychavon district council and (c) Worcestershire county council of his decision to use Throckmorton airfield as a disposal site for culled animals; [156985]

  (2) what consultation his Department had with representatives of the local community prior to the decision to use Throckmorton airfield as a disposal site for culled carcases; and if he will make a statement. [156984]
  498W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: The decision to use Throckmorton airfield as a disposal site for culled animals was not made until after 18:00 on Thursday 29 March. Discussions on the suitability of the site had taken place over the course of the previous days with Worcestershire county council, Wychavon district council and the Environment Agency. The Ministry of Defence was fully involved as the site is in its ownership.

  At 12 noon on Friday 30 March, a press conference was held which local people, parish councillors, Worcester county council and Wychavon district council attended.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that only animals from contiguous culls carried out to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease will be buried at Throckmorton airfield. [157006]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: The intention is that Throckmorton airfield will be used only to bury animals slaughtered from dangerous contacts, neighbouring farms and the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what legal and planning processes must be completed to enable the burial of animal carcases(a) on the Ministry of Defence land and (b) at Throckmorton airfield. [156982]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: The regulations which govern the burial of animal carcases are the Animal By-Products Order 1999 and the Groundwater Regulations 1998. The requirements of these regulations must be satisfied before burial is carried out.

  Development carried out by or on behalf of the Crown, on Crown land, is not subject to statutory planning control. A non-statutory procedure for the consideration of such development proposals is set out in DOE Circular 18/84. These procedures are currently the subject of challenge in the courts. Whether planning permission is required in any particular case is a matter for the local planning authority concerned in the first instance.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his assessment of the suitability of the Throckmorton site for the disposal of culled animals included an assessment of odour. [157066]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: The Environment Agency did not assess the potential impact of odour within its risk assessment process, prior to authorising the site, as there is no requirement under the Groundwater Regulations to do so. However, an odour control system is installed on the site, and this is currently being updated.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the sites that were under consideration as possible locations for a mass burial site for animals slaughtered to control foot and mouth disease at the time of the Prime Minister's recent visit to Worcestershire. [156992]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: No specific sites were under consideration during the Prime Minister's visit to Worcester. The need to identify suitable sites was highlighted as a priority during the discussions.
  499W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if live animals will be taken to the site at Throckmorton, Worcestershire selected as a mass burial site for animals slaughtered to control foot and mouth disease for slaughter on site prior to burial. [156993]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: There are no current plans to transport live animals to Throckmorton for slaughter on site.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total number of carcases to be buried at Throckmorton airfield; and for how long the burial operation will last. [156981]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: We will be guided by the Environment Agency and our consulting engineers regarding the site capacity. The duration of operations will be determined by site capacity and how the disease develops.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy not to burn animal carcases at Throckmorton airfield. [157247]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: There are currently no plans to burn animal carcases at Throckmorton airfield.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if carcases from(a) Wales and (b) English counties other than Worcestershire or Herefordshire, (i) have been sent and (ii) will be sent to the Throckmorton airfield disposal site; [157891]

  (2) from what catchment area animal carcases will be sent to Throckmorton airfield for burial; what chemicals will be used during the burial of animal carcases; and what age and type of animals will be burned at this site. [156987]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 5 and 10 April 2001]: The Throckmorton burial site will predominantly be accepting carcases from Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire. In exceptional circumstances, carcases may well be accepted from outside the area under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme.

  Chemicals used during the burial of animal carcases are disinfectants as listed in the Disease of Animals (Approved Disinfectants) (Amendment) Order 1999 and the Disease of Animals (Approved Disinfectants) (Amendment) (England) Order 2000. The main disinfectant used is citric acid BP.

  There are currently no plans to burn animals at the site. Sheep, cattle (born after August 1996) and pigs will be buried at the site.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 24 to 25 April; what the Government's voting record was at the Council; and if he will make a statement. [159572]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I represented the UK at the meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers in Luxembourg on 24 April. The Minister for Rural Development in the Scottish Executive, Ross Finnie, was also present.
  500W
  As I reported to the House on 26 April, I brought the Agriculture Council up to date on our efforts to combat foot and mouth disease and the fact that our measures are bringing about a decline in the number of new cases. The Council also heard reports on FMD from the Commission and from the Dutch Agriculture Minister, and in response to a UK/Dutch initiative there was collective agreement to hold a conference later in the year to discuss the lessons to be learned from these outbreaks.

  The Council also heard a report from the Commission on the results of the EU-wide testing programme for BSE, and in particular agreed conclusions inviting the Standing Veterinary Committee to extend the temporary ban on meat and bone meal beyond the end of June. With the support of several other member states, I secured agreement from the Commission that they would re-examine the use of fishmeal in ruminant feed in the light of their current evaluation of cross—contamination risks.

  Turning to market-related measures, the Council considered a compromise text from the Presidency and Commission on reform of the EU sugar regime, extending the duration of the quota system for a further four years but with a review before end-2002. Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK were able to support this compromise, but others were strongly opposed. The issue will be re-examined in May.

  The Council reached unanimous agreement on measures to reform the cotton regime, within strict budgetary limits. The Council also adopted by qualified majority a proposal to permit organic producers to grow fodder legumes on set aside land; only France abstained in the vote on this small but worthwhile measure.

  The Council agreed conclusions on the integration of environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy; these will form part of a report on environmental sustainability going to EU Heads of Government in June. The Commission also reported to the Council progress with the setting up of the proposed European Food Authority.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the use of slug pellets prevents the designation of a lettuce farm as organic. [159261]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: EU standards for organic production contained in Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 permit the use of slug pellets based on metaldehyde. But they may be used only in traps and the formulation must contain a repellent to prevent them from being taken by higher animal species. Subject to review, authorisation for the use of this material expires on 31 March 2002.

  However, the private sector bodies that certify individual organic farmers may apply standards stricter than the EU standards if they wish and at least one does not permit the use of slug pellets.

  Flood Defence
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the benefit cost factors allowable in analyses of flood defence projects. [159361]
  501W
  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry keeps its guidance on the economic appraisal of flood and coastal defence projects under review, inter alia, in the light of developing methodology. Revised guidance was published in 1999. The Environment Agency's "Lessons Learned" Report on the 2000 floods raises questions about the process of making investment decisions. I have asked the Agency to provide me with supporting evidence by September 2001 and the Ministry will then consider with them, and the other operating authorities, whether changes are required.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the need for catchment flood planning; and if he will make a statement. [159352]

  Mr. Morley
  The MAFF Strategy for Flood and Coastal Defence, published in 1993, emphasised the importance of a strategic approach to the delivery of flood and coastal defences. At the time priority was given to coastal defences and, in partnership with operating authorities, MAFF developed guidance on the provision of Shoreline Management Plans.

  The floods of autumn 2000 re-emphasised the need for a strategic approach to inland floods and as a result the Government initiated catchment area studies leading to Catchment Flood Management Plans. These plans will provide a large scale strategic planning framework for the integrated management of flood risks. The Government have made provision for the payment of £2 million in both this year and the next to the Environment Agency on this initiative. Initially five pilot studies are being undertaken.

  Ministerial Visits
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the Ministers in his Department who visited any of the constituencies which are in the Peterborough unitary authority area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001, indicating in each case(a) the date of the visit, (b) the constituencies included in the visit and (c) if the local hon. Member met the Minister; [151020]

  (2) when he will give a substantive reply to the question tabled by the right hon. Member for North—West Cambridgeshire for answer on 26 February. [154727]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answers 26 February and 20 March 2001]: On 23 October 2000, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary visited the North—West Cambridgeshire constituency and did not meet the local hon. Member. On 23 January 2001, I visited the North-East Cambridgeshire constituency and did not meet the local hon. Member.

  Less Favoured Areas
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many producers within less favoured areas submitted integrated administration and control system (IACS) forms for the first time in 2000.[156111]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Farm Aid Package
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate for each component item of 502W
  the farm aid package announced on 30 March 2000 whether the funding provided is ring-fenced on an annual basis. [147850]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: Each component item of the £203.5 million farm aid package announced on 30 March 2000 was allocated for a particular purpose and time scale. The Regional Development Agencies have provision to carry over their share of this funding from one year to the next. It has also been agreed that the following underspends in 2000–01 can be carried over into 2001–02: £4.4 million on the Farm Business Advice Service, £3.9 million on the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme, £0.6 million on the Agricultural Development Scheme and £0.3 million on the Rural Portal.

  Vets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vets were employed by the State Veterinary Service in each year since 1997. [153242]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  In the State Veterinary Service there are 304 currently employed Veterinary Surgeons, which comprises 286 full-time posts.

  Year

  Full-time equivalent posts

  2000

  284

  1999

  283

  1998

  302

  1997

  289

  Anne M. Veneman
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) meetings and (b) telephone conversations he has had with Anne M. Veneman since her appointment as US Secretary of Agriculture. [153367]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  So far I have not had any meetings or conversations with Anne M. Veneman since her appointment as US Secretary of Agriculture. We had hoped to meet at the Agra Europe event on 29 March but unfortunately neither Ms Veneman nor I were able to attend. I hope that a meeting can be arranged at the earliest opportunity.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will provide a substantive answer to the question tabled for answer on 30 March (Ref. 156200). [159530]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 26 April 2001,Official Report, column 349W.

  Land Use
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of land in England was(a) under cultivation for crops and (b) used for animal rearing purposes in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990 and (iii) the most recent year for which figures are available. [159595]

  Ms Quin
  The answer is in the table.
  503W

  Total area of England (Hectares)

  Crops (Percentage)

  Animal rearing (Percentage)

  1980

  13,042,200

  31.9

  37.8

  1990

  13,042,200

  32.7

  35.4

  2000

  13,042,200

  30.5

  31.2

  Notes:

  1. Crops include all arable crops some of which are grown for stockfeeding.

  2. Animal rearing is all grassland and rough grazing.

  3. Common land has not been included in the figures for animal rearing. There are 427,889 hectares of common land in England.

  Sources:

  Crops and Animal Rearing—June Agricultural Census 1980, 1990 and 2000 (main holdings only).

  Total Area of England—Office for National Statistics (2001 data).

HEALTH

  Sefton Health Authority
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding was allocated to Sefton health authority in total and per head of population in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02. [158518]

  Mr. Denham
  The allocation and allocation per weighted head of population for Sefton health authority for the period 1996–97 to 2001–02 are given in the table:

  Allocation (£ million)

  Allocation per weighted head of population (£)

  1996–971

  132.1

  428

  2000–012

  211.8

  709

  2001–02

  230.0

  772

  Notes:

  1 Allocations prior to 1996–97 were to regional health authorities.

  1 Figures for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations covering hospital and community health services (HCHS) prescribing and discretionary general medical services. These figures are not comparable with earlier years, which are for HCHS only.

  Walk-in Centres
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS walk-in centres have been established in the north-west; and if he will list them. [158399]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently eight walk-in centres in the north-west and these are based at:

  Manchester Airport

  Leigh

  Bury

  Rochdale

  St. Helens

  Wirral, Arrowe Park Hospital

  Wirral, Victoria Central Hospital

  Old Swan, Liverpool.

  A further two walk-in centres will be operational by August 2001. These will be based in Blackpool and Liverpool city centre.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce inequities in waiting times between health authorities. [158925]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service plan targets reduce the maximum waiting time to six months for inpatient treatment and three months for outpatient appointments by 2005. The Modernisation Agency and the Department's regional offices are working with the NHS to significantly improve access to care and to reduce variations in waiting times in the areas with the longest waits.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which five health authorities have(a) the lowest and (b) the highest percentage of patients waiting for ordinary inpatient admission waiting more than one year; and what is the difference in unweighted net per capita funding for the two groups. [158924]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is shown in the tables. The use of unweighted populations takes no account of the relative needs of the population and comparisons should be treated with caution. Per capita figures on a weighted basis are also included.

  Inpatient data by health authority (HA) for December 2000—percentage of over 12 month waiters

  Health authority

  Percentage

  Lowest percentage

  Dorset

  0.2

  Sunderland

  0.5

  Doncaster

  0.6

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  1.1

  County Durham and Darlington

  1.1

  Highest percentage

  North Cheshire

  11.6

  West Surrey

  12.3

  West Sussex

  13.4

  Southampton and SW Hampshire

  14.2

  East Surrey

  14.7

  Note:

  Data relate to ordinary admissions only.

  Source:

  Monthly waiting times return.

  Per capita funding

  £

  Health authorities with over 12 month waiters

  Unweighted

  Weighted

  Five HAs with lowest percentage

  797

  745

  Five HAs with highest percentage

  703

  743

  Waiting Lists
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people on(a) in-patient and (b) outpatient waiting lists were waiting more than 30 weeks in (i) health authorities and (ii) the NHS trusts that existed in March 1997. [159229]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer sent 27 April 2001]: Data are not collected on the number of patients waiting over 30 weeks.

  Mental Health Services
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the third tranche of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services modernisation money for financial year 2001–02 will become available. [159157]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 2001–02 we shall be committing £35 million to the development of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) across health and local authorities. This includes the CAMHS Mental Health Grant to local authorities, which we have increased this year by £5 million to £15 million. The funds to the health service, £20 million, are now secure in health authority baseline allocations. I expect both health and local authorities to continue the good progress they have made over the last few years in developing services for this vulnerable group of children and young people.

  We set out a three-year modernisation fund programme for CAMHS in 1999, which included a further £10 million in 2001–02. However, in the spending review last year we decided to place as much funding as possible in main health authority allocations, allowing local health authorities to determine themselves how to implement national priorities, of which CAMHS is one.

  I am pleased to confirm that CAMHS will be part of the National Service Framework for Children's Services. This is a major development for CAMHS and will ensure that the quality of Child Mental Health Services will be at the top of the National Health Service agenda.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 20 February about the colour imaging test. [159218]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer sent 27 April 2001]: A reply to the right hon. Member's letter of 20 February was sent on 26 April.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 21 March on behalf of his constituents Mr. and Mrs. Bolt. [159223]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer sent 27 April 2001]: A reply to the right hon. Member's letter was sent on the 23 April 2001.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 15 February on behalf of his constituent Ms P. Rogers. [159216]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: A reply to the right hon. Member's letter of 15 February was sent on 26 April.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 12 February on behalf of his constituent Mrs. C. Dean. [159220]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: A reply to the right hon. Member's letter of 12 February was sent on 28 April.
  506W
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 2001,Official Report, column 801W, when the right hon. Member's for North-West Cambridgshire will receive the promised reply to his letter on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Ball. [159228]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer sent 27 April 2001]: A reply to the right hon. Member's letter was sent on 27 May. I regret that the answer to the right hon. Member's question given on 30 March 2001, Official Report, column 801W contained an error in that it referred to a letter about another of the right hon. Member's constituents.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 12 March on behalf of his constituent, Mr. D. T. Vickers. [159214]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: A reply to the right hon. Member's letter of 12 March was sent on 26 April.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 21 February on behalf of his constituent, Mr. J. T. Westgate. [159686]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply to the right hon. Member's letter of 21 February was sent on 26 April.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 21 February on behalf of his constituent Mrs. S. Cochrane.[159221]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: A reply to the right hon. Member's letter of 21 February was sent on 26 April.

  NHS Beds
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average number of beds is in NHS hospitals in England; [159448]

  (2) what is the largest number of beds in an NHS hospital in England. [159449]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: Bed data are collected annually at National Health Service trust level, rather than by individual hospital site. NHS trusts provide healthcare but may provide it at more than one hospital site.

  The average number of beds in NHS trusts in England in the financial year 1999–2000 was 548 (186,290 beds in 340 NHS trusts), the largest number being at Leeds Training Hospitals NHS trust with 2,709 beds.

  Patient Referrals (Non-medical Practitioners)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to non-medical practitioners when referring patients to hospital; and if he will make a statement. [146773]
  507W
  Mr. Denham
  The largest groups are general dental practitioners and ophthalmic opticians and the conditions under which they make referrals are specified in their respective terms of service:"… a dentist who does not have the necessary facilities experience or expertise to provide the care and treatment the patient requires shall, if the patient agrees, refer him for the provision of that care and treatment by another dentist under the general dental services or by a hospital."
  "Where a contractor (ophthalmic optician) is of the opinion that a patient whose sight he has tested shows on examination signs of injury and disease in an eye or its immediate vicinity, or any other abnormality of the eye or the rest of the visual system which may require medical treatment he shall, if appropriate, and with the consent of the patient, inform the patient's doctor of his opinion."
  In emergencies and also under some locally agreed arrangements opticians refer patients direct to hospital ophthalmologists and notify the patient's general practitioner.

  Audiology
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals whose audiology department is equipped to use digital technology for patients with hearing loss; what plans he has to expand the use of this technology; and if he will make a statement. [159284]

  Mr. Hutton
  Twenty National Health Service trusts are participating in the Department's "modernising NHS hearing aid services" projects over the two years 2000–01 and 2001–02, which is evaluating digital hearing aid provision for NHS patients. The NHS trusts are listed as follows.

  Addenbrookes NHS Trust

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust (Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital)

  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  Queens Medical Centre Nottingham University NHS Trust

  Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  Royal Shrewsbury and Princess Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust

  The Kings Mill Centre for Healthcare Services NHS Trust.

  The Department will study the results of the project to determine how changes to hearing aid services should be rolled out to the NHS.

  Pending the outcome of the project, all NHS trusts, with the appropriate staff, training, equipment and experience have been informed through a newsletter that they are eligible to apply for access to the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency contract for digital hearing aids.

  Endoscopic Sinus Surgery
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the current waiting times for endoscopic sinus surgery in each NHS trust in Greater Manchester. [159286]

  Mr. Denham
  The waiting times for endoscopic sinus surgery are not collected centrally.

  NHS Performance Indicators
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to require the NHS Executive to collate and publish annually all relevant NHS performance indicators at the level of individual NHS trust, alongside those performance indicators appropriate to health authorities; and if he will make a statement. [159285]

  Mr. Denham
  The next set of National Health Service performance indicators, due to be published by the Department in the autumn, will include a full set of NHS trust indicators as well as health authority level indicators.

  Dermatological Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has had from Professor Jonathan Hadgraft of the Skin Forum Group on the availability of skin for dermatological research. [158884]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has not had any recent representations from Professor Hadgraft on the availability of skin for dermatological research. However, Professor Hadgraft has written to the Department of Trade and Industry suggesting that the legislation for provision of human tissue for research should be examined.

  Quarry House
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to dispose of Quarry House in Leeds. [159604]

  Mr. Denham
  None. Overall responsibility for Quarry House lies with the Department of Social Security. The building remains an essential part of the Department of Health's headquarters.

  Senior Posts (Women)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by region, the percentage of senior managerial and clinical posts held by women. [158885]

  Mr. Denham
  The percentage of senior managerial staff and medical and dental consultants in National Health Service hospital and community health services (HCHS) held by women in each regional office area in England as at September 2000 is shown in the table.

  Female (percentage)

  England

  Consultants

  23

  Senior managers

  48

  Eastern

  Consultants

  22

  Senior managers

  48

  509W

  Female (percentage)

  London

  Consultants

  29

  Senior managers

  54

  North West

  Consultants

  20

  Senior managers

  49

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Consultants

  20

  Senior managers

  42

  South East

  Consultants

  23

  Senior managers

  53

  South Western

  Consultants

  20

  Senior managers

  47

  Trent

  Consultants

  19

  Senior managers

  48

  West Midlands

  Consultants

  19

  Senior managers

  45

  Other

  Consultants

  43

  Senior managers

  28

  Notes:

  1. Percentages were calculated from numbers of staff expressed as headcount.

  2. "Other" includes staff employed by special health authorities, other statutory authorities and other centrally based services.

  Source:

  Department of Health workforce census.

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chief executives of(a) NHS trusts and (b) health authorities are women; and what proportion of such posts these figures represent. [158886]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not yet available. The Department has undertaken a survey of executive directors in the National Health Service and the results of the survey will be available shortly. The NHS is committed to employing a diverse workforce and this diversity should be reflected at all levels. The NHS has a target for representation of women at executive director level of 40 per cent. by 2004.

  Health Service Workers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis mileage payments are set for health service workers who travel between hospitals during the working day. [159684]

  Mr. Denham
  Mileage allowances for National Health Service staff on national terms are determined by an agreement of the General Whitley Council. The current rates, effective from 1 July 2000, are set out in Advance Letter (GC) 2–2000, a copy of which is the Library.

  Cardiothoracic Hospital, Paddington Basin
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority has made a request for helicopter operating facilities at the site of its proposed new cardiothoracic hospital in Paddington Basin, West London, to(a) the Civil Aviation Authority and (b) the Greater London Authority. [158603]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authorities have no responsibility for any aspect of the planning application. While outline planning permission for these proposals has been sought by St. Mary's National Health Service Trust, the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust and Imperial College from Westminster city council, the proposals are not sufficiently advanced to include more detailed planning requests.

  BSE-infected Carcases
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many BSE-infected carcases are awaiting destruction; what studies have taken place to assess the risk represented by incineration and airborne prions; and if he will make a statement. [150429]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The carcases of BSE suspect cattle are sent directly for incineration.

  A formal risk assessment to gauge the risk from disposing of BSE-infected cattle in animal carcase incinerators was carried out for the Environment Agency by DNV consulting in 1997 as part of a general consideration of risks from BSE via environmental pathways. The risk calculation showed that the likelihood of the most exposed individual ingesting, in one year, sufficient material to cause infection as a result of burning cattle in specially designated incinerators is less than one in 1 billion. As in other cases, the real risk to the general public will be well below the level assigned to the most exposed person. The broad conclusion that the Agency has drawn from its assessments is that, for all of the disposal options considered, the risk of human infection by the BSE agent is extremely small. In all cases, the results show that in one year the most exposed individual would be unlikely to consume, from environmental sources, more than a minute fraction—significantly less than 1 millionth part—of the dose of BSE infectivity needed to cause infection in humans. More information is available on the Environment Agency's website.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason the advertisements for part-time lay members of the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal restricted applications to persons aged between 35 and 62 years. [158739]

  Mr. Lock
  A normal lower age limit of 35 for applicants to part-time judicial posts is principally set to ensure that those appointed have the length of experience and maturity necessary to fulfil their judicial functions in a way that will both ensure public confidence, and that
  511W
  they can meet the demanding burdens of judicial office. A normal upper age limit of 62 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.

  In exceptional circumstances these age limits 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.

  Magistrates (Political Affiliation)
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many justices of the peace there are in(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster broken down by party political affiliation. [158797]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are currently 129 magistrates on the Barnsley bench and 168 magistrates on the Doncaster bench. The figures currently held on party political affiliation are out of date. The database of records held on all 26,000 magistrates for which my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is responsible is being validated at present. As soon as figures for Barnsley and Doncaster are available I will write to my hon. Friend. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor intends to publish a breakdown of the lay magistracy in England and Wales by Commission Area for each balancing criterion (gender, ethnic origin, geographical spread, occupation and political affiliation) in his next Judicial Appointments Annual Report which is due in October this year. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Census
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about access to the census by disabled people; and what action he is taking in conjunction with ministerial colleagues to improve access. [159409]

  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. Tim Boswell, dated 30 April 2001:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what representations have been received about access to the Census by disabled people; and what action is being taken in conjunction with ministerial colleagues to improve access (159409).
  An important new initiative for the 2001 Census is the Community Liaison Programme, through which the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Census staff have consulted, and worked with community groups and national organisations specifically to assist those who would find the completion of the Census questionnaire difficult.
  For example, the Census Office has worked with the RNIB over the past two years to produce a set of support materials for the visually impaired. These include Large Print, Braille and audiotape
  512W
  formats of the census questions and information. This support material is aimed at providing details about the questions on the Census form to help a visually impaired person to understand what is being requested and to facilitate supplying the information.
  In addition text phone Helpline for the deaf has been operating since 1 April 2001.
  Specialist training presented by an external expert in disability awareness has been given to Census Area Managers and this training has been cascaded down to all members of the field force. An effective communication guide for all field staff which includes disability awareness has also been produced. Help in completing the form will be provided by Census-takers, on a one-to-one basis if necessary.
  Assistance with the completion of the form for anyone who has difficulty, for whatever reason, can be arranged by field staff, either when the Census-taker calls with the form, or via the Census Helpline (0845 301 2001).
  I have made alternative arrangements under the Census Regulations to cover cases where, in exceptional circumstances, it would be impossible or unreasonably difficult for the information to be collected by conventional means. This facility is not intended to be used generally, but where it is not possible to provide the necessary assistance locally, information can be provided over the telephone.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what precautions have been taken to ensure that the delivery of census forms does not contribute to the spread of foot and mouth disease from farm to farm; [158955]

  (2) what provision has been made for those who have not yet received a census form that they can be collected so deliveries on farms are avoided. [158956]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Miss Anne McIntosh, dated 30 April 2001:
  As Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent questions asking (1) what precautions have been taken to ensure that the delivery of census forms does not contribute to the spread of food and mouth disease and (2) what provision has been made for those who have not yet received a census form that they can be collected so that deliveries on farms are avoided. (158955, 158956)
  On 2 April I released a statement announcing plans for conducting the Census in areas affected by foot and mouth disease. I attach a copy of this for your information.
  This explains that census-takers working in the countryside have been instructed to respect all foot and mouth restrictions, and the wishes of the farming community. Specific guidance for census-takers has been drafted in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and has been endorsed by the National Assembly for Wales, as well as by the National Farmer's Union.
  Specifically, in infected areas and premises within exclusion zones, census-takers have been instructed:
  not to attempt to gain access to any premises under MAFF restrictions;
  not to visit any premises with susceptible livestock;
  to obey any signs forbidding or restricting access to premises;
  to stay on metalled/public roads; and
  to try to make contact by telephone to find out how best to deliver the Census form.
  Details of these procedures have been provided to all Census area managers, and have been incorporated into the training of enumerators.

  513W
  New arrangements are in place so that Census forms can be delivered to farms and households by mail if necessary, or, where practical, collected from an agreed point such as a farm boundary. Completed forms will be returned by mail.
  The 2001 Census and Foot and Mouth
  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 & 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 sensibility 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".

  Alcohol and Tobacco Seizures
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Customs and Excise policy as regards the seizure of alcohol and tobacco from persons who have bought it for their personal use. [158894]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I announced in March 2000 the tackling tobacco smuggling strategy, which aims to put tobacco smuggling into decline in three years and has provided £209 million for extra Customs resources. Customs efforts in the tobacco sector are, therefore, exclusively concentrated on attempting to tackle those who smuggle tobacco.
  514W
  Customs do not seize alcohol or tobacco from people entering the UK from elsewhere within the EU where those people are able to satisfy Customs that those goods are for their personal use.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what right of redress persons have when alcohol and tobacco bought for personal use are seized by Customs and Excise. [158893]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs take complaints very seriously and Customs Notice 1000 explains how to seek redress through Customs' own internal complaints procedures and through the Adjudicator and the Parliamentary Ombudsman, both of whom are independent of Customs and Excise.

  Hearing Aid Dispensers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to tax hearing aid dispensers as a single supply under the single supply taxation of optical dispensing services to be introduced from 1 June. [158580]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As a result of a House of Lords judgment in January this year, changes have to take place to the tax treatment of the ancillary services provided by some businesses. Each case that may be affected by the House of Lords judgment needs to be considered on its own merits.

  Electronic Commerce
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 5 April 2001,Official Report, column 242W, on electronic commerce, if he will make a statement on (a) the nature of VAT rules for e-commerce supplies and the changes proposed by the Commission, (b) the purpose of the proposed directive on distance marketing of financial services and (c) when the proposed directive and changes to the VAT rules will next be considered by the ECOFIN Council. [158579]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Article 9 of the EC Sixth VAT Directive includes rules covering the VAT treatment of e-commerce supplies. The European Commission have proposed a number of changes to these rules, and these are next due to be discussed at the June ECOFIN.

  The proposed directive on distance marketing of financial services is intended to complement directive 97/7/EC, which established rules for the distance selling of goods and services other than financial services. The proposed directive includes principles for conduct of business and consumer protection for financial services sold at a distance across borders.

  Heat Insulation Standards
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will insist on a pipework heat insulation standard higher than BS5422 in Government private finance initiative and public-private partnership programmes. [158810]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In the PFI, the public sector remains responsible for deciding, as the collective purchaser of public services, on the level of services required and the resources available to pay for them. It therefore focuses on specifying outputs rather than retaining detailed control over inputs.

  Scottish Bank Notes
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Scottish banks will be able to produce Scottish bank notes if the UK introduces the euro. [159248]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 28 November 2000,Official Report, column 589W.

  Macroeconomic Policy
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his macroeconomic policy in the face of global instability. [160112]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  As a result of the actions taken by this Government to reform the macroeconomic policy framework, British economic policy is much better placed in the face of global instability than it has been in the past. Inflation is low and stable, the public finances are sound and the Government are on track to meet their firm fiscal rules. Copies of my statement of 29 April to the International Monetary and Financial Committee have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  In accordance with section 12 of the Bank of England Act 1998, I have written to the Governor restating the Monetary Policy Committee's remit which confirms, as stated in my Budget statement, that the inflation target remains 2.5 per cent. for the 12-month increase in the retail price index excluding mortgage interest rates (RPIX).

  My letter to the Governor has been laid before Parliament and a copy has been sent to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee. Copies have also been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis mileage payments are set for people in receipt of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance for visits to hospitals. [159685]

  Mr. Bayley
  The mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is intended to contribute towards the extra mobility costs incurred by severely disabled people as a result of their disability. The Department makes no specific provision, through DLA or other benefits, for the reimbursement of travel costs for visits to hospital.

  However, the hospital travel costs scheme, which is part of the NHS low income scheme, allows NHS trusts to reimburse patients on low incomes or in receipt of qualifying benefits for the costs, including private car mileage costs, of travel by the cheapest means of transport available to keep hospital appointments. Qualifying benefits for the schemes include income support and family credit, but not DLA. The schemes are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Private Pensions
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners whose company pension is reduced because they are also receiving a state retirement pension. [158887]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information is not available in respect of pensioners whose occupational pension is reduced to take account of the fact that they are also in receipt of the state retirement pension. Such schemes, which have operated since 1948, have lower contributions to take account of the state pension.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the costs and benefits to(a) employers and (b) employees of the legal framework governing the operation of occupational pension schemes. [159363]

  Mr. Rooker
  Occupational pension schemes in the UK are voluntary. As such, the legal framework that governs occupational pension schemes must achieve a balance between the necessary protection of scheme members, which will include employees as well as pensioner and deferred members, and the costs created for the employers who sponsor the schemes. We are always conscious of the need to maintain this balance and therefore keep the framework under continuous review.

  Two examples of recent changes to be introduced as a result of this on-going review are the member nominated trustee provisions, to ensure that all scheme members can play a role in the running of their schemes, and the proposals to replace the minimum funding requirement for occupational schemes.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what help he proposes to provide for those people who are in receipt of a final salary occupational pension plan. [158425]

  Mr. Rooker
  The pension credit will ensure that people of modest means are rewarded for building on the basic pension level through SERPS, a private or occupational pension, or other forms of income and savings.

  State Pension
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the cost of paying the state retirement pension from the day a claimant reaches pensionable age rather than from the Monday following that day. [158348]

  Mr. Rooker
  The current regulations, originally introduced in 1948, provide for the payment of retirement pension in whole weeks. These regulations also apply at the end of a claim as retirement pension is paid to the end of the week—regardless of the day in the week entitlement to the benefit ceases.

  If payment were made for part-weeks and, as now, no attempt was made to recover benefit paid for the remainder of the week after entitlement ceases, we estimate the costs would be up to £20 million.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if any pensioner will suffer a reduction in their income as a result of the abolition of the capital rules and the introduction of the new Pension Credit. [158692]

  Mr. Rooker
  As we set out in the pension credit consultation paper (Cm 4900, Chapter 4 paragraph 29), we will ensure that pensioners receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee will receive, at least, the same level of income with the introduction of the Pension Credit.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made by the Child Support Agency on reducing the outstanding level of debt owing from full maintenance assessments in line with its performance target. [159169]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 27 April 2001:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  The outstanding level of Full Maintenance Assessment debt at March 2000 was £578,750,801. At March 2001 debt was £396,527,557.
  Full Maintenance Assessment debt has been reduced by 31.5% in 00/01 against a target of 25%.
  The reduction (£182.2 million) exceeds the reduction in 99/00 (£103.6 million) by £78.6 million.
  The target for 2001/2002 is to reduce debt by a further 25%.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Crime Fighting
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to achieve greater co-operation with police forces to assist in the fight against crime. [160067]

  Mr. Rooker
  Following consultation with the Home Office, the DSS and the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland have signed a memorandum of understanding. A copy has been placed in the Library. The memorandum sets out the principles underpinning the disclosure of personal information by the DSS to individual police forces engaged in the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. A similar memorandum will be signed shortly with the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland). Requests for information will now be considered in respect of all criminal offences rather than just the most serious ones.

  The revised DSS policy on disclosure is that all personal information held in social security records will continue to be regarded as confidential. Information will not normally be disclosed to third parties without the consent of the person concerned. However, information may be disclosed without consent to assist in the prevention or detection of crime or to aid the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; to meet statutory requirements; to comply with a court order or to prevent duplication of payments from public funds.
  518W
  The new policy will come into effect today. Initial guidance to all DSS staff will be issued, followed by more detailed amendments to the protection of customer information guide, which is also in the House library, and is available to all DSS staff.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department spent on advertising campaigns in 2000–01. [160113]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has spent £21,150,000 on advertising campaigns for the financial year 2000–01. The figure includes advertising, supporting literature and other material, telephone response lines, research and some direct mail for the following campaigns: Minimum Income Guarantee; pensions education; inherited SERPS; Winter Fuel Payments; Bereavement Benefits; anti-fraud; and New Deal for Lone Parents. This is a very small amount (around 0.02 per cent.) of the amount paid out in benefits. As not all invoices have yet been cleared the final confirmed figure may vary, but the variation is expected to be minimal.

  The figures given in recent parliamentary answers regarding advertising expenditure may vary, depending on whether advertising costs or advertising campaign costs have been requested. Inevitably the inclusion of helpline, literature, and other related costs will result in higher top-line figures than advertising costs alone. For example, the spend on advertising media and production alone for 2000–01 was £18,429,000.

  I have become aware of an error in a recent answer on advertising expenditure to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 7 March 2001, Official Report, column 233W. The correct information is as follows. I have written separately to the hon. Member about this matter, and placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Advertising, media and production costs

  £

  Year

  Cost

  1997–98

  1,430,698

  1998–99

  4,671,862

  1999–2000

  2,788,062

  2000–01

  18,429,000

  Average Yearly Cost

  6,829,905

  HOME DEPARTMENT
  We estimate that the total sum of expenses claims made by staff in the Home Office in connection with the case amounted to approximately £530. The cost of non-departmental legal advice amounted to £3,058.53.

  Fire Cover
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary for the Home Department what the standards of fire cover were in percentage terms for the year April 1999 to March 2000 for each fire service in Wales and England. [159766]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and the Audit Commission have agreed three Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) to measure how well brigades are meeting the standards of fire cover. These are shown in tables 1–3.
  519W

  Table 1. Percentage of incidents at which the number of appliances mobilised met the standards of fire cover 1999–2000

  Total incidents

  Successes

  Percentage of successes

  County Durham and Darlington

  11,814

  11,814

  100.0

  Derbyshire

  10,161

  10,161

  100.0

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,172

  6,172

  100.0

  Mid and West Wales

  6,200

  6,200

  100.0

  Northumberland

  3,528

  3,528

  100.0

  Oxfordshire

  7,024

  7,024

  100.0

  Royal Berkshire

  1,147

  1,147

  100.0

  Shropshire

  2,624

  2,624

  100.0

  Somerset

  3,862

  3,862

  100.0

  Warwickshire

  4,056

  4,056

  100.0

  West Sussex

  11,066

  11,066

  100.0

  West Yorkshire

  17,866

  17,866

  100.0

  South Wales

  6,073

  6,069

  99.9

  Cambridgeshire

  6,973

  6,963

  99.9

  West Midlands

  16,875

  16,849

  99.8

  Lincolnshire

  2,936

  2,931

  99.8

  Norfolk

  5,200

  5,186

  99.7

  Humberside

  7,206

  7,186

  99.7

  Backinghamshire

  4,777

  4,749

  99.4

  Wiltshire

  5,606

  5,569

  99.3

  Dorset

  4,360

  4,331

  99.3

  Merseyside

  14,370

  14,265

  99.3

  Devon

  6,245

  6,195

  99.2

  Essex

  7,068

  7,009

  99.2

  Staffordshire

  8,869

  8,787

  99.1

  East Sussex

  8,044

  7,956

  98.9

  Leicestershire

  1,345

  1,327

  98.7

  Cheshire

  7,501

  7,391

  98.5

  Avon

  9,282

  9,143

  98.5

  Isle of Wight

  884

  869

  98.3

  South Yorkshire

  5,010

  4,898

  97.8

  Gloucestershire

  4,112

  4,006

  97.4

  Surrey

  9,773

  9,510

  97.3

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  2,530

  2,452

  96.9

  London

  52,784

  51,098

  96.8

  Northamptonshire

  7,789

  7,455

  95.7

  Cleveland

  2,418

  2,301

  95.2

  Kent

  10,722

  10,154

  94.7

  Cornwall

  2,764

  2,589

  93.7

  Cumbria

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Greater Manchester

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Hampshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Hertfordshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North Wales

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North Yorkshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Nottinghamshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Suffolk

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Tyne and Wear

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  307,036

  302,758

  98.6

  Table 2. Percentage of incidents at which the number of riders met the standards of fire cover 1999–2000

  Total incidents

  Successes

  Percentage of successes

  West Midlands

  16,875

  16,834

  99.8

  Merseyside

  14,370

  14,287

  99.4

  Isle of Wight

  884

  878

  99.3

  Humberside

  7,206

  7,155

  99.3

  Norfolk

  5,200

  5,135

  98.8

  Lincolnshire

  2,936

  2,857

  97.3

  Northumberland

  3,528

  3,430

  97.2

  Mid and West Wales

  6,200

  5,914

  95.4

  Royal Berkshire

  1,147

  1,089

  94.9

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,172

  5,676

  92.0

  South Yorkshire

  5,010

  4,580

  91.4

  Smoerset

  3,862

  3,528

  91.4

  520W

  Table 2. Percentage of incidents at which the number of riders met the standards of fire cover 1999–2000

  Total incidents

  Successes

  Percentage of successes

  Cleveland

  2,418

  2,207

  91.3

  South Wales

  6,073

  5,506

  90.7

  Cambridgeshire

  6,973

  6,285

  90.1

  Dorset

  4,360

  3,890

  89.2

  Oxfordshire

  7,024

  6,188

  88.1

  Essex

  7,068

  6,133

  86.8

  Leicestershire

  1,345

  1,166

  86.7

  Avon

  9,282

  8,045

  86.7

  West Yorkshire

  17,866

  15,459

  86.5

  Devon

  6,245

  5,399

  86.5

  Staffordshire

  8,869

  7,568

  85.3

  Cornwall

  2,764

  2,348

  84.9

  Shropshire

  2,624

  2,200

  83.8

  Warwickshire

  4,056

  3,392

  83.6

  Wiltshire

  5,606

  4,593

  81.9

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  2,530

  2,004

  79.2

  Required by Standards of Fire Cover

  —

  —

  75.0

  Cheshire

  7,501

  5,619

  74.9

  Buckinghamshire

  4,777

  3,526

  73.8

  Gloucestershire

  4,112

  2,997

  72.9

  Hertfordshire

  7,453

  5,382

  72.2

  London

  52,613

  36,265

  68.9

  Kent

  10,722

  6,653

  62.0

  Northamptonshire

  7,789

  4,222

  54.2

  Country Durham and Darlington

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cumbria

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Derbyshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  East Sussex

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Greater Manchester

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Hampshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North Wales

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North Yorkshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Nottinghamshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Suffolk

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Surrey

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Tyne and Wear

  1—

  1—

  1—

  West Sussex

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  263,460

  218,410

  82.9

  Table 3. Percentage of incidents at which the attendance times met the standards of five cover 1999–2000

  Total incidents

  Successes

  Percentage of successes

  Warwickshire

  4,056

  4,044

  99.7

  Mid and West Wales

  6,200

  6,178

  99.6

  Northumberland

  3,528

  3,514

  99.6

  Norfolk

  5,200

  5,172

  99.5

  Somerset

  3,862

  3,841

  99.5

  Oxfordshire

  7,024

  6,970

  99.2

  East Sussex

  8,044

  7,956

  98.9

  Leicestershire

  1,345

  1,327

  98.7

  West Sussex

  11,066

  10,865

  98.2

  Humberside

  7,206

  7,058

  97.9

  Wiltshire

  5,606

  5,479

  97.7

  Gloucestershire

  4,112

  4,006

  97.4

  Derbyshire

  10,161

  9,892

  97.4

  Staffordshire

  8,869

  8,631

  97.3

  Suffolk

  6,391

  6,217

  97.3

  Lincolnshire

  2,936

  2,855

  97.2

  South Wales

  6,073

  5,899

  97.1

  Cambridgeshire

  6,973

  6,749

  96.8

  Shropshire

  2,624

  2,539

  96.8

  Dorset

  4,360

  4,199

  96.3

  Average

  —

  —

  96.1

  West Yorkshire

  17,866

  17,144

  96.0

  Cheshire

  7,501

  7,184

  95.8

  521W

  Table 3. Percentage of incidents at which the attendance times met the standards of fire cover 1999–2000

  Total incidents

  Successes

  Percentage of successes

  Hertfordshire

  7,453

  7,138

  95.8

  Northamptonshire

  7,789

  7,455

  95.7

  West Midlands

  16,875

  16,080

  95.3

  Isle of Wight

  884

  842

  95.2

  Kent

  10,722

  10,210

  95.2

  Essex

  7,068

  6,711

  94.9

  Merseyside

  14,370

  13,596

  94.6

  South Yorkshire

  5,010

  4,702

  93.9

  Royal Berkshire

  1,147

  1,076

  93.8

  Cornwall

  2,764

  2,589

  93.7

  Avon

  9,282

  8,635

  93.0

  Devon

  6,245

  5,794

  92.8

  Surrey

  9,773

  9,031

  92.4

  Buckinghamshire

  4,777

  4,409

  92.3

  Cleveland

  2,418

  2,187

  90.4

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  2,530

  2,271

  89.8

  County Durham and Darlington

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cumbria

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Greater Manchester

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Hampshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Hereford and Worcester

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  London

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Standards of fire cover—Merseyside performance indicators

  Total incidents

  Successes

  Percentage of successes

  BVPI

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Appliances mobilised

  14,073

  14,370

  14,056

  14,265

  99.9

  99.3

  Number of riders

  14,073

  14,370

  14,064

  14,287

  99.9

  99.4

  Attendance times

  14,073

  14,370

  13,321

  13,596

  94.7

  94.6

  Fire Statistics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the total numbers of fires in the UK in(a) 1998–1999 and (b) 1999–2000 were in each fire authority area. [159769]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The response is shown in the table.

  Number of fires1.2 in the UK and percentage of the total by fire authority area

  1998–993

  1999–20003

  Number

  %

  Number

  %

  United Kingdom

  405,174

  —

  487,425

  —

  England and Wales

  40,632

  84

  415,563

  85

  England

  315,489

  78

  384,233

  79

  England (Non Met Counties)

  170,475

  42

  205,082

  42

  Avon

  5,908

  1

  7,132

  1

  Bedfordshire

  2,817

  1

  3,518

  1

  Berkshire

  3,830

  1

  4,808

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  3,895

  1

  4,920

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  3,497

  1

  4,165

  1

  Cheshire

  5,996

  1

  7,336

  2

  Cleveland

  5,893

  1

  8,353

  2

  Cornwall

  2,338

  1

  2,697

  1

  Cumbria

  3,065

  1

  3,679

  1

  Derbyshire

  4,562

  1

  5,448

  1

  Devon

  5,771

  1

  6,532

  1

  Dorset

  3,164

  1

  3,606

  1

  Durham

  5,357

  1

  6,666

  1

  East Sussex

  4,063

  1

  4,994

  1

  Essex

  7,360

  2

  9,195

  2

  Gloucestershire

  2,673

  1

  2,887

  1

  Hampshire

  8,089

  2

  9,547

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,345

  1

  3,832

  1

  Hertfordshire

  4,552

  1

  5,521

  1

  522W

  Table 3. Percentage of incidents at which the attendance times met the standards of fire cover 1999–2000

  Total incidents

  Successes

  Percentage of successes

  North Wales

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North Yorkshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Nottinghamshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Tyne and Wear

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  250,110

  240,445

  96.1

  1 Not available

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the standards of fire cover were in percentage terms in Merseyside in(a) January 1998 to January 1999 and (b) January 1999 to January 2000. [159765]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Audit Commission have agreed three Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) to measure how well brigades are meeting the standards of fire cover. However the records held centrally are catalogued by fiscal year and cannot be converted to a calendar year basis. The records for Merseyside are shown in the table for fiscal years 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  Number of fires1,2 in the UK and percentage of the total by fire authority area

  1998–993

  1999–20003

  Number

  %

  Number

  %

  Humberside

  7,762

  2

  9,006

  2

  Isle of Wight

  659

  0

  678

  0

  Kent

  8,825

  2

  10,762

  2

  Lancashire

  10,807

  3

  12,958

  3

  Leicestershire

  5,058

  1

  5,808

  1

  Lincolnshire

  2,985

  1

  3,555

  1

  Norfolk

  3,532

  1

  3,838

  1

  North Yorkshire

  2,957

  1

  3,493

  1

  Northamptonshire

  4,300

  1

  4,675

  1

  Northumberland

  2,088

  1

  2,864

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  6,665

  2

  9,231

  2

  Oxfordshire

  2,946

  1

  3,141

  1

  Shropshire

  2,599

  1

  3,141

  1

  Somerset

  2,359

  1

  2,770

  1

  Staffordshire

  6,165

  2

  7,390

  2

  Suffolk

  2,537

  1

  2,843

  1

  Surrey

  3,663

  1

  4,475

  1

  Warwickshire

  2,599

  1

  3,107

  1

  West Sussex

  3,470

  1

  3,974

  1

  Wiltshire

  2,314

  1

  2,528

  1

  Isles of Scilly

  10

  0

  7

  0

  England (Met Counties)

  145,014

  36

  179,151

  37

  Greater Manchester

  24,698

  6

  30,982

  6

  Merseyside

  17,292

  4

  22,592

  5

  South Yorkshire

  10,741

  3

  13,292

  3

  Tyne and Wear

  13,005

  3

  16,304

  3

  West Midlands

  20,923

  5

  25,822

  5

  West Yorkshire

  17,533

  4

  20,763

  4

  Greater London4

  40,822

  10

  49,396

  6

  Wales

  25,143

  6

  31,331

  6

  North Wales

  4,582

  1

  5,508

  1

  Mid and West Wales

  6,715

  2

  8,513

  2

  South Wales

  13,846

  3

  17,310

  4

  523W

  Number of fires1,2 in the UK and percentage of the total by fire authority area

  1998–993

  1999–20003

  Number

  %

  Number

  %

  Northern Ireland

  18,007

  4

  18,552

  4

  Scotland

  46,535

  11

  53,310

  11

  Strathclyde

  24,146

  6

  27,219

  6

  Highland and Islands

  2,345

  1

  2,284

  0

  Grampian

  3,570

  1

  3,964

  1

  Tayside

  3,669

  1

  4,334

  1

  Lothian and Borders

  7,149

  2

  9,508

  2

  Fife

  2,766

  1

  3,081

  1

  Central

  1,945

  0

  2,015

  0

  Dumfries

  945

  0

  904

  0

  1 Fires include primary (mainly property), secondary (mainly outdoors) and chimney fires

  2 Includes 'late' calls and heat and smoke damage incidents

  3 Provisional

  4 Includes estimates for missing data—secondary and chimney fires (London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Q1 2000)

  Merseyside Fire Authority
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Fire Inspectorate has received a response from Merseyside Fire Authority to the Principal Inspection report issued in the third quarter of 2000. [159767]

  Fires in dwellings by brigade and by presence and operation of smoke detectors, UK, 1999

  Percentage of alarms present that

  Total number of fires in dwellings

  Smoke alarm present

  Smoke alarm absent

  Operated and raised alarm

  Operated, but did not raised alarm

  Did not operate

  United Kingdom

  72,126

  26,890

  45,235

  63

  10

  27

  England and Wales

  60,725

  21,296

  39,429

  66

  9

  25

  England

  57,403

  19,800

  37,603

  66

  9

  25

  England—non-Met counties

  29,893

  11,375

  18,518

  64

  9

  27

  Avon

  960

  422

  538

  58

  14

  28

  Bedfordshire

  429

  74

  354

  69

  18

  14

  Berkshire

  726

  308

  418

  80

  4

  16

  Buckinghamshire

  679

  254

  425

  69

  9

  22

  Cambridgeshire

  547

  212

  334

  63

  16

  21

  Cheshire

  999

  382

  617

  61

  12

  27

  Cleveland

  836

  251

  585

  59

  10

  31

  Cornwall

  437

  149

  287

  66

  15

  19

  Cumbria

  609

  208

  401

  79

  6

  15

  Derbyshire

  783

  203

  580

  75

  4

  20

  Devon

  1,225

  555

  670

  77

  8

  15

  Dorset

  492

  180

  312

  68

  11

  21

  Durham

  677

  174

  503

  70

  2

  28

  East Sussex

  1,129

  430

  699

  60

  5

  35

  Essex

  1,220

  378

  842

  64

  8

  28

  Gloucestershire

  521

  221

  299

  62

  8

  30

  Hampshire

  1,487

  709

  778

  69

  9

  23

  Hereford and Worcester

  677

  290

  386

  72

  7

  20

  Hertfordshire

  942

  445

  497

  83

  4

  13

  Humberside

  1,104

  466

  638

  38

  15

  47

  Isle of Wight

  165

  75

  89

  81

  12

  7

  Kent

  1,269

  369

  900

  63

  6

  31

  Lancashire

  2,274

  898

  1,375

  59

  10

  31

  Leicestershire

  733

  206

  527

  57

  9

  34

  Lincolnshire

  520

  177

  344

  62

  12

  27

  Norfolk

  583

  157

  426

  54

  9

  38

  North Yorkshire

  546

  264

  282

  54

  7

  39

  Northamptonshire

  715

  407

  309

  70

  5

  26

  Northumberland

  309

  128

  181

  71

  5

  24

  Nottinghamshire

  1,102

  183

  919

  68

  4

  28

  Oxfordshire

  474

  244

  230

  56

  4

  40

  Shropshire

  434

  102

  332

  53

  7

  40

  Somerset

  386

  174

  212

  55

  21

  24

  Staffordshire

  1,179

  662

  517

  73

  10

  17

  524W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Merseyside Fire Authority was last inspected by Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate in February 2000. The subsequent report of Her Majesty's Inspector Gordon Russel made 17 recommendations concerning the management of the brigade. The inspector indicated that the fire authority should prepare an action plan to address these recommendations and noted that the Inspectorate would measure the Authority's progress against the plan during subsequent inspections.

  A copy of the Fire authority's action plan was received by the Inspectorate in February 2001.

  Copies of the Action Plan and Her Majesty's Inspector's report have been placed in the Library.

  Fire Alarms
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what percentage of cases where fire alarms were present in dwellings on fire in 1999, they(a) raised the alarm, (b) operated but failed to raise the alarm and (c) failed to operate altogether, in each fire authority area. [159770]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested (shown in the table) relates to the percentage of fires in dwellings where a smoke alarm was present and where the fire was attended by the local authority fire service.
  525W

  Fires in dwellings by brigade and by presence and operation of smoke detectors, UK, 1999

  Percentage of alarms present that

  Total number of fires in dwellings

  Smoke alarm present

  Smoke alarm absent

  Operated and raised alarm

  Operated, but did not raised alarm

  Did not operate

  Suffolk

  555

  286

  269

  56

  13

  32

  Surrey

  627

  224

  402

  58

  13

  29

  Warwickshire

  401

  98

  303

  67

  14

  18

  West Sussex

  658

  239

  420

  55

  12

  33

  Wiltshire

  483

  166

  317

  54

  11

  36

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  England—Met Counties

  27,510

  8,425

  19,085

  68

  9

  23

  Greater Manchester

  5,121

  1,465

  3,655

  61

  12

  27

  Merseyside

  3,019

  913

  2,106

  69

  9

  23

  South Yorkshire

  1,433

  313

  1,121

  69

  11

  20

  Tyne and Wear

  2,241

  913

  1,328

  87

  2

  12

  West Midlands

  4,429

  2,015

  2,414

  70

  7

  23

  West Yorkshire

  2,504

  986

  1,518

  54

  12

  34

  Greater London

  8,763

  1,820

  6,944

  68

  12

  20

  Wales

  3,322

  1,496

  1,826

  62

  11

  27

  North Wales

  827

  395

  432

  69

  9

  22

  Mid and West Wales

  1,030

  472

  557

  66

  11

  23

  South Wales

  1,465

  628

  837

  54

  12

  34

  Northern Ireland

  1,990

  833

  1,157

  54

  18

  28

  Scotland

  9,411

  4,762

  4,650

  56

  9

  35

  Strathclyde

  4,724

  2,225

  2,500

  64

  7

  29

  Highland and Islands

  288

  200

  88

  35

  19

  46

  Grampian

  883

  590

  294

  63

  8

  28

  Tayside

  794

  390

  403

  49

  13

  38

  Lothian and Borders

  1,804

  896

  908

  42

  12

  46

  Fife

  437

  188

  248

  53

  15

  32

  Central

  327

  197

  130

  52

  10

  39

  Dumfries

  154

  76

  78

  33

  14

  53

  Notes:

  1999 data are provisional and based on a sample of all incidents.

  Including late call and heat and smoke damage incidents (not recorded prior to 1994).

  Source:

  Home Office Fire statistics

  Smoke Alarms
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Fire Research and Development Group, Part II-Review of Research 1999–2000, what were the conclusions and recommendations of the report on domestic smoke alarms (advice to the public). [159788]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No formal report of the research carried out by the Institute of Child Health (ICH) referred to in the Fire Research and Development Group (FRDG) document Review of Research 1999–2000 has been published.

  The objective of the research was to determine whether the door-to-door distribution of free smoke alarms to inner-city residents in London would be effective in reducing the risk of residential fires, fire related casualties, and serious fire-related injuries and deaths. The programme was being conducted in Camden and Islington, areas identified as being of substantial risk and deprivation. It commenced in July 1997. The researchers provided some 20,000 smoke alarms, potentially sufficient to increase smoke alarm ownership by 50 per cent. in their intervention areas. However a year after the programme, the level of installed working alarms was found to be not significantly higher than it was in the control group (39 per cent. as opposed to 38 per cent).
  526W
  It is understood that the researchers feel the findings to date show the importance of not simply supplying smoke alarms, but of also having them installed professionally, if a 'give-away' initiative is to work.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of households owned smoke alarms in each fire authority area in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999. [159768]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Smoke alarm ownership data are collected on a national basis via surveys. The Home Office Fire Safety Attitudes and Awareness Monitor shows that (a) 82 per cent. of households owned a smoke alarm in 1998 and (b) 81 per cent. of households in 1999 owned a smoke alarm.

  Scientific Staff (Attacks)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government(a) have taken and (b) plan to take to protect scientific staff whose work involves animal testing from physical attacks and harassment directed at them because of their employment; and if he will make a statement. [158820]
  527W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government are totally committed to the protection of those working or otherwise connected with legitimate scientific research on animals.

  Proposals aimed at preventing protests outside homes and strengthening the law on malicious communications and harassment have been included in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill currently before Parliament. In addition, the Government have published a consultation paper on the Government's strategy for tackling animal rights extremism, a copy of which is in the Library. We will continue to liaise closely with the police and other criminal justice agencies to ensure effective enforcement of the law in this area.

  ADT v. K
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 750W, how many hours of work by departmentally employed staff were put in to pursue the Government's case in ADT v. UK; what the total sum of expenses claims put in by staff working on the Government's defence was; and how much was paid to legal staff not already employed by his Department for advice and work on the case. [158841]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Officials in the Home Office who worked on the Government's case in ADT v. UK did so as part of their wider duties of dealing with the law on sex offences. Records were not kept of the time taken in dealing with issues relating to this case. That was why I was unable to give the hon. Member an estimate of the total costs in defending the case in answer to the question he asked on 16 November.

  Funding allocation area

  Initiative

  Grant recipient

  Public or private sector

  Amount(£)

  Financial year (where appropriate)

  Crime reduction

  CCTV Challenge

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  Public

  52,400

  1996–97

  Crime reduction

  CCTV Challenge

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  Public

  105,400

  1997–98

  Crime reduction

  Youth Justice Board Development Fund

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  Public

  71,725

  1999–2000 to 2000–01

  Crime reduction

  Youth Justice Board—Youth Inclusion Programme

  NACRO Walsall

  Private

  81,065

  1999–2000 to 2000-01

  Crime reduction

  Splash scheme

  NACRO Walsall

  Private

  39,000

  12000–01

  Crime reduction

  Drug Arrest Referrals

  West Midlands Police Authority2

  Public

  5,000

  1999–2000

  62,552

  2000–01

  Crime reduction

  Reducing Burglary

  Walsall MBC

  Public

  61,407

  2000–01

  Crime reduction

  CCTV

  Walsall MBC

  Public

  309,629

  2000–01

  Crime Reduction

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  Walsall Housing Regeneration agency

  Private

  341,003

  2000–01

  Community safety

  Connecting Communities Grant

  Walsall Strategic Race Equality Grant

  Private

  192,000

  2000–01

  Community safety

  Connecting Communities Grant

  Walsall Ethnic Business Association

  Private

  155,000

  2000–01

  Drug prevention

  DAT (Drug Action Team)Development Funding

  Walsall DAT

  Public

  117,711

  1999–2000 to 2001–02

  Drug prevention

  Drug Prevention Education

  Walsall Health Education

  Public

  191,705

  1997–98 to 2001–02

  Drugs prevention

  Youth Service

  Walsall MBC (Training for youth workers)

  Public

  96,097

  1997–98 to 2001–02

  Drugs prevention

  Youth Service

  Youth Service (Walsall Walkways Project)

  Public

  25,000

  1996–97 to 1998–99

  Drugs prevention

  Community Work

  Activities funded through Health Action Zone programmes

  Public

  146,000

  1999–2000 to 2000–01

  Drug prevention

  Treatment for drug users

  Walsall Health Authority

  Public

  41,617,959

  1997–98 to 2001–02

  1 One scheme run under Summer Splash and one under Easter Splash. Funds to this initiative are also provided by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  2 Grant is paid to Police Authority who then transfer it to Walsall Health Authority.

  3 Amount paid to date.

  4 Includes funds from the Department of Health.

  Government Funding (Walsall)
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional funding has been allocated to(a) public and (b) private organisations in Walsall for (i) policing, (ii) crime reduction, (iii) community safety, (iv) regeneration and (v) drugs prevention and related matters for each year since 1996; and if he will identify the organisations and amounts allocated. [158922]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details of funding for crime reduction, community safety and drugs prevention are in the table.

  Regeneration is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR).

  West Midlands police received £2,791,185 in 2000–01 from the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) for the recruitment of police officers over and above previous plans. Estimated CFF provision for 2001–02 is £7,397,000 but the amount may vary according to the success of the force's recruitment efforts and the timing of recruitment. They also received £3.3 million from the Police Modernisation Fund in 2000–01 to target robbery specifically, of which £50,000 has been allocated to Walsall.

  Grant supported funding from the Home Office and the DETR for the West Midlands police has been as follows: 1996–97 £344 million; 1997–98 £353.4 million; 1998–99 £371.9 million; 1999–2000 £380.6 million; 2000–01 £392.7 million; 2001–02 £409.7 million.
  529W 536W

  Firearms Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for compensation under the Firearms Compensation Scheme remain unsettled. [158906]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at 25 April, of the initial 72,000 claims submitted, there were 623 claims made under the Firearms Compensation Scheme which have yet to be settled. Of these, payment of the compensation deemed appropriate under the Scheme has been made in 579 cases and we are currently awaiting return of final declarations of acceptance. Payment has been offered in the remaining 44 cases.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information, the effects of his Department's policies and actions in relation to animal welfare since 2 May 1997. [158903]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are continuing to work to ensure that the highest possible standards of welfare are applied to animals used in scientific procedures and that they are used only where it is fully justified—where the benefits outweigh the costs and where there are no suitable alternatives. To this end we are promoting the fullest application of the 3Rs—the replacement of procedures with others which do not use animals, the reduction of the number of animals used and the refinement of procedures to minimise pain and suffering.

  In addition to our commitment to the 3Rs, the other main individual measures this Government have introduced since the election to ensure that animals are used only where fully justified are as follows. We have: secured a voluntary ban on testing cosmetic finished products on animals; increased the budget made available to the Animal Procedures Committee to sponsor research on alternatives by 45 per cent. to £265,000 for 2000–01; banned the use of animals to test alcohol and tobacco products; increased the size of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate from 18 to 21, and recruited seven new inspectors to fill these and other vacancies and recently announced plans to further increase numbers to 33 over the next three years; introduced a requirement that all establishments licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 have local ethical review processes as a complement to the existing controls under the Act. We are now reviewing those processes to ensure dissemination of best practice; announced our intention never to allow the use of Great Apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees and orang-utans); announced that licenses for monoclonal antibody production by the ascites method will not be granted other than in exceptional circumstances; and ended the licensing of the LD50 test and of tests for skin corrosivity and phototoxic potential where valid alternatives exist.

  The number of scientific procedures in Great Britain in 1999 was nearly 2.66 million—very slightly down on 1998. The number of animals used was 2.57 million, about 24,000 fewer than in 1998. With the exception of 1997 this is the lowest number since 1955.
  530W
  The overall reduction in the use of animals reflects the Government's commitment to applying the principles of the 3Rs to all animal testing in the United Kingdom. However, it is very difficult to project the number of animals to be used in future years. Numbers depend on the type of project licence applications that will be made and progress on current project licences, as well as global trends in scientific endeavour.

  Other support given to animal welfare includes: bringing forward a Government Bill to address the issue of hunting with dogs; backing a Private Member's Bill which became the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, a measure aimed at tightening regulation of commercial dog breeding establishments, and issue to local authorities of related detailed guidance; preparation, with the Association of Circus Proprietors, of a code of practice on the care and welfare of animals in travelling circuses; making an Order that allows for an indefinite prohibition of the culling of seals on the east coast of England, which has assisted in the recovery of common seals to pre-1988 numbers when a virus decimated their population—by 1999 their number had risen to 3,600 just 400 down on 1988 numbers.

  2 Marsham Street
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date it is planned to start demolishing the old Department of the Environment offices at 2 Marsham Street. [158838]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1167W. Contract negotiations for developing the Marsham Street site as a public private partnership project are currently in progress with Anne's Gate Property plc, the preferred bidder. The City of Westminster has resolved in February to grant detailed planning consent subject to completion of a planning agreement which is currently being negotiated. Provided final contract terms can be agreed between the Home Office and the preferred bidder, a start on demolishing the old Department of the Environment offices is planned later this year.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Council Working Parties on Justice and Home Affairs, indicating(a) the number of meetings since 2000 and (b) the items on the agenda for each. [158757]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Treaty on European Union established the "Article 36 Committee", a co-ordinating committee of senior officials in the field of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. The Committee of Permanent Representatives has also approved, most recently in 1999, a list of working parties and committees in the Justice and Home Affairs sector. In addition, a number of the working parties established by the Permanent Representatives Committee in the General Affairs sector deal with issues with a justice and home affairs dimension.
  531W
  Since the start of the Swedish Presidency on 1 January 2001, there have been 176 meetings of these working groups. To provide an itemised agenda for each meeting would involve disproportionate cost. However, the agendas can be obtained individually from the Swedish Presidency website at "www.eu2001.se".

  List of Working Parties:

  Justice and Home Affairs

  Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum

  Working Party on Migration and Expulsion Visas Working Party

  Asylum Working Party

  (a) Dublin Convention

  (b) Eurodac

  Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum (CIREA) Working Party

  Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration (CIREFI) Working Party

  Working Party on Frontiers (including false documents)

  Committee on Civil Law Matters

  Working Party on Information Systems and Data

  Protection (excluding Schengen Information System)

  Schengen Information System (SIS) Working Party

  Schengen Information Technical (SIS-TECH) Working Party

  (a) General

  (b) Schengen Information System Network (SISNET)

  Supplementary Information Request at National Entry (SIRENE) Working Party

  Police Co-operation Working Party (including false documents)

  (a) Telecommunications

  (b) Investigative Techniques and Forensic Science

  (c) Exchange of Police Intelligence

  Europol Working Party

  Working Party on Terrorism

  Working Party on Drug Trafficking

  Customs Co-operation Working Party

  Working Party on Co-operation in Criminal Matters

  Working Party on Substantive Criminal Law

  Working Party on Collective Evaluation

  Working Party on Schengen Evaluation

  Working Party on the Schengen Acquis

  Multidisciplinary Group on Organised Crime (including the Pre-accession Pact Experts Group (PAPEG))

  Working Party on the European Judicial Network

  Working Party on the Contact and Support Network

  Working Party on Civil Protection

  General Affairs (Horizontal Issues)

  High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration

  Horizontal Working Party on Drugs

  General Affairs (External Relations)

  Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management.

  Departmental Policies (Battersea)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Battersea constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158761]
  532W
  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 Battersea constituency or the immediate locality.
  Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI)
  The Metropolitan police in partnership with the London Borough of Wandsworth have been granted £7,000 for a project covering the over 60s in Wandsworth. The main interventions proposed include target hardening for repeat victims particularly among elderly households. Approximately £19,000 has been awarded to a project in Balham. The main interventions proposed are raising awareness, a crime prevention roadshow, target hardening and a property accreditation scheme for an area with large numbers of flats and houses in multiple occupation.
  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
  Wandsworth borough council was awarded £73,000 for a four-camera scheme to extend the current system covering two major car parks, public access points and Prince of Wales Drive in Battersea. The scheme aims to reduce overall crime by 10 per cent. in three years.
  Youth Offending
  Battersea is covered by the Wandsworth Youth Offending Team (YOT). It is currently receiving funding from the Youth Justice Board (YJB) for four Intervention Schemes and one Bail Support Scheme. The YOT consists of members of staff from five core agencies: Social Services, Police, Probation, Education and Health. During the past year the local health authority has increased its representation from a part-time psychologist to a full-time post. The YOT has an annual budget in excess of £1.5 million. Some key achievements in the last year include: staffing has provided to allow Balham Court House to open five days a week; a new database (YJB funded) has been installed to allow improved monitoring of the whole youth justice system; Persistent Young Offenders are being dealt with on average within 60 days; Restorative Justice Conferencing has been established with YJB funding, allowing the existing Family Group Meeting Service to be expanded to include young people and their families; an indirect reparation scheme is run on Saturdays in Battersea Park—young people are required to undertake basic maintenance tasks, for example sweeping leaves and cleaning Parks Police Cars. All young people in Wandsworth in receipt of a Final Warning are assessed for a programme of intervention and a Mentoring Scheme has been established, with 24 mentors already trained and over 10 matched with young people. Truancy Sweeps have been introduced using the YOT premises: 18 truants were picked up in the first sweep, some of those identified will be referred on to activities such as summer colleges. All YOT staff have participated in a full training programme including working with parents of offenders and cognitive ways of working.
  The YJB have contributed £65,000 towards a project aimed at young people in receipt of Final Warning, Community Sentences and those young people made subject to a Detention and Training

  533W
  Order. The Effective Supervision Project is particularly for persistent young offenders and includes individual programmes, group work and a cognitive behavioural offending programme. The Victim Offender Family Group Meeting Project provides a dedicated officer responsible for the recruitment and training of Victim Conferencing Co-ordinators and project development. This scheme has received a YJB grant of approximately £68,000. £99,000 has been contributed towards the Wandsworth Parenting Project. The main objective is to prevent offending by young people by the provision of appropriate and good quality parenting programmes that are credible to the courts, the parents concerned and the young offenders. Wandsworth YOT Mentoring Service will be a flexible scheme offering short-term task centred support or longer-term support helping to build a young person's self esteem. Almost £112,000 has been granted towards this scheme. The YJB are contributing approximately £157,000 towards a Bail Support Scheme, which aims to provide support and supervision for young people on remand to avoid them having to be removed from home because of their offending.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Battersea 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.

  CCTV Challenge Fund
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much each London borough received in rounds one and two of the Home Office CCTV Challenge Fund allocations. [158784]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are now running a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Initiative, which replaced the earlier CCTV Challenge Fund. In round one of that initiative a total of £17.4 million was awarded to 52 schemes submitted by London boroughs. The shortlist of bids recently announced under round two of the CCTV Initiative includes 30 schemes from London boroughs, with a potential capital value of £19.1 million.

  A list of these schemes in London boroughs awarded funding under round one of the CCTV Initiative, and those that have been invited to the final stage of round two of the CCTV Initiative, has been placed in the Library.

  Police Defence Equipment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what trials are being undertaken of(a) the advanced taser M26, (b) the laser dazzler, (c) the bean bag and (d) pepper spray; what the specifications are for each test; what police forces or other bodies have been approached or agreed to conduct further trials; what his estimate is of the cost of each trial programme; and what social impact assessment he will commission for each weapon. [158789]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A wide range of technologies which could be used by the police for self-protection and the maintenance of law and order is currently being considered by the Home Office Police Scientific 534W
  Development Branch (PSDB), including the advanced air taser, laser dazzler and bean bag. This programme of work responds to an operational requirement set by the Association of Chief Police Officers. A preliminary review of the available equipment has recently been published by the Northern Ireland Office in relation to the Patten Report recommendations on seeking potentially less lethal alternatives to Plastic Baton Rounds. The fact that items are being studied does not of course mean that they will necessarily come into police use.

  Pepper spray has been discounted for use in the United Kingdom, but Sussex police are trialling a synthetic version of the spray, PAVA, in one of their Divisions.

  The total cost of the work being carried out for the Home Office at PSDB is £402,000. Formal social impact assessments are not carried out as part of this programme, but all relevant factors would be considered before any decision to recommend police use of any of the equipment in question.

  Circus Animals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the(a) persons and (b) organisations his Department has consulted in preparing guidelines relating to the use of animals in circuses; [159592]

  (2) what plans he has to issue official guidelines on the use of animals in circuses. [159602]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Association of Circus Proprietors has produced a Code of Practice on standards for the care and welfare of circus animals on tour. Copies of the Code of Practice will be made available to local authorities and circuses as well as other interested parties.

  I understand the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the British Veterinary Zoological Society, the Zoological Society of London and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare were all consulted on the content of the Code of Practice. Home Office officials provided some advice and assistance to the Association in the preparation of its Code but it remains the Code of the Association. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other organisations will be meeting me shortly to discuss it.

  Human Rights Commission
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish a human rights commission for England and Wales. [159279]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have no present plans to establish a Human Rights Commission for England and Wales. The Joint Parliamentary Commission on Human Rights is currently scoping a study into the possibility of a Human Rights Commission, and we will be interested to see its conclusions.

  Police (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were in post per 1,000 head of population in the county of Cambridgeshire on 1 January in each year between 1996 and 2001. [159521]
  535W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is set out in the table. Police numbers are collected twice a year on 31 March and 30 September. The information in the table is therefore based on police numbers for 31 March of each year, except for 2001 where the special collection of police numbers for 31 January has been used.

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  Year

  Police numbers

  Population (mid June of preceding year)

  Police officers per 1,000 population(1)

  31 March 1996

  1,238

  693,871

  1.78

  31 March 1997

  1,302

  703,251

  1.85

  31 March 1998

  1,291

  712,240

  1.81

  31 March 1999

  1,274

  719,767

  1.77

  31 March 2000

  1,237

  724,897

  1.71

  31 January 2001

  1,309

  2724,897

  21.81

  1 Calculated on the basis of population figures, for June of the preceding year, provided by the Office for National Statistics.

  2 June 2000 population figures are not, yet available. June 1999 population data have been used.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total gross running cost to his Department was for travel, including fares, subsistence, accommodation and other expenses met from public funds for visits exclusively within the United Kingdom by(a) him and (b) Ministers, in the 12 months ending 30 April 1997. [157621]

  Mr. Straw
  Departmental records available for the 12 months to 30 April 1997 show the following costs:

  (a) Visits by the Home Secretary—£16,866.65

  (b) Visits by other Home Office Ministers—£38,035.75.

  These figures include where relevant the costs of an accompanying Private Secretary.

  Departmental Entertaining
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total gross running costs to his Department were in the 12 months ending 30 April 1997 of entertaining by(a) Ministers and (b) officials. [157619]

  Mr. Straw
  The total gross running cost to my Department in the 12 months ending 30 April 1997 of entertaining by Ministers was £14,793 and by officials was £27,036.

  In my reply of 27 February 2001, Official Report, column 603W, I reported that the provisional gross running cost to my Department in the 12 months to 31 January 2001 of entertaining by officials was £160,095. It has since been found that a sum of £131,064 relating to the costs of conferences had been incorrectly classified in the accounting system as entertaining costs. Provisional expenditure on entertaining by officials in the 12 months to 31 January 2001 was £29,031.

  Crime Rates (Chichester)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is provided on the knowledge network on the level of(a) recorded crime, (b) violent crime and (c) police manpower in the Chichester constituency; and what comparable statistics are available for 1997. [159265]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  (holding answer 27 April 2001]: Details of crime and police manpower are not collected centrally at constituency level, and so are not available for inclusion on the knowledge network.

  The most recent details of recorded crime in the Chichester Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership area, for selected offences, are available in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1/01, "Recorded Crime: England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000", which is available in the Library. Equivalent figures for 1997 are not available centrally.

  Metropolitan Police
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) serving officers of and (b) recruits to the Metropolitan police in 2000–01 reside in Hertfordshire. [159535]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am told by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that this information is not held centrally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 7 March, regarding a constituent: Ref. 6492/1. [159233]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 30 April 2001.

  Disorder
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has set for the reduction of incidents of disorder. [159021]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 April 2001, Official Report, column 391W. The target is that there should be a reduction in disorder; we expect to have sufficient data to produce a baseline this autumn and work on quantifying the target will follow.

  Crime (Walsall)
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was given directly to(a) the local authority and voluntary organisations and (b) the police in Walsall by his Department to aid in crime reduction and crime prevention in each year since 1997. [158743]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Amounts paid as grant under various Home Office initiatives to support crime reduction are as follows.
  537W

  Initiative

  Grant recipient

  Local authority, voluntary sector or police

  Financial year

  Amount (£)

  CCTV Challenge

  Walsall metropolitan borough council

  Local authority

  1996–97

  52,400

  CCTV Challenge

  Walsall metropolitan borough council

  Local authority

  1997–98

  105,400

  Youth Justice Board Development Fund

  Walsall metropolitan borough council

  Local authority

  1999–2000

  55,648

  Drug Arrest Referrals

  West Midlands police authority1

  Police

  1999–2000

  5,000

  2000–01

  62,552

  Youth Justice Board Development Fund

  Walsall metropolitan borough council

  Local authority

  2000–01

  16,464

  Reducing Burglary

  Walsall metropolitan borough council

  Local authority

  2000–01

  61,407

  CCTV

  Walsall metropolitan borough council

  Local authority

  2000–01

  309,629

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  Walsall Housing Regeneration Agency

  Voluntary sector

  2000–01

  41,003

  1 Grant is paid to police authority who then transfer it to Walsall health authority

  Special Advisers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [158559]

  Mr. Straw
  I have two departmental special advisers, one of whom made one official visit abroad between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001. The visit was a fact-finding programme to the United States of America to discuss law and order issues with policy advisers and practitioners. The visit was made in accordance with the Civil Service Management Code. My second special adviser was in the United States of America at the same time and attended parts of the programme but his visit was not supported by public funds.

  Police (West Sussex)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers, patrol officers and community beat officers there were in West Sussex in 1997; and how many there are today. [158597]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information in the table has been provided by the Chief Constable of the Sussex police. I understand that of the five divisions that police the county of West Sussex two of them also police parts of the County of East Sussex, the number of officers available to police West Sussex will therefore vary from week to week.

  I am also told that because of changes to computer systems in December 1999 the force is unable to provide historical information about the distribution of officers between the divisions of the Sussex police. However, the force has been able to provide an estimate for 1997, which is based on the current distribution of police officers to divisions, and these are in the table.

  Number of police officers in West Sussex area of the Sussex police

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2001

  Total number of police officers

  916

  883

  Response (patrol) officers

  456

  442

  Community beat officers

  181

  174

  Lord Birt
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been claimed to date 538W
  by Lord Birt in out-of-pocket expenses in respect of his role as a Government adviser on crime; and if he will make a statement. [158227]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 17 November 2000,Official Report, column 801W. Lord Birt has not claimed out-of-pocket expenses since then.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) average sentence for people imprisoned for Housing Benefit fraud and (b) average length of time served by people imprisoned for Housing Benefit fraud was in each of the last five years. [158674]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  The offences of Housing Benefit fraud and Council Tax Benefit fraud are not separately identified on the Home Office's Court Proceedings Database.

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home 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. [158108]

  Mr. Straw
  With the following exceptions, no age limits are placed on appointments to non-departmental public bodies sponsored by this Department.

  The Information Commissioner

  The Data Protection Act 1998 requires the Information Commissioner to vacate office on completing the year of service in which he/she attains the age of 65. This requirement is reflected in advertisements.

  Parole Board

  No mention is made of any age limit in the advertisement, but in the information pack sent to applicants (other than members of the judiciary) it states that candidates should be aged 70 or less on completion of the fixed term of three years.
  539W
  Criminal Cases Review Commission and Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel

  The information pack states that applicants are likely to be over 40 and should be under 70 at the time of appointment. However, these limits are applied flexibly and are not mentioned in the advertisement.

  Data Protection Tribunal

  In most circumstances, an age limit of 70 is applied to lay members in line with the designated retirement age of the chairman and deputy chairman, who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. These posts are not advertised.

  Office of the Surveillance Commissioners

  The Chief Surveillance Commissioner and the Surveillance Commissioner are required to retire at 75 and must therefore be under 72 years on appointment for a fixed term of three years. These posts are not advertised. Assistant Surveillance Commissioners are required to retire at 72 and must therefore be under 69 years at the start of their three-year appointments. This limit is not mentioned in the advertisement. These limits are applied flexibly on an administrative basis.

  Misuse of Drugs Advisory Body and Appeals Tribunal

  The Chairmen of the Misuse of Drugs Advisory Body and Appeals Tribunal are appointed by the Lord Chancellor and are subject to a normal retirement age of 70, although this can be relaxed at the Lord Chancellor's discretion.

  Police Discipline Appeals Tribunal

  Chairmen are subject to a normal retirement age of 70, or 72 for those who were appointed prior to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. Members are appointed for five years from their retirement from the police service.

  Probation Orders (Breaches)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the figures(a) nationally and (b) for each probation area for the number and proportion of cases under supervision by the Probation Service where breach action was taken in accordance with national standards in 2000–01. [158934]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The figures for compliance with the national standard on breach are provided by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation audit of probation areas and are shown in the table. This gives the results of the most recent audit. The audit covers supervision of probation orders, community service orders (as community punishment orders and community rehabilitation orders were at the time) and licence cases only. The national totals show that breach action was taken in 65 per cent. of cases in accordance with national standards; in a further 5 per cent. of cases, management authorisation not to breach was given, also in line with national standards.

  Offenders breached

  Area

  Number breached

  Percentage

  Avon

  45

  83.3

  Bedfordshire

  13

  76.5

  Berkshire

  3

  37.5

  Cambridgeshire

  18

  64.3

  Cheshire

  27

  69.2

  Cornwall

  4

  100

  540W

  Offenders breached

  Area

  Number breached

  Percentage

  Cumbria

  25

  80.6

  Derbyshire

  41

  75.9

  Devon

  23

  54.8

  Dorset

  19

  86.4

  Durham

  22

  95.7

  Dyfed

  3

  100

  East Sussex

  21

  75

  Essex

  19

  79.2

  Gloucestershire

  18

  62.1

  Greater Manchester

  67

  68.4

  Gwent

  14

  87.5

  Hampshire

  39

  69.6

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  14

  73.7

  Hertfordshire

  12

  85.7

  Humberside

  46

  65.7

  ILPS

  52

  36.9

  Kent

  17

  31.5

  Lancashire

  60

  85.7

  Leicestershire

  38

  80.1

  Lincolnshire

  24

  96

  Merseyside

  68

  79.1

  Mid Glamorgan

  12

  66.7

  Middlesex

  33

  45.8

  NELPS

  31

  66.0

  Norfolk

  25

  59.5

  North Wales

  15

  62.5

  North Yorkshire

  5

  23.8

  Northamptonshire

  25

  75.8

  Northumbria

  46

  68.7

  Nottinghamshire

  57

  87.5

  Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  26

  56.5

  Powys

  5

  100

  SELPS

  18

  64.3

  Shropshire

  11

  68.8

  Somerset

  7

  50

  South Glamorgan

  22

  71.0

  South Yorkshire

  48

  45.3

  Staffordshire

  13

  38.2

  Suffolk

  15

  88.2

  Surrey

  14

  51.9

  SWLPS

  5

  50

  Teeside

  45

  78.0

  Warwickshire

  11

  73.3

  West Glamorgan

  12

  70.6

  West Midlands

  62

  53.9

  West Sussex

  17

  85

  West Yorkshire

  50

  52.6

  Wiltshire

  20

  100

  Total

  1,402

  65

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated total cost of dealing with asylum seekers cases was in each of the last seven years. [158800]

  Mrs. Roche
  The costs of dealing with asylum seekers' cases are not distinguished separately from the overall operational costs for Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). The total cost of running IND operations over the past seven years is given in the table.

  £ million

  1994–95

  183

  1995–96

  199

  1996–97

  212

  541W

  £ million

  1997–98

  215

  1998–99

  209

  1999–2000

  260

  2000–011

  484

  1 Estimated

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultations were held by his Department with(a) North East Lincolnshire and (b) South Humberside before accommodation agents began to purchase property there for the dispersal of asylum seekers; and if he intends to hold such consultations in the future; [158912]

  (2) what consultations he has held with (a) local authorities, (b) regional consortia, (c) regional development agencies, (d) health authorities and (e) education authorities before accommodation is purchased in their areas for the dispersal of refugees and asylum seekers; [158911]

  (3) what assessment he makes of the ability of areas to cope with the numbers of asylum seekers he allocates for dispersal to each; and how local authorities and the Health Service are recompensed for additional pressure on their facilities. [158917]

  Mrs. Roche
  Those who have been granted refugee status are free to live where they choose. National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is responsible only for providing accommodation to asylum seekers who have requested that this be provided as part of a support package. The identification of suitable cluster areas for the dispersal of asylum seekers and their dependants is based on research conducted centrally by NASS. Information is obtained from local authorities and other organisations with an interest in asylum. The presence of asylum seekers already in the area will also be taken into consideration.

  In common with the rest of the United Kingdom, before entering into a contract with an accommodation provider to provide housing in Humberside and North East Lincolnshire, NASS consulted the regional consortium to enable the relevant local authority to have an input into the decision making process. NASS has, and will continue to, provide information and advice to regional consortia on a regular basis.

  Provider

  Address

  Adelphi Hotels

  75 Church Road, Hove BN3 2BB

  Angel Group Limited

  Suite 4, Lion Court, 435 The Highway, London E1 9HT

  Accommodata Limited

  44–48 Cromwell Road, London SW5 9QL

  Capital Accommodation Limited

  PO BOX 3309, 16 Turnpike Lane, London N8 OPT

  Clearsprings

  26 Brook Road, Brook Road Business Park, Rayleigh, Essex SS6 7XL

  Glasgow City Council

  Hamish Allen, Centre, 180 Centre Street, Glasgow G5

  Roselodge Limited

  Wembley Point, 1 Harrow Road, Wembley, Middlesex HA9 6DE

  Safe Haven

  Raines Business Centre, Raines House, Denby Dale Road, Wakefield WF1 1HL

  The Landmark

  Conway Street, Liverpool L5 3NH

  YMCA Glasgow

  33 Petershill Drive, Glasgow G21 4QQ

  542W
  Funding for local authorities and the health service in England is by way of grant based on standard spending assessments which take account of the size of the population.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many private sector accommodation providers are(a) seeking and (b) purchasing property in North-East Lincolnshire to which asylum seekers can be dispersed. [158910]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are four National Asylum Support Service private sector contractors and one registered social landlord who are currently seeking to purchase property in North-East Lincolnshire.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how private sector accommodation providers who are participating in his programme of dispersal of asylum seekers are chosen and vetted; what form of contract they enter into with his Department; what influence he has on the areas in which they acquire accommodation; and how it is inspected and vetted by his Department. [158921]

  Mrs. Roche
  Each of the private sector contracts was entered into following standard Government Procurement Procedures and a bespoke Government Contract has been used to define the rights and obligations of the contracting parties. All accommodation is acquired within defined Cluster Areas the extent and location of which is agreed between the local authorities concerned and National Asylum Support Service (NASS).

  All property provided by the private sector will be inspected by NASS or its consultants within three months of the premises being available for use and in many cases before the bedspaces are occupied. The property is inspected by a combination of surveyors, contract managers and NASS inspectors.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names and location of the head offices of the accommodation providers with whom he has entered into agreements to disperse asylum seekers and refugees since May 1997. [158908]

  Mrs. Roche
  The following private and public sector are under contract to National Asylum Support Service (NASS) to provide accommodation for asylum seekers dispersed by NASS.
  543W

  Provider

  Address

  Leena Corporation

  Premier House, 2nd Floor, 1 Canning Road, Harrow, Wealdstone, Middlesex HA3 7TS

  North East Consortium

  2 Jesmond Road West, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4PQ

  Yorkshire and Humberside Consortium

  West Yorkshire/Humberside, Thorsby House, 2A Great George Street, Leeds LS2 8BB

  Yorkshire and Humberside Consortium

  West Yorkshire/Humberside, 4th Floor West, Merrion House, Leeds LS2 8BQ

  Yorkshire and Humberside Consortium

  South Yorkshire, 3rd Floor, 18–22 Union Street, Sheffiled S1 2JR

  North West Consortium East Region

  Minehead Resource Centre, Minehead Avenue, Withington M20 1FW

  West Midlands Consortium

  Auchinleck House, 7th Floor, Five Ways, Birmingham B15 1DS

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  32–33 Great Victoria Street, Belfast BT2 7BA

  Cardiff Council

  3rd Floor, Marland House, Central Sqaure, Cardiff CF10 1EP

  East Midlands

  The Belvoir Suite, Council Offices, Nottingham Road, Melton Mowbray, Leics LE13

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what control he has over where private sector accommodation providers purchasing property for the dispersal of asylum seekers out of the south-east decide to make such purchases; and how he ensures an even spread of purchases rather than a concentration on these parts of the country where house prices are lowest. [158915]

  Mrs. Roche
  In consultation with local authorities National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has established approximately 70 cluster areas around the United Kingdom. NASS manages the acquisition of property from both public and private sector providers across cluster areas. Providers are required to provide accommodation within these cluster areas. NASS considers each area upon its merits and bases its acquisition of property upon demand and local circumstances.

  NASS is currently seeking to identify new cluster areas to ensure that asylum seekers continue to be dispersed on a fair and rational basis throughout the country.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what payments per capita are made to private sector accommodation agents for each asylum seeker dispersed from the south-east; and if these payments vary by region. [158913]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am afraid that I am unable to give this information since it is commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he holds with asylum seekers(a) individually and (b) collectively about dispersal out of the south-east by private sector accommodation providers and where they wish to be dispersed to; what information they are given about areas they are to be dispersed to; and what sanctions are imposed on those who migrate back to the south-east. [158918]

  Mrs. Roche
  Asylum seekers applying for accommodation as part of an application for support can ask to be located in a particular area. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) will take this information and other information relating to the individual circumstances of an applicant into account in deciding whether dispersal is appropriate and, if so, the most appropriate location. The 544W
  asylum seekers will be given a written offer of the support package and before travel will be briefed by the voluntary sector about the arrangements for travel.

  An asylum seeker can apply to NASS to change the support package from subsistence and accommodation to subsistence only. But if they do this they have to find and pay for their accommodation themselves.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total cost to his Department of arrangements made with private sector accommodation providers to disperse asylum seekers and refugees in the last five years. [158909]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office has been responsible for the support costs of asylum seeking adults and families since 1 April 1999. The Department is not responsible for the support of refugees.

  Support for asylum seekers is currently provided either via social security benefits including Housing Benefit, or by local authorities under the interim scheme or since 3 April 2000 directly by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). The amounts paid to private sector providers on behalf of asylum seekers on social security benefits and by local authorities on behalf of asylum seekers supported under the interim scheme are not known.

  The National Asylum Support Service began operation on the 3 April 2000 and the amount paid to private sector accommodation providers by the NASS in the period 3 April 2000 to the 31 March 2001 was £46 million.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum were received from(a) Ethiopia and (b) Eritrea; how many and what percentage of these were initially accepted; how many and what percentage of those rejected went to appeal; and how many and what percentage of those appeals were successful in each of the last five years. [159283]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is given in the tables. I regret the other information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  545W

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and decisions for nationals of Ethiopia and Eritrea during 1996–2000

  Granted of asylum or exceptional leave to remain (ELR)

  Granted ELR under backlog criteria1,2

  Applications for asylum

  Total initial decisions

  Total

  Percentage of initial decisions

  Total

  Percentage of initial decisions

  Ethiopia

  1996

  205

  325

  65

  20

  n/a

  n/a

  1997

  145

  245

  60

  24

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  345

  110

  50

  44

  n/a

  n/a

  19993,4

  455

  260

  25

  10

  190

  73

  20003,4,5,6

  390

  475

  65

  13

  180

  38

  Eritrea

  1996

  135

  70

  25

  35

  n/a

  n/a

  1997

  125

  120

  30

  27

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  345

  115

  20

  19

  n/a

  n/a

  19993,4

  565

  60

  5

  8

  30

  49

  20003,4,5,6

  510

  445

  70

  16

  120

  27

  1 Cases decided under pragmatic measures timed at reducing the pre-1996 asylum application backlog.

  2 Includes cases where asylum or exception leave has been granted under the backlog criteria.

  3 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000

  4 Data for years 1999 and 2000 are provisional.

  5 Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  6 Decision figures, by nationality, only available for the period April to December 2000.

  Notes:

  1. Figures other than percentages are rounded to nearest five.

  2. Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period and exclude the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  Crime and Disorder Partnerships
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will allocate the additional money being made available to Crime and Disorder Partnerships in England and Wales for the communities against drugs initiative; and how much each partnership will receive. [160066]

  Mr. Straw
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget Statement that an additional £220 million would be made available over the next three years to Crime and Disorder Partnerships as part of the Communities Against Drugs initiative. This money, which is to be spent in agreement with local police commanders and Drug Action Teams, will be used to disrupt local drugs markets, and tackle drug related crime. All partnerships will benefit from this funding, but those with the largest populations and most serious problems will benefit most.

  I am now able to announce the allocation of the funding for 2001–02. It is important that partnerships know their allocation for this financial year quickly in order to plan its use. In order to let them know this important
  546W
  information in good time we have used a simple and straightforward allocation formula based on relevant and readily available information. The formula shares 20 per cent. of funds across all partnerships in England and in Wales, allocates 50 per cent. on the basis of certain recorded crimes which are often linked with drug abuse (burglary, robbery, theft and theft of and from a vehicle) and 30 per cent. on the basis of population levels. Each partnership will receive at least the same allocation of money in the following two years. The final allocations for 2002–03 and 2003–04 will be announced by the end of July.

  A new Communities Against Drugs Toolkit is now available on the Crime Reduction website, www.crimereduction.gov.uk, and Crime and Disorder Partnerships will find this a valuable tool in helping them use this funding.

  I will place a paper showing the detailed allocations to each partnership, and further information about the funding formula, in the Library, and the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) will write to hon. Members for constituencies in England and Wales with the same information.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Child Poverty, East and Central Europe
Baroness Massey of Darwen Baroness Massey of Darwen asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the Department for International Development programmes are helping to alleviate child poverty in central and eastern Europe.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Department for International Development's policy in central and eastern Europe, as elsewhere, is focused on the reduction of poverty. We are determined to do all we can to mobilise the international system to meet the international development targets by 2015 in order that today's poor children do not become the parents of larger numbers of children living in extreme poverty in the next generation. In those countries of central and eastern Europe where the problems are most acute we are supporting specific children's welfare and social assistance reform programmes.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. However, is she aware that some countries of eastern Europe have worse levels of child poverty than many developing countries? Does she agree that unless western governments are vigorously active in this area the situation will create more distress and instability in the region?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The transition to a market economy in central and eastern Europe is producing rising levels of child poverty, which is a cause of great concern. It has had an impact on the provision of child services.
The Department for International Development increasingly focuses its bilateral assistance on the poorer countries in the region. We are supporting specific children's welfare and social programmes, for example, in Romania, Bulgaria, Kosovo and Serbia. We are also working with the multilateral organisations because we feel that the leverage we can generate from working with those organisations is important. I agree with my noble friend. We need vigorously to tackle the problem.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, where European Union or World Bank funds are made available to central and eastern Europe, can the Minister assure the House that primary education and public health will be protected along the lines promised
432
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether that aim is working in practice?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the European Union and the World Bank. A number of organisations are working in the area of health, including the Department for International Development. For example, in Bosnia we are supporting healthcare reform. In Kosovo we give management support to Pristina University Hospital. In Serbia we support the Ministry of Health
I am aware that the European Union and the World Bank have a number of programmes in the region. However, the Department for International Development is not supporting primary education projects in the region.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the many economic and social problems in eastern and central Europe, highlighted by the excellent report of the European Children's Trust, The Silent Crisis, are often associated with large numbers of orphans and abandoned children. Is DfID supporting any programmes to help orphaned and abandoned children? The policy has tended to be to put them in often unsatisfactory institutional care. Is DfID helping to promote a preferable form of foster family care?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Romania in particular has suffered from a legacy of inadequate government financing and poor use of resources in relation to children's welfare. We have a major £3 million, three-year programme of assistance to the national authority for child protection and adoption. The money is being used in a variety of ways. For example, a consultant has advised on options to improve current adoption practices. With the authority, we have looked at management structures. We have considered training and development, and other areas about which I am happy to write to the noble Baroness in more detail.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, now that the United Kingdom has become the fourth largest donor to poor countries, a near 40 cent rise having been achieved over previous years, can we not do more for this very needy area?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it was announced last week that the United Kingdom has become the world's fourth largest donor. We are focusing more on poorer countries in central and eastern Europe. However, at the end of March 2003 we shall no longer have programmes in the better-off countries of the region—for example, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltics, Slovakia and Slovenia. But we shall be focusing on the two candidate countries, Bulgaria and Romania, and on the Balkans.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, are not the two charities—the Free and Democratic Bulgaria (Children) Foundation works with Britain's Childhope—exactly

433
the kind of children's charities which DfID can support, especially as they are being forced to close this year because of an EU reduction of funds? Does the Minister know that they have applied to DfID for funds but to no avail? What can Her Majesty's Government do for these worthy causes?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked a number of questions in this House on specific charities which have approached the Department for International Development for funding. As the noble Baroness is aware, we have clear criteria against which we assess those applications. I am happy to consider the two organisations to which she refers and write to her with more information.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge the clear determination that the new Government of Romania have shown to come to grips with the problems of child poverty and, in particular, with the scandal of children's homes and orphanages? Given the symbolic as well as the actual importance of that, will she assure the House that Romania will be given a high priority in the programmes, not just financially, but also in terms of know-how? If we can succeed in Romania, it will be a guide to the rest of eastern and central Europe.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we have a £3 million programme in Romania that covers a number of areas. The international community is working very hard. I agree that the Government of Romania are working hard to develop alternatives for children in institutions. The EC has been foremost in support of that effort and has allocated £15 million for spending in 2001. The noble Lord is right to stress the importance not only of giving financial support but of developing the skills and capacity of people in those countries so that we build for the long term.

Swinfen Hall Young Offender Institution
2.44 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the Chief Inspector of Prisons' report on young offender institution Swinfen Hall, published on 3rd April.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Chief Inspector described Swinfen Hall as a centre of excellence and a healthy prison in which young prisoners can mature as people and are given the opportunity to address both their offending behaviour and their educational, work and social skills shortcomings. There is an excellent "Moving Out" course to prepare young prisoners for their release. The Chief Inspector's excellent report is a great credit to the governor and her staff.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As Swinfen Hall is in general a welcome example of good practice—unlike Stoke Heath, for example, on which Sir David also recently reported—would it not be a good idea for this report to be required reading at every institution in the Prison Service? Might not that result in a bit more focused attention on education issues, which some of us have grown old reiterating, such as the point made in paragraph 5.09 about the transfer of education records?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a number of useful points. I am sure that the report ought to be required reading. I know that inspection reports are widely circulated in the Prison Service. They are certainly filleted for good practice. The inspector drew attention to 14 areas of good practice. There is much sense in recommendation 5.09. No doubt it will be dwelt on. It is essential when planning educational courses for young individuals that their educational records are easily transferred. Let us hope that we can do that using the best of new technology in the future.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House why the Front Benches should pre-empt the Back Benches, contrary to the erstwhile traditions of this House?
Lord Acton: My Lords, reverting to the Question, does my noble friend agree that we read a great deal about reports on prisons and offender institutions where things are far from well? Are the Government making any great effort to publicise this report and good reports in general?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we always make strenuous efforts to publicise good reports, but unfortunately good reports attract far less attention. This one deserves to attract a great deal of attention. Sir David Ramsbotham said that he was taking a unique step in his time as Chief Inspector of Prisons by declaring Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution Swinfen Hall to be a centre of excellence. We should be proud and celebrate that fact and congratulate the staff at Swinfen Hall, who are obviously doing a very good job. Their work on improving the establishment over the past five or six years should be more widely known about publicly, particularly in the Prison Service.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Sir David's report on Swinfen Hall shows his willingness to be critical when prisons are bad and to praise when they are good? Is it not another example of what an excellent Chief Inspector of Prisons he has been? Has a decision been made about his future?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I am sure that the noble Lord knows, we are in the process of appointing a new Chief Inspector of Prisons. Sir David

435
has done an excellent job. I met him and his inspection team last week. They assured me that Swinfen Hall was not the only establishment that they had praised over their years of looking—quite rightly critically—at the prison estate. They said that there is much good practice across the prison estate. We need to draw more from that to ensure that standards generally are raised.

Kyoto Agreement and United States
2.49 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following the rejection by the United States Government of the Kyoto Agreement on climate change, 'whether they will propose to the World Trade Organisation that it should authorise sanctions against United States industries that benefit from not having to pay the climate change levy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government have made clear our deep concern about President Bush's remarks on Kyoto. However, we do not believe that trade sanctions would be a helpful way of engaging the United States on climate change. We will continue to work towards our aim of ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto protocol by 2002. The climate change levy is a key part of the UK's climate change programme. It is intended to ensure that industry and other parts of the UK non-domestic sector play their part in helping the UK to meet its Kyoto commitments.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that very full Answer. However, does he agree that UK manufacturers, who are liable for the climate change levy, are competing unfairly with US companies, which make no such contribution? Does that not justify a levy such as, I believe, the US Government imposed on cashmere because it did not like the solution to the banana dispute with the European Union a couple of years ago? Is it not the case that, if such action is good for them, it is good for us?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although one has a certain sympathy with what my noble friend says, we do not believe that that is a sensible way in which to conduct trade negotiations. The WTO process has an integrity of its own. The US tried to put pressure on the WTO arrangements when they were going in its favour. However, we believe that the environmental dimension of international trade arrangements needs to be addressed. Indeed, the EU is anxious that the next WTO round addresses that. However, discussions on that aspect should be kept separate from those on Kyoto.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, what European countries, EU and non-EU, have ratified Kyoto? Is it
436
not correct that the 15 EU countries have not begun to get close to the 8 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions target, and are they not all agreed on one thing—that is, that Germany has no hope of ever meeting the Kyoto target and honouring its promise to do away with nuclear energy?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the last part of what the noble Lord said is definitely not true. The Germans, along with the British, are most on course for meeting their Kyoto commitments under the European bubble. Other European Union members are not as on course. We are anxious that they take measures which the British and German Governments have taken to ensure that we meet those commitments. It is hoped that the EU as a whole will aim for ratification by our target date of 2002.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the European Union is far ahead of the United States in respect of energy conservation and the attempt to use cars which use fewer fossil fuels in order to maintain a rate of mileage? Will he consider putting across to the United States good practice such as reducing the use of energy, which would enable the US not to open the Alaskan nature reserve for the purpose of acquiring oil?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is certainly true that the European Union, EU countries individually and European-based manufacturers have made substantial changes which limit the use of fuel, particularly in the area of transport. The commitment of European car manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency will save 4 million tonnes of carbon equivalent by the year 2010. Hopeful signs are being seen in the United States that manufacturers there are picking up the message. Indeed, politically within the United States—for example, in California—that message has also begun to be taken on board. Other voices have also been heard in relation to President Bush's remarks.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, although I recognise the genuine level of criticism registered against the United States Government, does my noble friend agree that, if the British Government followed the terms of this Question, not only would it make a difficult situation that much worse, it would be counter-productive?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. As I indicated, the use of World Trade Organisation mechanisms for achieving changes in the American Government's stance on Kyoto does not seem sensible and would lead to infraction proceedings against us under WTO rules.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what the scientists have been saying? What level of global warming is due to the sun and what level is due to industrial activity? Until that is made clear, is it not the case that many industrial countries will wonder

437
why they should cut back on their emissions if many of them are due to natural causes? I believe that such statistics would be most helpful in putting forward this argument.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the basic science of climate change, which effectively identifies the degree of human activity contribution to the step change in the rate of warming, is now fairly well understood and shared by the vast majority of scientists across the world. The latest International Panel on Climate Change report represents over 3,000 scientists from countries of all persuasions, including the United States and others. Therefore, I do not believe that the science surrounding this issue is now disputed by the vast majority of scientists. However, it is necessary for governments and industrialists to adapt to the facts.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, given the precariousness of the United States economy and the risks to the world economy of a United States recession, does the Minister agree that the imposition of sanctions on United States industries would merely lessen world trade, which the WTO exists to promote?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. I have not advocated sanctions against the United States. However, we have advocated that, in terms of its own responsibilities, the United States should recognise the advantages to itself and to the world of addressing the problems which are causing 25 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. Were the United States to address those problems, the long-term benefits, not only ecologically but also to its economy and people, would become more evident. We hope that within its administration the voices which already recognise that come to prevail and that we can get down to constructive talks at Bonn in July and beyond in order to bring the Americans back into the discussions on climate change.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us what he believes to be available to European countries by way of bringing pressure to bear on the United States? If sanctions are not the way, what can we do to persuade that country? Does he believe that there is any chance of a change of heart on the part of the United States?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that there is indeed a chance for a change of heart. Clearly the Europeans will have to be flexible in negotiations. The American position has been made clear, but there will have to be some adjustment to that position. Nevertheless, I believe that the universal view of the European nations, which has been conveyed to the American administration by various means, industrial and private, will bring about a desire on behalf of the Americans to engage constructively in future negotiations. As I said, we shall see the beginning of that in Bonn in July and it is hoped that we shall then be back on course. This is probably the most important issue to face world leaders and I believe that President Bush recognises that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although the majority of scientists may well be in agreement about global warming and CO2, a group of scientists, led by the distinguished Professor Fred Hoyle, believes that, far from needing less CO2 in the atmosphere, we need more if we are to avoid a second Ice Age?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I read the report of that view in those terms in the newspapers a few weeks ago. I do not believe that that is quite the position of Professor Hoyle. The conclusions that he draws reflect very much a minority of scientific opinion not only in this country and in Europe but throughout the world.

Marriage and Family Policy
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether support for marriage remains one of the Government's aims for family policy.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, yes. There has been no change whatever in the Government's support for marriage. I repeat what I said in your Lordships' House on 17th January in a debate promoted by the noble Baroness:
"A loving marriage between two parties of the opposite sex provides, for the overwhelming majority in our country, the best assurance of a happy personal life and provides the surest foundation upon which to rear a successful family".—[Official Report, 17/1/01; col. 1162.]
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply and remind him of other parts of his speech in that debate. He made it clear that government policy was primarily to support single mothers and children. Does he agree that every single piece of research evidence shows that what is best for children is to be brought up within the framework of a married couple and that marriage should be promoted as a better lifestyle than any other?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in my view, the Government ought not to, and could not, force people to marry; nor could we prevent people who are not married from living together. Moreover, we cannot prevent people from divorcing if they have made up their minds to do so. We live in a free society and we must respect the choices that people make; we must not condemn them. We could not be—we should not be—condemnatory of cohabiting relationships outside marriage.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, surely it is always the case that children must come first. They should not be discriminated against by the state on the basis of the status of their parents or their parent.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I completely agree with that; our primary concern must be the welfare of children. We are committed to the provision of a safe,

439
secure and loving environment for the upbringing of children. That does not mean criticising or penalising people who choose not to marry; nor does it mean that the Government do not recognise the validity of or the stability provided by other relationships, such as one-parent families. Many lone parents and unmarried couples raise their children just as successfully as do married parents.
In my view, the role of the state is to encourage, not to compel, and to provide practical help, not to preach. Children of unmarried couples are not outsiders in society; they are as much insiders and worthy of support as are the children of couples who have chosen to marry. I could not begin to contemplate an apartheid of preferred children and non-preferred children that was dependent on the status of their parents.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, how does the noble and learned Lord reconcile his policy with the Government's taxation policy, which jeopardises many of the tax advantages once enjoyed—they existed for a long time—by married couples?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, our fiscal priority is to put children first. We concentrate resources where they are most needed: on families bringing up children, especially those on lower incomes. I repeat that it is wrong to discriminate against children on the basis of their parents' status. By October 2001, families with children will on the average be £1,000 per year better off as a result of measures introduced during this Parliament and 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord see any connection between the decline in the number of parents who are married and the increase in so-called yob culture among, in particular, boys and young men?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I find it difficult to draw a connection.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we are told that this year the Law Commission will propose giving legal rights to live-in couples. Will the noble and learned Lord define for us the term, "live-in couple"? Would live-in couples have to be having a sexual relationship in order to have those legal rights or would those rights also pertain to other couples, such as two sisters or two other relatives living together in the same home?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I doubt whether the Law Commission is as concerned with the sexual relations of people who live together as are some others. However, it is currently undertaking a review of the law as it relates to the property rights of home sharers. The Government will of course consider what it proposes. The working paper is currently expected later this year and it will be followed by a report in due course. The Government have taken no decisions whatever in this area.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about today's proceedings relating to the Chinook helicopter debate. Although there are Motions on the Order Paper in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff, Lord Chalfont and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, it has been agreed that there will be one debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will speak first and move the Motion standing in his name. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will speak next and move his amendment. A debate will then take place on that amendment. That will provide an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and any other noble Lord who wishes to take part, to speak. At the end of the debate, it may be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, responds to any points that have been addressed to him. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will have the right to reply. The business will then be disposed of without any further debate in the following order: first, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont; secondly, the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff; and, thirdly, the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
3.6 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This report follows from a resolution that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on 5th March after debate. It stated:
"whilst recognising that the final decision will be a decision for the whole House, it is desirable that the Liaison Committee should consider the appointment of a Select Committee to consider all the circumstances surrounding the crash of Chinook helicopter ZD 576 on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994".—[Official Report, 5/3/01; col. 91.]
I am aware that many noble Lords will he disappointed by the fact that the report from the Liaison Committee recommends that the House should not appoint a Select Committee. I shall try to explain how the committee came to that conclusion.
First, the matter was not in any way treated lightly by the Liaison Committee. There were three meetings, which were called at very short notice. After the first meeting it was decided to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, to give evidence. We were very grateful to her for giving a clear explanation of the Government's and the MoD's position and for her assessment of the likely attitude of the two Air Marshals to appearing before the Select Committee. Her evidence is of course published as part of the report. The noble Baroness's position can best be described as that of agnosticism to the idea of a House of Lords Select Committee on this subject. We understand that.

441
Secondly, as a result of that meeting, we asked the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to appear before us, which he did. We are extremely grateful to him because he enabled us to assess his interpretation of the phrase in his original Motion,
"to consider all the circumstances surrounding the crash".
At first sight, that appears to be very wide indeed. However, if noble Lords examine the evidence that he gave in answer to question 39 on page 18 of the report, it is clear that he believed that the inquiry could be quite tightly drawn and that it would not be necessary to go into the "technical details" and background.
After considerable discussion, certain opinions emerged in the Liaison Committee. I trust that members of that committee will join in this afternoon's debate and set out their views in more detail than I can. It is important to say that a large majority of the committee—this was not a unanimous opinion—felt a degree of unease about the board of inquiry's findings. They also felt—this appears in paragraph 7 on page 6 of the report—that:
"It may well be that the conclusions of the Board of Inquiry could usefully be reviewed by a suitable body".
Why could that not be done by a Select Committee of the House of Lords? Careful reading of the questioning by members of the committee reveals the answer to that question. First, some members were worried that however much we attempted to limit the scope of a committee of inquiry, it would be necessary to consider a substantial amount of existing evidence in order to decide whether or not the Air Marshals were justified in coming to the conclusions that they did.
With the best will in the world, an injustice to the board of inquiry may arise in those circumstances. First, there may not be sufficient technical expertise available to test the evidence. Secondly, there may not be sufficient time to give attention to the weight of the evidence and the committee may have considerably to extend its timespan in order to cope.
Some members felt that that was not a suitable matter for a House of Lords Select Committee because of its quasi-judicial character and that to embark upon such an enterprise might set unfortunate precedents for similar attempts to query legitimately constituted boards of inquiry in other fields. One thinks perhaps of a noble Lord having doubts about the Paddington inquiry, the "Marchioness" inquiry or the Kings Cross fire inquiry, and seeking to set up a Select Committee to look into those.
Also, some members of the Liaison Committee believed that it would be possible to have a small, focused, tightly timetabled Select Committee. To that end a Motion was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which, in the event, was defeated by four votes to two.
I repeat that this is a matter for the whole House, as was said in the original resolution. I look forward to hearing your Lordships' views from all sides of the House this afternoon, bearing in mind that this report
442
is not an inquiry into the findings of the board of inquiry, but simply looks at the appropriateness of your Lordships setting up a Select Committee.
Finally, I can do no better than summarise by quoting paragraph 7 of the report, which states:
"It may well be that the conclusions of the Board of Inquiry could usefully be reviewed by a suitable body. But we do not believe that a select committee [of this House] is such a body".
I commend the report to the House.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 67) be agreed to.—(Lord Tordoff.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House rejects the recommendations of the Liaison Committee and appoints a Select Committee of five members to consider the justification for the finding of those reviewing the conclusions of the RAF board of inquiry that both pilots of the Chinook helicopter ZD576 which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994 were negligent".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I realise that it is no small matter to ask this House to reject a recommendation by one of its Select Committees. However, on this occasion I feel obliged to do so and should like to take a few moments of your Lordships' time to explain why.
I begin by saying that there is nothing confrontational about this amendment. It is not in conflict with the Government. This is a story in which Ministers, both of this administration and their predecessors, followed almost exactly the same line on the advice of their officials. Nor is it in conflict with the Liaison Committee, which is quite entitled, and indeed required, to make its recommendation to the House. However, I confess to being somewhat surprised that the recommendation should have gone so clearly against the clearly expressed will of your Lordships' House and especially that the committee should have rejected the Motion put to it by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which proposed a Select Committee based upon the concept of narrowing the terms of reference to address only a review of the conclusions of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry.
I make a point here which has been the subject of confusion not only in your Lordships' House but also between the board of inquiry and the reviewing officers; that is, that the technical position is that the reviewing officers are part of the board of inquiry, so they should not be separated from it. What is at question here is the verdict of the board of inquiry, including its senior reviewing officers.
My amendment is designed to take account of the concept advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in the Liaison Committee. There is no need—perhaps I worded my original Motion badly in this respect—for the Select Committee to examine hundreds of witnesses, to go through thousands of pages of evidence, or assess arcane technical matters of

443
great complexity. But a Select Committee of some kind, perhaps with narrower terms of reference, is the only way now in which this matter can be resolved; the only way in which we can have a fair hearing about the verdict of the RAF board of inquiry.
In the course of the evidence given to the Liaison Committee your Lordships will notice that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, made it abundantly clear that any other course which had been suggested was unacceptable to the Government; in other words, there was no point in suggesting to the Government that they should set up an independent board of inquiry. I tried to suggest that on many occasions. It was rejected and the noble Baroness made it clear in the Liaison Committee that it would be rejected again. The Government will not set up an inquiry which they believe may cast doubt on the verdict of their Air Marshals.
So the inquiry has to come from somewhere else. I hope therefore that the House will now agree—and perhaps the Chairman of Committees will accept—that a Select Committee should be set up (in spite of the findings of the second report) possibly of a slightly different kind and perhaps under the chairmanship of a senior legal figure. Its remit would confine its deliberations to the sole question of the review of the findings of the Royal Air Force board, based—this is perhaps the most important sentence I shall utter in the course of m y few remarks—firmly on the Royal Air Force regulations at the time of the accident; namely, that a deceased air crew should not be found guilty of negligence unless there is no doubt whatsoever about the causes of the accident.
If the committee were to examine that aspect and come to a conclusion on it, it could well be expected to report back to this House before the end of this year. Indeed, if the Chairman of Committees would undertake to refer back the second report, which has been a matter of careful consideration, to the Liaison Committee and to the Committee of Selection and ask them to appoint a Select Committee in those terms, preferably before the dissolution of Parliament, there would be no need for my amendment and I would ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.
When I tabled my original Motion on 5th March, it was at first framed to ask the House to agree to the establishment of a Select Committee without any further formalities. However, I was persuaded, understandably, to change the wording of the Motion to refer the matter to a Liaison Committee for procedural reasons relating to the proper requirements of your Lordships' House. However, I hoped I had made it clear to the House on that occasion that I regarded this as a matter for the whole House. Your Lordships may recall that the Minister intervened to say that the Government would not oppose my Motion and, that they would co-operate with any Select Committee set up. The House then agreed to my Motion with out a Division.
It seemed clear to me that it was the will of the House that a Select Committee should be set up. I assumed therefore—being nave in all these matters—that the
444
reference to the Liaison Committee was a purely procedural formality and that the Select Committee would be set up. I was wrong.
As noble Lords will see from the report of the Liaison Committee—this was mentioned to some extent by the Chairman of Committees—three separate pieces of evidence were laid before them. The first, which was not mentioned by the noble Lord, was an extremely strongly worded memorandum from the chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts in another place which examined the process for the convening and conducting of Royal Air Force boards of inquiry. I shall not go into that now other than to say that it specifically called into question the sustainability of the findings of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry in this case.
The second piece of evidence—not in chronological order but I place it next—was my own. I suggested that there was no need for any long, drawn-out examination of all the technical aspects of the controversy, but that it would be reasonable to proceed on terms of reference which focus entirely upon the conclusions of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry, including the verdict of the reviewing Air Marshals.
Finally, there was an extremely clear, unequivocal proposition from the Minister that the Government would find it difficult, if not impossible, to put a question mark against the judgment of the two Air Marshals by setting up a government inquiry. However, in her evidence she went on to state:
"I think, frankly, your Lordships' House is one of the more sensible fora in which that could happen".
One could not have a clearer endorsement from the Minister for the idea of appointing a Select Committee.
The view of the Liaison Committee was that it would be undesirable to substitute the decision of a Select Committee for that of the Air Marshals. That seems somewhat surprising, at the very least. It seems to imply that once a Royal Air Force board of inquiry has arrived at a verdict, that is the end of the matter and there can be no question of an appeal of any kind against that verdict. I need hardly remind a body such as your Lordships' House that in a democratic society military law is always subordinate to the civil authority.
Also in a democratic society Parliament is, or should be, sovereign. It seems extraordinary that we should now suggest that the House of Lords is neither competent nor properly equipped to examine an alleged miscarriage of justice of this seriousness. What has happened to the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament? The suggestion that this would set a precedent is no argument. To mention the "Marchioness" and other possibilities is a non-argument. All these cases can well be decided upon their merits, as I think this case should be.
The other reasons given by the Liaison Committee for recommending that the House should not appoint a Select Committee also seem to be somewhat lacking in substance. Whatever might be said, this is not a

445
matter of professional judgment by Air Marshals or technical expertise. This is largely a matter of common sense and partly a matter of law and natural justice. It calls for an examination of the evidence which was available to the original Royal Air Force board of inquiry and ultimately a decision by a committee of this House as to whether that evidence could justifiably lead to the conclusion that there has been gross negligence beyond any possible doubt.
The sanctity of the chain of command in the Armed Forces does not take precedence over natural justice. I served long enough in the Armed Forces to recognise the importance of the chain of command in normal circumstances. However, these are not normal circumstances. For years, the Ministry of Defence declined to review this verdict on the grounds that it would do so only if there was new evidence. That is totally misleading and disingenuous. There is no new evidence and there never will be. The Ministry of Defence officials know that perfectly well. The aircraft was totally destroyed when it landed. There were no survivors. There will never be any new evidence. However, much is known now which was not known then. That may not be exactly new evidence, but at least it casts doubt upon the cause of the accident, or increases already existing doubts.
Everything which has emerged since the verdict (which may not be new evidence but is an accumulation of considerations, some of which were known to the Ministry of Defence but to no one else) confirms that there is much doubt about the causes of the accident (that can be seen from the findings and evidence of the original board of inquiry) and that the verdict of gross negligence is unsafe and unsustainable. In the debate on 5th March the Minister stated that the Government would co-operate with any Select Committee of your Lordships' House which is set up. As I have said, she also stated that any other form of inquiry would be unacceptable.
I apologise for detaining your Lordships. However, as noble Lords will have gathered over the years, I am passionately involved in this case. Perhaps I may conclude by reminding your Lordships of the sombre, unadorned facts of the case, leaving aside legal, technical and other arguments. First, someone authorised the transportation to Scotland in one helicopter of 25 senior members of the Northern Ireland intelligence community. Secondly, the helicopter was of a type with which test pilots had expressed dissatisfaction up to the day before the accident. That aircraft carried no accident data recorder and no cockpit voice recorder. Thirdly—the most sombre fact of all—the helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre killing all passengers and crew.
Fourthly, the initial finding of the subsequent Royal Air Force board of inquiry, before it went to the reviewing officers, was that there was no evidence which led them to attribute human failings to the air crew. Fifthly, as I have said before, at that time Royal Air Force regulations stipulated that deceased air crew should not be found guilty of negligence unless there was no doubt whatever about the causes of the
446
accident. Sixthly, and finally, as they were entitled to do, the reviewing officers reversed that finding and concluded that the two pilots had been grossly negligent. Two young officers were therefore found guilty of what was the equivalent of manslaughter, without legal representation and without any right of appeal. Perhaps it is relevant to remind your Lordships that since 1998 boards of inquiry have not been allowed to allocate blame. That was one of the lessons of the Chinook disaster on the Mull of Kintyre. That came a little late for Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook.
Before the Select Committee which I hope will be established gets down to discussion and the arguments, those are the basic facts of the case. If your Lordships decide not to support my amendment today, you will be closing finally the only remaining door which could lead to a review of the verdict, which would then remain as a permanent stain on the memory and reputation of these two young men. As I said earlier, if at the end of our discussion the conclusion of any Select Committee which is set up upholds the findings of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry and its reviewing officers, that would be an end of the matter as far as I am concerned. I would pursue it no further. However, equally, if a Select Committee is established and finds that the verdict is unsustainable, I suggest that that too should be an end of the matter and the verdict of gross negligence should be set aside. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House rejects the recommendation of the Liaison Committee and appoints a Select Committee of five members to consider the justification for the finding of those reviewing the conclusions of the RAF board of inquiry that both pilots of the Chinook helicopter ZD576 which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994 were negligent".—(Lord Chalfont.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I speak from these Benches but I do not speak on behalf of these Benches. My noble friends are free to speak and vote as they choose on the Motion in the name of the Chairman of Committees, the amendment of the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont, and, indeed, on the Motion standing in my name.
I take the view that this is a House of Lords matter. We must make up our own minds on these matters across party in the light of the issues which have been presented to the House by the Liaison Committee and which no doubt will be referred to in our discussions today.
Perhaps I make the matter plain to the House. In doing so, I shall use an expression used in a different context by the Chairman of Committees. As regards the issue which provoked the debate, the finding of gross negligence against the two pilots of Chinook helicopter ZD576—the matters which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—towards the end of his speech, I am an agnostic. I have taken no view whatever of the merits of the issue.

447
I wholly understand, as must the whole House, the feelings of the families of the young officers who died on that occasion. I respect the tenacity and passion of the noble Lord and of members of all parties and of none who have campaigned so that justice will be seen to be done. But that is not the issue before the House. The issue before the House is a simple but extremely important one both for the role of this House and for the future. Is a Select Committee an appropriate way to seek to carry forward and to resolve this dispute? I believe that it is not. Whatever the merits of the issue, however convenient it may be for the Ministry of Defence, a Select Committee does not fit this case.
It follows that I shall vote for the report of the Liaison Committee and vote against the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. As for my own Motion, I tabled it as an alternative to the noble Lord's proposal in recognition of the strength of feeling expressed in this House on 5th March, of strong views held in another place and of public disquiet, which I fully acknowledge, especially in Scotland. I have no wish to close down further campaigning on the issue if that is what others want.
It will be said—it was said by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, today and no doubt it will be said by the Minister in reply—that the Ministry of Defence is not prepared to set up an independent inquiry of the kind referred to in my Motion and that the Prime Minister has endorsed that position. It was the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in her evidence before the Liaison Committee.
That must be the position of the Government until the Government change their mind. Governments always say no until circumstances persuade them that they should be saying yes. It is no surprise to me that the Ministry of Defence wants to put the matter to rest and that it believes that one way of doing so is to push it on to your Lordships' House. I make no complaint at all.
However, governments change their minds. They change their minds on the eve of general elections. They change their minds in new Parliaments. Prime Ministers change their minds and the Prime Minister could certainly set up an inquiry if he so wished, either now or later—or for that matter, as referred to in discussions with the Liaison Committee, invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to do so. There is no constitutional impropriety in the Prime Minister saying no now and saying yes later. For those who are doubtful, to put it at its least, about the procedure for setting up a Select Committee, that option exists and I have placed my Motion on the Order Paper so that that will be plain.
The report of the Liaison Committee sets out the powerful reasons why the committee, by a majority, felt that it was not right to proceed with a Select Committee. The Chairman of Committees referred to those issues today. First, a Select Committee is not equipped to second guess the professional judgment and technical expertise of the RAF board of inquiry. That is probably true, but it is not the heart of the matter. Secondly, a Select Committee is unlikely to
448
end the controversy. Again, that is true, but it is not the heart of the matter either. The heart of the matter, and the issue for the House today, is that this House should not adopt a quasi-judicial role for which it is unfit and which could be regarded as an encroachment on the separation of power.
We now have a Constitutional Committee of this House and perhaps it might have deliberated and reported on that matter. Be that as it may, it would be very unwise for your Lordships' House, in its lay capacity, to go down the road to becoming a court of appeal for those with a grievance, however legitimate, against the finding of some other body. Would we see other Select Committees when disciplinary decisions in the Armed Forces are similarly found to be unacceptable and legitimate grievances remain? Would we find appeals to your Lordships' House from decisions of the Police Complaints Authority? Would decisions of planning inspectors, when they cause offence, be brought to this House for a Select Committee? And what about the decisions of regulatory bodies?
It may be said that it is very unlikely that that will occur. It may be said that it will be within the good sense of individual Members of the House not to go down that path. I respectfully ask the House to consider that whatever the virtues of this case, and I can see that many noble Lords believe them to be strong, this could be a slippery slope damaging in the long run to the integrity, role and standing of your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in a spirit of compromise, which I am sure the House will greatly welcome, has in his amendment suggested perhaps a narrow definition of the Select Committee name. It is not for me to say—and I do not know the answer—whether it is effectively possible to withdraw such an amendment and substitute for it an oral commitment of a kind which I understand the noble Lord has made. But I have to say to your Lordships' House that the noble Lord's proposal is still for a Select Committee. The phrase he used was a Select Committee "of some kind". Unless the Chairman of Committees advises the House, I know of no other way under the Standing Orders of this House that a committee should be established. So whatever the terms of reference, it will be a Select Committee of this House sitting in judgment.
On the other hand, in addition the noble Lord has helpfully suggested that there might be narrower terms of reference to review the findings. But I cannot see how, nor do I think the noble Lord suggested, that a review of the findings could be conducted without second guessing the verdict passed on the two pilots. Therefore, although I believe that the noble Lord has tried to be extremely helpful to the House and those who have disagreed with him, my instincts tell me that however well intended he has been, his proposal is not radically different to set aside the objections which I believe exist in following the course recommended in his amendment.

449
I repeat that the issue for the House is not whether two pilots were grossly negligent—they may not have been. It is not whether we sympathise with their families—I believe that all of us do. It is not whether the procedures of the Ministry of Defence were fair—I understand that they have been changed. It is not whether the campaigners will stop campaigning—they will no doubt go on. The issue is whether a Select Committee of this House is the proper way to resolve these matters. I am not persuaded that it is, and that is why my Motion offers an alternative if that is a course that the House would prefer.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I find it extremely puzzling that we seem to be back where we were when we had a debate on the evening of 5th March. My impression was that the House was persuaded—there were exceptions—by the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and his Motion was passed without a Division. I believed it to be the will of the House that the Liaison Committee should not only consider but recommend the appointment of a Select Committee. On that evening, for the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said that,
"the argument that this House does not have the resources for a further Select Committee is the weakest argument against one. If there is an argument for another Select Committee, then the resources need to be provided".—[Official Report, 5/3/01; col. 101]
The noble Lord was right then, and he still is.
If this House decided to set up a Select Committee it could appoint a committee of outstanding distinction and should staff it and equip it as well. I do not accept that a Select Committee of this House would not be suitable to conduct an inquiry. I do not agree that an inquiry led by a High Court judge—we should remember that the Government have said firmly that they would not favour such a process—would have more authority than your Lordships' House. Instead, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who told the Liaison Committee that,
"frankly, your Lordships' House is one of the most sensible fora",
to take a fresh look at this matter.
The first objection of the Liaison Committee was that a Select Committee would not be equipped to review technical and professional issues. But the noble Baroness again disposed of that when she said in evidence:
"I think it would be a mistake to say … it is all too difficult for everyone else to understand … There is nothing so mysterious that sensible, intelligent people who have looked carefully at the facts could not understand it".
When asked if she thought whether,
"a committee composed of lay Members of the House of Lords, possibly chaired by a Law Lord, could actually do justice to this subject",
the noble Baroness, speaking with all the authority of the Ministry of Defence, said:
"My honest opinion is yes".
450
That is, surely, the answer to the second objection of the Liaison Committee; namely, that the Ministry of Defence might ignore a report. I am ready to rely on the noble Baroness's words on this matter. Frankly, if we here decided not to do something because a government might ignore us, we would be abandoning one central purpose of this House, which is to ask the Government to think again if we consider it right.
I hope that we can conclude the matter this afternoon without much further delay. All of us on 5th March received the clear impression that the Government accepted that a fresh view could usefully be taken by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. At col. 107 the noble Baroness told the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, reminded us, that the Government,
"will, of course, co-operate fully with any committee that your Lordships may decide to establish".
I thought that that was clear enough. Nothing that I heard in the Liaison Committee has changed my view that a Select Committee would be a practical and authoritative vehicle for further consideration of this matter. Certainly, I would not be deterred by a suggestion that a committee of this House might find itself acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. I am not sure that it would be, but even if it were there is precedent enough for it.
I was very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, opposed an inquiry in this House and subsequently tabled his own Motion. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Motion because it is not binding on the Government and does not ensure that there will be an inquiry led by someone of the standing of a senior Law Lord, or retired Law Lord. When the Government respond to the debate perhaps they can tell the House what assurances they have given that if the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, were to be passed, they would set up such an inquiry. After all, that Motion does not ask the Government to do anything that they cannot already do now.
I was even more surprised when the Government, having given the House the impression that they had accepted the inquiry, failed to vote to set up a Select Committee when the Liaison Committee divided. That was at odds with the spirit of the clear undertakings given with absolute integrity by the noble Baroness. I make no charge against her.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The only person at the Liaison Committee at that stage was the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who was not a member of that committee and was standing in. I make no further point other than that, technically, the noble Lord was unable to vote.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I had not intended to raise that rather delicate issue. The government member of the Liaison Committee, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, was unable to attend any of the three meetings. Neither the Attorney-General nor the Government Chief Whip who stood in for the

451
Leader of the House on those occasions could take part in the vote. Perhaps a fairer way to put it is that the Government abstained by not being there.
We on this side of the House will have a free vote on this matter. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will also have a free vote. Following the Liaison Committee, I assume that if the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, takes this matter to a vote the Government will abstain. That would be the correct thing for the Government to do. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made a strong case on 5th March. He has made an equally strong case today. He has kindly referred to the Motion that I advanced in the committee. What he suggests would add to the standing and authority of the House. I shall support him and I hope that many noble Lords on all sides will do so too.
I conclude with a final thought on the causes of the crash. There is now a perception of doubt out there and so long as it lasts it blights unfairly both judged and judges alike. This House can help to dispose of that doubt, and we should not shirk our duty to seek to do so.
3.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, when we last discussed this issue in your Lordships' House on 5th March, I made it clear that the Government would not ask your Lordships to oppose the Motion then on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. In the course of my remarks at the conclusion of the debate, I told your Lordships that I believed that successive Ministers, Conservative and Labour, had been fully and honestly briefed about this tragic accident and that Ministers of both parties had been honest in their dealings in this House and in another place. Nothing has been, or is being, hidden because there really is nothing to hide.
Since then the Liaison Committee has reported its view and recommended against the appointment of a Select Committee and given its reasons for coming to that conclusion. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has explained it further this afternoon. Subsequently, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, expressed his wish that the House should call on the Government to set up an independent review of the conclusion of the board of inquiry.
Perhaps if may deal first with the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. It is clear that those who feel that an injustice has been done to the dead pilots are challenging the determination and judgment of two Air Marshals who were the reviewing officers of the RAF board of inquiry. I remind noble Lords that this was a lengthy board of inquiry which took over one year and produced four volumes of a report and numerous annexes. It considered the issues in detail. It was a properly constituted board of inquiry which was presided over by servicemen of impeccable integrity and very great expertise—indeed, the best possible professional expertise. They were entitled to make the judgment that they made within the rules prevailing at the time, and since then no new evidence has come to light.
452
In my evidence to the Liaison Committee, I reaffirmed that if the Government had felt there was a reason to reopen this matter they would have done so themselves. We did not and we do not. In making their final determination, the Air Marshals, both of whom were very experienced aviators, exercised their professional judgment as the reviewing officers. They were well aware of the import and impact of their judgment which was taken only after the fullest consideration of all the evidence. I repeat that they were required to look at this tragic case in the most objective and impartial manner. That is what they did. The fact that others may disagree with their judgment does not make it wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogers, asks the Government to agree to set up an independent review of the conclusions of the board of inquiry into the crash. The noble Lord says, "Well, the Government changed their mind". But, in order to change the Government's mind, they need to believe that the original board of inquiry process was incomplete or flawed or that the judgment of the reviewing officers was incorrect. As I made clear in my evidence to the Liaison Committee on 28th March, there are no grounds on which the Government could accept those premises. I am well aware that my response will not salve the natural and absolutely understandable hurt feelings of those most closely involved in this tragic case; in particular, the families of the deceased pilots, with whom I am sure your Lordships have the utmost sympathy. However, it would not be right or proper for the Government to call into question those findings unless we believe we have a reason to do so; and we do not so believe.
I turn to today's contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Throughout our discussions on this very difficult issue the Government's position has been entirely consistent. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, suggested some helpful modifications—what one might describe as a "compromise"—to the remit of the Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff may believe that his committee would be prepared to consider that recommendation. If the noble Lord does so consider, the Government are content to leave the issue to your Lordships' judgment. If the Liaison Committee is content to recommend that a committee along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, should be set up, the Government will not ask your Lordships to oppose that. Indeed, we would co-operate fully. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was kind enough to remind your Lordships, that was my position when I answered the similar debate on 5th March.
Therefore, given the terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has made what I might describe as his "compromise proposal", I do not wish to oppose his suggestion. But I must, for the reasons which I have stated, ask your Lordships to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, which I believe takes us backwards rather than forwards in this debate.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, as a member of the Liaison Committee, perhaps I may explain why I

453
support the report which is before the House. At that Liaison Committee meeting with the noble Lady, Baroness Symons, the noble Baroness talked about achieving a closure. After seven years there is an understandable feeling that a line should be drawn under the matter. But, from what the noble Baroness said in the course of her meeting with the Liaison Committee, it seems clear that there is no guarantee of closure. The noble Baroness was quite explicit. The MoD is not prepared to give any prior undertaking about its response to a Select Committee were it to be critical of the Air Marshals' judgments. I entirely accept that position.
Noble Lords will appreciate that as an RAF officer I have been required to deal with a considerable number of boards of inquiry into aircraft accidents. I have first-hand experience of what is involved. We were told that the quantity of material for the board of inquiry into the Chinook accident is massive and in many places highly technical. I am sure that it is. All of that information and evidence would probably have to be studied to consider the issues of negligence, of a breach of duty to take care, and because the Air Marshals' findings must rely on most, if not all, of what the original board members established in the course of their work. I have no doubt that that could be done. But I do not think that the purpose for which it was being done, in effect to use a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to sit as a court of appeal, as envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is acceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and others who have spoken on the matter, have always been at pains to stress that they were not impugning the integrity of the Air Marshals and that they had every right to find as they did. But it has to be said that sensational media treatment and less considered comments from some other quarters, far from upholding the Air Marshals' probity, have set out to denigrate it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said that she did not want to see the Air Marshals put in the dock. In the course of her evidence, the noble Baroness made it very clear that one of the reasons that Ministers, in the absence of new evidence, have not sought to set up a further inquiry was because it would be,
"an unprecedented dreadful blow to professional servicemen if we were to say there is no new evidence but we are going to start a new Board of Inquiry or we are going to get an independent judge in because we think your judgment was a bit 'iffy".
That is a most important point. The relationship between commanders and those under their command is of paramount importance to the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces. Commanders must be respected and trusted by their subordinates, whether in matters of professional conduct or in discipline. It can only serve to undermine that sense of respect and trust if the actions of commanders are questioned on grounds which are not based on doubts about their own professional competence or integrity. With his immensely admired first-hand experience in military affairs, I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, would agree with me on that point.
454
This is a tough call: to meet the interests of the deceased pilots and their families, or to meet the interests of the service. I feel duty bound to support the interest of the service. It is inappropriate to set up an inquiry into the professional judgment of the Air Marshals. At the end of the day, it is their professional judgment on which we must rely, not only in this sad case but on so much else that they do in their capacity as senior officers of the Armed Forces. So I also do not support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
The interest of the House, thanks to the valiant efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has been concentrated most importantly on the doubts and worries of the families of the deceased pilots. All of us can understand and sympathise with their intense feelings of loss and distress. But I think that it is also right that the House should remember the families of the other two air crew and the 25 passengers on that ill-fated flight. Seven years on they are still being reminded each time that this topic gets further news coverage of their own tragic loss and the harrowing events of the time. Another inquiry will not bring them much comfort or hope. We must not overlook their sufferings and agony as we consider the way forward this afternoon.
It has frequently been argued that it is wrong that there is no right of appeal against the Air Marshals' findings, but each stage of the consideration of whether human failings contributed to an accident is separately arrived at: initially by the board itself; by the station commanders; by the convening officer, the first of the two Air Marshals; and then by the reviewing officer, the second Air Marshal. I can recall other cases affecting deceased air crew where the views expressed on human failings and negligence have been changed, sometimes more than once, as the stages of the board were completed.
In other words, procedures are built into the board of inquiry which explicitly must,
"consider whether some human failing caused or contributed to the accident",
a process of separate independent reviews of commanders with the help of their own staff. In this sad case, that process has been carried out at the MoD as well, as reported by 10 Ministers at the Dispatch Box. Surely there must be a limit to the number of times that findings are revisited and separately considered.
Finally, the House may wish to note that, in spite of the wealth of interest and publicity that this tragic accident has generated, it is sadly far from being the only one in recent years which has led to findings of negligence on the part of deceased air crew, and not only those who were in the RAF.
In reply to Written Questions from Mr Frank Field MP, who asked about the number of accidents in which deceased air crew were found guilty of gross negligence in aircraft that were not fitted with cockpit voice and flight data recorders, Mr John Spellar, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, said that,
"further research has confirmed that the Mull accident was … far from unique in its findings of gross negligence".

455
I quote from a letter dated 10th July 2000 to Mr Field and placed in the Commons Library.
Each accident, some of which occurred after the Chinook one, will have unique aspects to it and the findings. But would the House feel that it was reasonable for any of them to become the subject for ad hoc Select Committees to consider? The House will recall that the policy change that boards of inquiry were not required to consider findings of negligence for deceased air crew in accidents was made only in July 1997, over three years after the Mull accident.
For all of these reasons, I agree with the Liaison Committee recommendation not to appoint a Select Committee to consider this matter.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, as the senior member of the Liaison Committee—I reach that position by equating seniority with long service—perhaps I may say, first, how much I and all the members of the committee admired the care and enthusiasm with which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, presented his case. Perhaps I may say, secondly, that I was one of the members of the committee who felt a deep sympathy for much of what the noble Lord was arguing.
As far as I am concerned, the matter can be put into one sentence. If there were to be any further inquiry into the matter, the issue would be whether the finding was justified by the evidence, applying the relevant standard of proof. I do not see how it is possible to cut short the nature of an inquiry if that is the issue to be inquired into. But that must surely be what the committee or tribunal would have to decide.
The important words are "the relevant standard of proof". Air Force regulations state that only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatever should deceased air crew be found negligent. That is a most extraordinary standard of proof to apply. It is, if I may strike a slightly flippant note for a moment, adopted verbatim from "The Gondoliers":
"No probable, possible shadow of doubt—
No possible doubt whatever".
I ask your Lordships to consider the following point. As we go about our daily business of taking decisions of one kind or another, how many decisions could we take in a day if we had to apply that standard of proof to our own individual actions? It therefore seems to me—here I have disagree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig—that, bearing in mind that standard of proof, in a complex and technical matter such as this any reviewing body would start out by approaching the finding with substantial anxiety. I take that point no further at this stage except to say that. I am one of those who much sympathises with what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and his colleagues are trying to achieve in this debate. Where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is on the wisdom of the remedy that he proposes. I much prefer, not for party political reasons in any way, the remedy suggested by my noble friend Lord Rodgers.
456
Much has been said about the fact that if the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, were to be carried and the Government were invited to set up an inquiry, the Government might take no notice of it. I understand that. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, indicated that that might very well be so; they would not take any notice of it and they would not set up a further inquiry. Is it not equally true that if that is the attitude of the Government at the moment and we set up a committee of inquiry that reports in a way that is adverse to the Government's present views, there is no guarantee that the Government will take the blindest notice? They clearly have their mind absolutely set on supporting the present conclusion and taking no further action. It is therefore no argument in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to say that it may be that the setting up of a committee would be acceptable to the Government. We have not heard a word to suggest that its findings might be acceptable.
I suggest to your Lordships that it is not appropriate for the House to appoint a Select Committee to reach a conclusion of the guilt, innocence or civil liability of named individuals in respect of a specific incident on which a court or tribunal has already ruled. That would be for a House of Parliament to intervene improperly in the due processes of law. As far as I know—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—there is no precedent for the action proposed. If there had been a precedent, those who are in favour of the proposed course of action would have hastened to bring it to the attention of the Liaison Committee. As the Houses of Parliament ceased many years ago to be a court of law in their own right, it would be quite wrong for them to take action of this nature.
I know that there is an argument about the complexity of the matter—that is bound to exist if there is a further inquiry—and whether that is suitable for a Select Committee. I know that there is an argument about the strain on our resources, which is a point to be borne in mind. However, the really crucial argument is that if we adopt the course suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, we shall be setting a precedent that may have unfortunate future consequences for the House. Perhaps I may give a simple example. We all know of cases in which there are alleged miscarriages of justice. It happens frequently. In some of those cases the allegations turn out to be justified. In some of those cases the allegations are espoused by distinguished authors who write books about the innocence of the defendant, set up protest committees and walk about saying, "Free the Westminster One", or whatever it might be. Some of those causes will always be able to find a champion in this House.
The present position is that if a defendant is convicted in a criminal case and appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal, that court determines the conviction. There was a time, some years ago, when for all practical purposes that was the end of the matter. That is no longer so. The position now is that in any such case, if there is the slightest suggestion that, for example, new evidence has been discovered, the

457
Criminal Cases Review Commission will listen to representations made to it about further proceedings and will then decide whether to go back to the Home Secretary or refer the matter again to the Court of Appeal. If we adopt this precedent, is it really beyond the bounds of possibility that in future years cases will arise with some frequency of criminal convictions being called into issue and sent on their way to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and then some noble Lord with very proper motives deciding that he will raise in this House the question of whether we should have a Select Committee to review the guilt or innocence of the defendant?
It may not be an exact precedent—very few precedents are exact—but the case we are now considering would be a good enough precedent to set that argument on its feet. If we adopt the line suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, we shall be setting a precedent that may have sad consequences for the House in the future. In a word, I believe that it is not the role of this House to interfere in our system of justice in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Although I believe in the cause being promoted by the noble Lord, I feel that the best course for the future of the House, as well as the one that accords with the traditions of the House, is to pass the Motion proposed by my noble friend Lord Rodgers and thus invite and press the Government to take the necessary action.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, noble Lords are faced here with a very heavy responsibility. Two highly respected and experienced pilots, now deceased, have been found guilty of gross negligence by two senior officers. That gross negligence accounted for the deaths of at least 26 people. The verdict is one that was taken in a situation where the deceased were not entitled to any representation. Furthermore, they were not entitled to any right of appeal.
It was my submission on 5th March before noble Lords and it is my submission today that the verdict reached by the Air Marshals was quite simply unlawful. It was unlawful because it was made beyond their powers. In forensic language it was ultra vires. For that reason it must be set aside ex debito justiciae— because justice so demands. It is not a question of discretion. The decision is a nullity.
Perhaps I may explain the short point of law which forms my justification for that rather emphatic submission. During the debate on 5th March, my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley said that the board of inquiry was not a court of justice. Its overriding concern was to discover what happened. The current position in regard to boards of inquiry of this kind is that they are not entitled to make any apportionment of blame.
458
Perhaps I may ask noble Lords to assume for a moment that if, today, two senior Air Marshals overlooked this relatively new change in procedure and did in fact apportion blame, that decision would be set aside for the simple reason that the Air Marshals have no power to reach such a verdict. It was an unlawful decision that was ultra vires. Some seven years ago, the position was that the power to apportion blame existed, but only in very heavily circumscribed circumstances.
In the words of the regulation, it was possible only in cases in which there is—I stress the words—absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a deceased air crew can be found to have committed negligence. The words have obviously been carefully thought out. The word "absolute" is placed in front of "doubt". What does "absolute" add to the formula? The word presumes and emphasises that the doubt is unqualified and is unrestricted. Doubt is not limited to cases of "reasonable doubt".
What of the words "absolutely no doubt whatsoever"? The word "whatsoever" means that there can be no doubt of any kind. It may be said that the onus here requires certainty. I am saying that that is the case. That does not rule out everything. It may require a fertile imagination, but it would be possible to have a situation of certainty. Let us take the situation where a daredevil pilot said to his mess, "I am going to fly upside-down through that narrow clearing in the jungle". He then does so unsuccessfully. That would be such a case; in that situation, there would be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the pilot had been negligent.
It is an obligation on the Air Marshals, if they are going to interfere with a decision reached by those below them, for them to explain how they have reached their decision.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene. I am sure that what he is saying is relevant to the issue that might be placed before a Select Committee if one were to be formed. However, that is not the Motion before the House today. We are considering here the question of whether we should set up a Select Committee, not whether the Air Marshals were correct in what they did or whether this is a matter of law. With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, I suggest that perhaps we should stick to that point and come to a conclusion.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I think the answer to that, which of course I was just coming to, is that for the verdict to be considered valid, there are two requirements which must be met—each of them vital. First, the Air Marshals must have concluded that this was a case where there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever; secondly, that there was an adequate amount of material available to support such a decision. In my view—although I may be wrong and therefore the second question will fall to be decided—the Air Marshals fell at the first fence. They did not purport to say that, "This is one of those rare cases

459
where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever". The nearest they got to that—I quoted Air Vice-Marshal Day on 5th March—was to say,
The Board and Officer Commanding RAF Odiham postulate various factors and scenarios, including possible distraction or disorientation, in attempting to explain why the crew might have failed to make a safe transition to Instrument Flight Rules".
I stress the following words:
"In my judgment, none of the possible factors and scenarios is so strong that they would have been likely to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight".
What is being said, quite simply, is that none of the factors or scenarios is of sufficient strength to provide a likely explanation.
That does two things: first, it puts the onus upon the deceased, which is wrong; and, secondly, it deals with probabilities. It does not deal with even reasonable doubt, let alone certainties. That is the only material in which that Air Marshal vouchsafes his reason for exercising this power. His senior officer, Sir William Rattan, adds nothing at all.
Perhaps Air Marshal Day gives the game away to some extent when he states:
"Therefore, while aware of the difficulty of attributing negligence to deceased aircrew, I am nevertheless forced to conclude that Flight Lieutenant Tapper was negligent to a gross degree".
"Difficulty" is a gross understatement of the task that faced him. What faced him was near impossibility, and that is something that he did not address.
The only other part of the judgment which I think is worthy of quoting is,
"It is incomprehensible why two trusted, experienced and skilled pilots should, as indicated by all the available evidence, have flown a serviceable aircraft into cloud covered high ground".
I entirely agree with him—it is incomprehensible—but that merely shows that it cannot be a situation in which there is absolutely no doubt whatever.
Your Lordships are being asked to pass by on the other side. I respectfully submit that that is an unworthy attempt to induce your Lordships to take the easy way out. I hope that your Lordships will reject it.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, having listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—who has clearly made a case in support of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—I feel that I must return to the original issues which were raised and to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The House should recognise that he has moved since 5th March: he has narrowed the terms of reference and made it perfectly clear that he will stand by the findings of any Select Committee and will not himself raise the matter again.
I speak as someone who has never taken part in any of the debates about this helicopter. As a member of the Liaison Committee, of course, I read with great care the debate on 5th March, the earlier debates and some of the papers that were put to us. When I arrived
460
at the Liaison Committee I thought—clearly incorrectly—that it was a foregone conclusion that the Liaison Committee would set up a Select Committee. At the end of the debate on 5th March, it seemed to me perfectly clear that the House had determined that there would be a Select Committee.
I particularly felt this because I had read very carefully what the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said on that occasion and, indeed, when she quite fairly told the Liaison Committee that the Government would not oppose a Select Committee. I have been a government Minister; I know what it is to stand up at the Dispatch Box and to make statements on behalf of a government. I know full well that no Minister would make a statement like that unless it had the full support of her department. No doubt, it had been to some Cabinet committee and had the support of the Government. It is a very serious and important statement to make.
I therefore assumed—quite incorrectly, as it turned out—that the Government would support a Select Committee in the Liaison Committee and would have to deal simply with the formalities of setting one up. As it turned out, the situation was quite different. I find it an extremely painful experience to have to say to the House that I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was misled on 5th March as to what was intended. He must be now very surprised by the result of the Liaison Committee.
The arguments subsequently put in the Liaison Committee simply do not stand up. The idea that a House of Lords Select Committee could not consider an issue like this—that it would not have the expertise—suggests at once that many Select Committees of the House on the most complex, technical and difficult issues are really not suitable for them at all. That argument simply does not stand up. The more practical arguments about staffing and money, again, simply do not stand up.
It seems to me that, at the end of the day, this is a constitutional matter. It is a duty of the House of Lords, as the legislature, to hold the executive to account. That is what it is expected to do. As to the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, when he said that if we agreed to this a lot of other issues would be raised, many of the issues he quoted are civil issues which would go before the civil courts. They are completely different issues from this one, which is a matter for a government department. We are not, therefore, talking about the same thing at all.
I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, when she said, once again, that the Government would not oppose a Select Committee. Are we to understand—I hope that someone will make this absolutely clear—that this means that the Government will support a Select Committee? Or does it mean that they simply will not be there on the day and, therefore, it will be, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner said, a case of passing by on the other side of the road?

461
I wrote down what the noble Baroness, Lady Symons said. I hope that she will forgive me if I have not quoted her quite correctly. But are the Government saying that they will leave the issue to your Lordships' judgment today; that they will not oppose the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in putting this matter to the Liaison Committee; and that they will, in the Liaison Committee, argue in favour of a Select Committee? Unless we have that assurance we shall find ourselves in exactly the same position as we were on 5th March.
I feel unqualified to speak about this whole issue—I know only what I have read—but it seems to me, having listened to the debate, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made some extremely important legal points which, if nothing else, deserve full consideration. Having looked at the matter, I feel that we all owe a duty to the young pilots who died in this dreadful crash and who are unable to defend themselves. They have had very few people to speak for them and we owe it to their families to do what we can.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The end of the Select Committee will be the conclusion of the matter as far as he is concerned. It would be appropriate if that were to be the end of the matter, but to leave it today in a state of suspense would amount, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, to passing by on the other side of the road. Passing by does not matter to any of us sitting here, but it does matter to the families and it does matter to the cause of justice. I should have thought that your Lordships would think that it matters also to the House of Lords. It is one of our responsibilities. We are a legislature; we should hold the executive to account. I very much support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and I hope that the House will agree to it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I can do so briefly because I shall be following very much in the footsteps of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I should make it clear that I have no detailed knowledge of the facts of the case, but it seems to me that at this stage detailed knowledge of the facts is not required.
To sustain its conclusion, the board of inquiry had to be left with absolutely no doubt that the crash was the result of pilot error or of negligence on the part of the pilot. That test is an objective one. It means that the board of inquiry must have excluded with certainty—that is the critical expression—every other possible cause; otherwise, it could not be driven to the conclusion of pilot error.
What were the other possible causes? Taking the matter purely hypothetically and knowing nothing about the facts, one possible cause could be engine failure. It does not follow that engine failure did not occur merely because there was no evidence to support such a finding. That is a great mistake and one that is
462
often made. Absence of evidence means what it says: that there is no evidence one way or the other. It is not the equivalent of what is referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Craig, in paragraph 26 on page 14 of the report, as negative evidence.
Let us suppose that there was negative evidence in the hypothetical case of engine failure; for example, that the warning lights were shown not to have come on. Many years ago, I took part in an inquiry into a crash involving a Trident aircraft which happened shortly after take-off at Heathrow airport. The inquiry was presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, who I am glad to see is in his place. I have forgotten the details and even the conclusions of the inquiry. What I do remember is that warning lights do not always do what they should do. Should my hypothetical case be correct, it leaves open the question that the board of inquiry, in reaching its conclusion, applied the wrong test—the test of excluding with certainty every other cause.
In the end, that raises a legal question rather than a factual one. It seems to me, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that it is a relatively short question and that it is well within the capacity of a Select Committee of this House. For those reasons, I support the amendment.
4.33 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words as the last remaining member of the Liaison Committee to speak. I disagreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in terms of the solution arrived at by the Liaison Committee. However, the noble Baroness has put her finger on an important matter on which there must be clarity before the end of this debate.
I came to the conclusion reached by the majority of members of the Liaison Committee—not after a thoughtless moment of impulse, nor indeed under the influence of my noble and gallant friend, but after, I hope, a proper anxiety about the matters under discussion.
A number of aspects of this case are truly regrettable. The first is the stain that hangs over the reputation of Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook. My noble friend Lord Chalfont has been pursuing that matter relentlessly for years, and I admire him for it.
The second, most regrettable aspect—which has since been put right—is that any board of inquiry should have the terms of reference to which both noble and learned Lords have referred. The board of inquiry then reaches a conclusion on dead air crew which has the effect of finding a responsibility certainly of a civil law nature and possibly, as was argued previously, of a criminal law nature.
The third disadvantage of this procedure is that there is no form of appeal. It is all very well saying that a review of the board of inquiry by senior officers forms a kind of appeal; but in the minds of most of us I do not believe that it does. This is the fundamental

463
point. The trouble with such boards of inquiry—and this one is no exception—is that no one is allowed to see what happened.
My noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd has given an example of what might have happened. If your Lordships had the findings of the board of inquiry and the detailed remarks and conclusions of the two reviewing officers, it would be very much easier to discuss the case. What worries me at this stage is this. It is only too clear from the remarks of the two noble and learned Lords that, for the board of inquiry to reach the conclusion that it did reach, the two Air Marshals had to be certain to a very high degree indeed.
My noble friend Lord Chalfont says let their Lordships do it again. He says, rightly, I am sure, let them do it again in accordance with the same rules as applied. Therefore, the same degree of certainty would have to be leached according to the same burden of proof.
The evidence from the Liaison Committee indicated that the board of inquiry sat at least once a week for seven months. The review exercise took five months, during which time the committee also sat at least once a week—and I do not believe that in these matters there are any recesses. The pile of papers is colossal. What are the narrow terms of reference that your Lordships are being invited to adopt? There cannot be any narrow terms of reference. The only way in which a Select Committee of this House could reach a conclusion to the degree of certainty to which everyone has so far subscribed is to go through the entire exercise again. A Select Committee would require such explanations from expert witnesses or expert advisers as would enable it to deal with the technical matters concerned. I have no doubt that this could be done by a Select Committee. But is it the right way to proceed? Is it a useful contribution to our parliamentary proceedings? Is it the way in which our resources should be exercised and spent—and to what effect?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way? Is it not a possible result that we shall be left in the position of the cause simply not being known? That would be a perfectly respectable conclusion. What is objected to is a conclusion that points the finger, possibly unjustly, at the two pilots because the Air Marshals applied the wrong test.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I accept that a Select Committee might conclude that it did not know the cause. That does not overturn the findings of the board of inquiry. It does nothing to solve the problem of the two pilots and their families. The Ministry of Defence would have to adopt the Select Committee's report; and there is no indication that it would be prepared to do so on the basis of a rehearing simply of the same material all over again.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way? If the Select Committee came to the conclusion that it could not establish the cause of the accident, that would immediately set aside the verdict
464
of the Air Marshals. If the Ministry of Defence did not accept that, then the mind boggles. I have nothing more to say. If a Select Committee of this House decides that it cannot determine the cause of the accident on the basis of the available evidence, 'As the noble Viscount saying that the Ministry of Defence might not accept that? If it did not, it would be seriously in error.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I have heard my noble friend say that there should be narrow terms of reference. I have attempted to explore how narrow, or how broad, those terms of reference might be. I have suggested to your Lordships that this is a massive exercise. The Select Committee may come to any of the conclusions that noble Lords care to imagine. However, at present, we have a clear statement from the Minister—she has maintained this—that the Ministry of Defence does not want to reopen the matter; and it will not do so on its own account. I do not know what would happen if the sort of solution was reached by the Select Committee that has just been predicated.
That is why I am asking for a little more clarity on the matter before we make up our minds. I emphasise that it cannot be a narrow exercise; it must be a full and complete rehearsal of the entire material that was before that board of inquiry. There is no escaping that. But what happens when a conclusion is reached? I cannot subscribe to something that will entail all that time and trouble—and, indeed, renew the expectations of the Cook and Tapper families, and their supporters—only to find that nothing happens. Before we finish this debate, can we know the answers to the following questions? First, we should know whether my noble friend Lord Chalfont accepts that it is a formidable task that he proposes. Secondly, can we have clarity from the Government Front Bench of what they would do if the Select Committee came to the conclusion that it did not know, or concluded on similar terms? I do not believe that we ought to appoint a Select Committee unless those two matters are clarified.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is many years since I served in the RAF, but I have kept up with the thinking of the service. I should like to support what was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in this matter. One thing that ran through every court of inquiry in which I took part long ago—and that also applies to the ones that I hear about now—was the utmost reluctance of the examining officers to adopt the easy notion of pilot error. One theme that runs through every court of inquiry in the RAF is that all the possibilities must be exhausted.
The noble and gallant Lord has given the record of the enormous trouble that has been taken to go through all the evidence. I have no doubt that it was with extreme reluctance that both Air Marshals came to this conclusion. However, I am absolutely sure that they were certain that there was no other cause they could find. I believe that this reluctance on the part of

465
the service adds weight to the opinion of the RAF courts of inquiry. It would save a great deal of distress if this House were to accept that the utmost care had been taken in arriving at this verdict.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, before I begin my remarks, I should like to draw your Lordships attention to an extract from page 18 of the committee's report in which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, says that,
"the Wing Commander in charge of the original Board of Inquiry, before it went for review to the Air Marshals, said there was no way in which they could attribute human failing to the pilots".
That is what is at issue. However, to my mind, the real issue today is the credit of this House. When we discussed this issue in March, we decided that the ad hoc committee should consider the appointment of a Select Committee to examine the issue. A commitment was made by the will of this House and, at that time, the Government said that they would co-operate; indeed, the Minister said so today.
I do not believe it was expected that the Liaison Committee would, in effect, reverse our decision—a decision for which there was both wide support, as well as a commitment from the Ministry of Defence to co-operate. I believe that a commitment was made in principle by the House, and that it must be honoured.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I recognise that the debate is drawing to a close. I sense that the feeling of the House is that we should make a decision on the matter. However, perhaps noble Lords will excuse my intervention. I should explain that I travelled back from the United States last night in order to attend this debate. I have been working on this subject with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for more than two years. Nevertheless, I shall shorten my remarks in deference to your Lordships.
The question is: why does the pressure continue unabated for a new inquiry to be instituted? The issue is in fact quite straightforward; it is not one that the Ministry of Defence is willing to entertain. The standard of proof required is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". It is a higher standard of proof than that which applies in a criminal court. While most of us who have studied the evidence accept that the pilots could have been guilty of gross negligence, we are wholly unable to comprehend how four reviewing officers could come to the conclusion that there was absolutely no doubt whatever as to the pilots' guilt. I shall not enumerate on this occasion the dozens of examples of doubt, except to refer to one notable issue; namely, the fact that the random engine failure warning signs were being illuminated from time to time on that particular Chinook, and the cause of those signals was not properly understood at that time.
From the evidence, the reviewing officers were unable to find any mechanical or electronic cause of the accident. They reasoned that the accident must
466
have been caused by pilot error. By no standard of justice whatever can that be considered proof. Why, therefore, are we now seeking a Select Committee when surely a fresh inquiry would be more appropriate? On that, none of us disagrees—I believe that I speak for the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in that respect—but as governments have refused for seven years to agree to establish a new inquiry on the basis that no new evidence has been produced, it seems unlikely that they will now agree to do so. Indeed, as we heard today, they probably will not.
The issue that really troubles the Ministry of Defence is that the opening of such an inquiry would be to re-examine whether the judgment of the reviewing officers was mistaken. Perhaps I may refer to part of the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, at a meeting with the Liaison Select Committee in which she stated that by having a new inquiry the Government would imply that they had no confidence in the judgment of the Air Marshals. The Minister went to say that she did not think that the Government could instigate anything that would cast doubt on the judgment of highly professional men of absolute integrity, who we know reached a judgment based on all the evidence that was available to them in accordance with a properly constituted board of inquiry.
To my way of thinking, that is no different from a court finding a defendant guilty and saying that the case cannot go to appeal because that would cast doubt on the judgment and on the integrity of the court. That would be an absurd situation. Yet we are faced with such a situation here. Under the British system of justice there is always a court of appeal, except in this case. Therefore, not only were the deceased pilots not provided with legal representation, they were also denied a court of appeal. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that that is the key to the whole matter. Surely there should be some court of appeal; indeed, if the Government are unwilling to open the inquiry, the appointment of a Select Committee would at least be appropriate.
Perhaps I may mention that I consulted my noble friend and kinsman Lord Wigoder, who is a successful QC. He expressed the view, with which I agree, that we cannot have a Select Committee acting as a court of appeal for every defendant who is unhappy with a court's decision. However, as I respectfully pointed out to him, there is a court of appeal in all normal legal cases; but in this particular case there was none. That is why something must be done. I urge noble Lords to support the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee. I should have been equally willing to support the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lord Rodgers, if the Government had given an undertaking that they would set up some form of new formal inquiry if his Motion were carried. Sadly, they have not agreed to do so.
4.49 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House that I have a somewhat peripheral interest in this matter. I spoke from the Opposition Dispatch Box to a very

467
similar Motion tabled on 5th March. I stand by every word that I said on that occasion, and shall not repeat now all the points that l made then. I am thankful that we shall have a free vote tonight. I have no difficulty with the House acting in a quasi-judicial role, if that is what we are doing.
Noble Lords have talked about creating a precedent. I disagree. This case is different from a criminal case. The deceased were not able to defend themselves. I also believe that the relatives of the deceased did not realise what the outcome of the case would be.
The Select Committee will not be a court of appeal. However, I caution your Lordships that it may turn out to be a. committee of confirmation. The Select Committee may well find that the pilots were guilty of gross negligence. It may well find that everything is in order. I believe that this House is an ideal place in which to conduct the onerous duty of reviewing matters of service discipline and the inquiry. I believe that we need narrow terms of reference. The advantage of the Select Committee procedure in your Lordships' House is that it avoids the risk of a legal bonanza outside.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said that we need to consider all the matters. The major points that concern us are uncommanded flying movements; the FADEC and related accidents; possibly the flight plan and the rules under which the Air Marshals had to operate. The committee needs to be told why there is not a problem and to be told by the experts that we are worrying about nothing.
It has been implied that the Select Committee will be unable to assimilate all the information. If a Select Committee of your Lordships' House is not able to assimilate all the information, how on earth were the Air Marshals able to do so?
I believe that the Select Committee should also consider whether it ought to be able to question the integrity of the Air Marshals. Perhaps it ought to be an instruction to the committee that it cannot question the integrity of the Air Marshals.
It is possible that there was gross negligence on the part of one of the pilots. But suppose the subordinate pilot strongly opposed the breaking of the visual flying rules? Suppose he went to the absolute limit of safety and military discipline in suggesting to the superior pilot that he should not break the visual flying rules and fly into the clouds? Why should he be held to be grossly negligent in those circumstances? The committee should consider that point in detail.
Some noble Lords are convinced that the pilots were guilty of gross negligence. Indeed, some of my noble friends are of that view. But this issue will not go away. The actions of the Air Staff will continue to be questioned. Ministers will continue to be put under pressure on this issue. The Air Marshals are able to defend themselves only by having letters published in the broadsheet newspapers. I believe that it would be advantageous for them to appear before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to explain why they reached the decision that they did. I believe that a
468
Select Committee is ideally suited to consider that matter. I strongly support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I believe that if we follow that route, the matter can be put to bed once and for all.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I ask for indulgence in adding further reflection at the end of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, stated that if we were to accept the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, we would be trenching upon the separation of powers. I thought that that was wrong, for the following reasons.
It is, of course, to trench upon the constitutional understandings and conventions of either House of Parliament to engage in a review of a judicial decision. However, we are not considering the judiciary in this case. We are considering the conduct of extremely senior and experienced officers of one of the Armed Forces for whom Ministers answer in Parliament. We all appreciate that they have done their level best. However, as has been said, there are doubts outside about the conclusion they have reached—doubts that have been mightily reinforced by contributions from all sides of the House, most notably from noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches. This House is entitled to review the decision of the Royal Air Force, just as it is entitled, in my submission, to review anything else that is done by any of the departments of state for which Ministers answer in Parliament. That is the fundamental distinction. We all observe a self-denying ordinance of not tangling with the judiciary. However, as I say, we are not talking about the judiciary here.
If there is a doubt that will not go away, should we pick up the challenge here? I confess to something of an emotional involvement with the matter in that I knew most of those who perished in the Chinook crash. I met their families and I attended a religious service for one of the pilots. I stood at the airport for a long time while the bodies of those who perished were brought back to Northern Ireland. I have always felt that something more should be done than has yet occurred to explore the conclusion that was reached by the board of inquiry.
On any view of the matter, a grievous wrong was done to the passengers, whatever the reason. On one view of the matter a grievous wrong may have been done to the pilots. I agree that the terms of reference probably have to be wide. It is difficult to review the justification for the decision without going into quite a lot of what that justification purported to be founded upon. The Select Committee would consider whether the essential foundation for the finding existed; namely, that there was absolutely no doubt whatever. It would not produce a finding as to what actually happened. As has been said from the Cross Benches far more authoritatively than I could express it, ii would consider whether that essential foundation existed. If it

469
was discovered not to exist, the members of the Select Committee would have done their duty and their job in so finding. I support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps it would be appropriate if I were to begin to wind up this long debate which has gone on for two hours and has been—
4.57 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I hope that I may speak for a few minutes. First, I am sorry that the consequences of this tragic and horrific accident are still rolling on after seven years for reasons mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. The loss suffered by the widows and families in those terrible circumstances must be hard enough to bear, but each reference to the incident in the press brings back the agony that they have suffered and which they have done their best to put behind them. I do not think that that can be ignored.
Some practical aspects bear a little consideration. I know the Mull of Kintyre well, having sailed past it and around it many times, often with the upper portion hidden in cloud. The lighthouse, which is low down because of frequent cloud, can usually be seen. I can visualise the events from the report from the yacht which was sailing through the North Channel at the time. The crew saw the helicopter coming from the direction of Rathlin Island towards the Mull. It was flying below cloud level and therefore could see the lower part of the Mull and perhaps the lighthouse, which the yachtsmen could see. The yacht's crew watched it pass overhead and then disappear into the cloud on top of the Mull not far from the lighthouse. I forget whether they heard the crash.
My knowledge of helicopters is limited but I believe is relevant. Some years ago, over several years, I was a passenger flying in helicopters, with two or three other Commissioners of Irish Lights, in order to visit and inspect the lighthouses around the coasts of Ireland from Tory Island in the north to Fastnet in the south. Frequently there were headlands in our path, some cloud covered like the Mull of Kintyre. The first time I saw one of these ahead—
4.59 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. He clearly has expertise in this matter and a knowledge of the situation. However, I wonder whether that is the issue before your Lordships' House today. If noble Lords will forgive me, perhaps we may take the opportunity of bringing the debate to a conclusion.
It has been a most intriguing debate. I can perhaps tidy up two issues. First, as regards the absence of the Leader of the House at the Liaison Committee meeting, the noble Baroness was at the Constitutional Committee at the time of the first meeting. She felt, therefore, that others should carry on for subsequent meetings. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will
470
remember that we held these meetings in a great hurry; many other things were taking place at the same time. I simply put the facts before the House. Secondly, it has been suggested by a couple of noble Lords that the question of staffing and costs was involved in the decision of the Liaison Committee. I assure the House that that was never a consideration at any time during the course of our deliberations.
I find myself in considerable difficulty in replying to the debate. Indeed, I do not intend to reply to the debate; it is not my job. Members of the Liaison Committee have set out their position in much the same way as I indicated that they did during the Liaison Committee meetings. We are asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to accept perhaps a smaller committee, and to put the issue again before the Liaison Committee. Having listened to the debate today, I think that the chances of getting a different decision from the Liaison Committee at another meeting are zero. It seems to me, therefore, that, as is proper, it is a matter for the House to decide what it wants to do. I leave the matter in your Lordships' hands.
I say just this. The Liaison Committee discussed the whole matter very seriously. Sensible, intelligent people took part in that debate. To overturn a recommendation of a committee of this House is a serious matter. In coming to a decision, I hope that noble Lords will bear in mind all the remarks which have been made today.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He said that if the matter went back to the Liaison Committee he had no doubt that it would come to the same conclusion. Do I understand from that remark that the Government would not support the setting up of a Select Committee on the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, proposes? It is an important point that the House should know.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I do not speak for the Government. The quickest way to deal with the matter would be for the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to be decided today.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as a matter of constitutional interest, is it normal for the chairman of a Select Committee not to vote?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I believe that it is. Certainly in these circumstances there was no question of my voting. I did not feel that I had a duty to vote on the matter, particularly since it was such an unusual constitutional matter so far as concerns the House. I thought it better to abstain and to come to the House and give noble Lords a straightforward report of what the Liaison Committee decided.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, one understands that it is not for the noble Lord to answer on behalf of the

471
Government. Presumably it would be within the rules of the House for him to allow a member of the Government to interrupt him.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is entirely within the rules of the House if he or she so wishes. However, if everyone has a free vote here, and a free vote in the Liaison Committee, I am not sure that the Government can bind the other members of the Liaison Committee to vote in a particular way.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it may be of some help if I repeat what I said earlier. Given the proposals he put forward for a more limited remit, and in what I described as a compromise, the Government do not oppose the noble Lord's proposal.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that being the case, the result of any Division on the issue should be clear.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, that places me in a somewhat difficult position. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, accepted my suggestion about a reference back in the spirit in which it was made. I am also old enough to know that when the noble Lord says that there is little likelihood that the Liaison Committee would come to a different conclusion this time from its previous decision he knows what he is talking about. The noble Lord has links with everyone in the House: the usual channels and the leaders of the parties. If he says that that is what will happen, I am forced to the conclusion that that is what might happen. While I might have been prepared to refer the matter back if there had been an undertaking, I see no point in doing so if I shall receive the same answer as previously.
It is not right for me to ask the noble Lord to give any assurances. However, in the light of what the Minister has just said, it seems to me that the Government are not in a position to give any. Despite all that has been said, before deciding whether to withdraw my Motion or press it to a Division, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and thank those who have not made a contribution for listening so patiently.
Many important points have been raised. I was particularly impressed by the important remarks of the two noble and learned Lords sitting with me on these Benches. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised an extremely important point relating to the two pilots which may not have had sufficient currency in the debate. As there was no voice recorder on this aircraft, no accident data recorder and no survivors, we are being asked by the verdict reached to assume that both pilots came to the decision in concert. There is no currency given to the suggestion that one of them might have said, "Look, mate, I'm going to fly straight into that cloud and to hell with it all", with the other saying, "No, you cannot do that". Who knows? No Air Marshal knows. No one knows. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, rightly draws attention to that aspect. It underlines the point I have made about the requirement for absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, while the noble Lord makes up his mind what he will do, perhaps I may pose another question to the Government. They abstained in the Liaison Committee. If the noble Lord decides to press his Motion, am I right in thinking that they will be consistent with the decision they took and that while they may well support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, no member of the Government will seek to vote against him?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was present for the vote and did not vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knows, I made it clear that the Government neither supported nor opposed the proposal for a Select Committee. Equally, I was not a member of the committee so I was not able to vote.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, what happened in the Liaison Committee is now history. If the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, decides to press his amendment, what will be the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, to her Front Bench? Given that she has just said that the Government are not opposed to the setting up of a Select Committee, I assume that she will tell the Chief Whip that it is her view that Ministers should abstain. I merely wanted confirmation of that. If that is not the case, I should like to know why.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I have already made the position clear, but if I was not clear enough, perhaps I can be this time. We shall not oppose the terms that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, proposed—not the terms on the Order Paper, but the more restricted terms that he spoke to, which I referred to in my opening remarks as his compromise and his amended version of his proposals. I hope that that makes it clear that I am addressing the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. In that sense, we shall not oppose him.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness has been helpful. If the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, moves his current amendment, the Government will vote against it, but if he puts forward his compromise—I am not sure that the whole House understands what that compromise is or how the House could agree it—the noble Baroness will support it. I think that that is the position. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, can now decide what he is going to do.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, if I was confused before, I am even more confused now. Perhaps confused is not the right word. I am in a dilemma. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for saying that in certain circumstances he would refer the matter and the report back to the Liaison Committee and consider the appointment of a different kind of Select Committee. However, he also said that he saw no reason why the Liaison Committee should present me with a different solution. I assume that the noble Lord knows what he is talking about. He is the chairman of the Liaison Committee and is in contact with everybody connected with the committee.

473
In the course of the debate I have felt that, whatever my own feelings about the issue, the House wants the matter resolved now.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I do not think that I could have a clearer endorsement than that.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I should like to add one slight caveat. I hope that the noble Lord is talking about restricted terms of reference in such an inquiry. If that is clear, the matter will move much more swiftly.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, my amendment makes that clear. I now have a feeling of what the House wants. Although I know that whatever decision I take will be unpopular in some quarters, I feel that I must test the opinion of the House.
5.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 132; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Acton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Astor, V.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Attlee, E.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Berkeley, L.

Fitt, L.

Biffen, L.

Fookes, B.

Blackburn, Bp.

Freyberg, L.

Blaker, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Blatch, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Geddes, L.

Boardman, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Bowness, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Brett, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brightman, L.

Goschen, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brookman, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Buscombe, B.

Holderness, L.

Byford, B.

Hooson, L.

Caithness, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Chalfont, L.[Teller]

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Jacobs, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Courtown, E.

Jopling, L.

Cranborne, V.

Judd, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Laird, L.

Cuckney, L.

Lane, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

474

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mar, C.

Selborne, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Sharples, B.

Marlesford, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Marsh, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Simon, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monson, L.

Slim, V.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strange, B.

Noakes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Northesk, E.

Thatcher, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Orme, L.

Trumpington, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Turnberg, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Peterborough, Bp.

Vivian, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Waddington, L.

Plumb, L.

Warnock, B.

Prior, L.

Weatherill, L.

Puttnam, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rawlings, B.

Wilcox, B.

Renton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rix, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Young, B. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hayman, B.

Ahmed, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Alli, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Amos, B.

Hollisof Heigham, B.

Archer of Sand well, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Avebury, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Barnett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Islwyn, L.

Blease, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Bradshaw, L.

Brennan, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Burlison, L.

Lipsey, L.

Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Colville of Culross, V. [Teller]

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

McNally, L.

Crawley, B.

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dholakia, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dubs, L.

Mitchell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Molloy, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Gale, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gilbert, L.

Paul, L.

Goodhart, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goudie, B.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Razzall, L.

Gregson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Richard, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harrison, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Haskel, L.

Roper, L.

475

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Uddin, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Walmsley, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B

Serota, B.

Whitaker, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Whitty, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller]

Tenby, V.

Wilkins, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, wish to move his Motion.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: No, my Lords.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
5.24 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Scrota) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offences leading to penalties on the spot]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out lines 18 to 32.
The noble Lord said: This amendment falls within the group which deals with the question of penalties imposed by a bobby on the beat in exchange for cash as an alternative to taking the offence to a court.
This is a very important Bill. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will support the parts of it which will effectively—by that, I mean both economically in terms of police time and fairly—reduce public "yobbism", which, by all accounts, is currently a considerable drawback to life in these islands.
While we are doing all that we can, as, I hope, we usually do, to give a fair wind to the measures which we consider to be in the public interest, we on these Benches are aware that the opportunity to debate this Bill is perhaps the only constructive outcome of the foot and mouth disease. The Bill would not have seen the light of day had the election been called as intended.
I confess that we have a certain misgiving about seeking to press through a Bill of this size and consequence in the time available to it. Although we shall be co-operative, I say on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNally that we retain an open mind as
476
to whether it is right that all the measures, some of them of huge importance, should be allowed to pass in the time available.
In proceeding with this group of amendments, our real concern with regard to this innovation is that it may be another bright idea which bites the dust when exposed to the harsh operational realities of policing. As we sit in this gilded Chamber, it is easy to underestimate how intensely difficult it is for the police to do their work on the beat on a Saturday night in a lively town centre where a great deal is going on.
First, behind these amendments lies a concern about the steady backdoor creation, if I may express it that way, of a new hybrid category of offences which are part criminal and part civil. They are part criminal in that the penalties and the nature of those penalties are commonly understood as being associated with criminality. They are also part criminal in the sense that they are pursued through magistrates' courts and by the police. Yet, they are part civil in that the measure concerned requires not the normal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt but proof on the civil test. That is true of the proposals in Clause 1.
Yet, of course, there has been no debate about the development of this hybrid category. We had it in the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill and I believe that it may have arisen first in the anti-social behaviour orders under the Protection from Harassment Act. However, we, at least, on these Benches are not at all happy with this hybrid category, and that is at the root of our concerns.
Secondly, we put forward these amendments out of a sense of the practicalities of policing. In the words of the Law Society—the committee of the Law Society that examined the Bill is comprised of extremely experienced, hard-nosed practitioners—is it right that a police constable should make a judgment, often under pressure, on a series of different offences, each of which will have different elements that must be proved? Such a situation is clearly amenable to serious misjudgment or abuse.
If cases in relation to which penalties are sought to be imposed proceed to court, come before the Crown Prosection Service and have to comply with the normal criminal test of being beyond reasonable doubt, there will be a considerable fallout in the number of such cases that are taken forward. It does not take a magician to realise that having two tests—a lower and a higher test—will involve a considerable fallout in the number of cases that are pushed to court. It will soon be known on the streets that it is not a bad idea to refuse to pay a fixed penalty because there is a much better chance of the whole case being chucked out if the CPS gets its teeth into the matter. We need to address that problem, and I hope that these constructive amendments would do so.
We are trying to knock out from the cases that are scheduled as being susceptible to on-the-spot fines those that are complicated, whether as to evidence or as to law. Complexity as to law involves complexity with regard to the necessary element of intent that goes with some of the scheduled offences that my

477
amendment would strike out. I refer, for example, to threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour within hearing or sight, and so on. Much law is involved in a Section 5 Public Order Act prosecution. We believe that it is too much to ask a policeman on the beat on the night in question to form an objective and cool view of a critical situation.
We also believe that when cases are pressed forward inappropriately, that will be the fault not of the relevant policeman but of the circumstances and complexities that are involved. Far from helping the process, that would create much extra paperwork and frustration and it would in the end be counterproductive.
Many young men—the provisions will mainly involve young men—will no doubt pay up on the relevant occasion and be done. Many of those who will be inclined to do so are, I suspect—others tell me that this will be so—likely to be the sort of people from whom it would be extremely difficult to extract the fine that they had agreed to pay. They will then be pitched into an interminable bureaucratic maze at the end of which, in the extreme case of default, young men will go to our already overcrowded prisons. I see that the Minister is—how should I put it? —facially gesticulating. I ask him to ponder carefully whether our attempt to simplify matters would actually complicate them. The last thing in the world that we want is to send yet more young, feckless men to our prisons because of their failure to pay fines.
Finally, I turn to the concern that many outside organisations, such as Liberty and the Law Society, have expressed; namely, that the provision will tend, in too many cases, to allow the police to pick on those who are already socially maladept or socially vulnerable. We all know that such people can become socially obnoxious with drink inside them. It is all too likely that the unemployed, the illiterate and the excluded will be—how should I put this?—the most frequent objects of police activity under Clause 1. There will be a temptation for hard-pressed policemen to pick off what they might regard as the easier targets.
The long and the short of my argument is that we have severe doubts about the practicality of the proposal but that we are perfectly content to allow the Government to give it a go. However, in doing so, we suggest that we should simplify the list of offences. That would prevent us from running into the complications that I have endeavoured to explain. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): I point out to the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 and 36. I also want to respond briefly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on Amendment No. 1.
478
We on these Benches cannot agree that all of the listed offences should be removed. We have real concerns about the list; hence our amendments. However, we are supportive of there being in the Bill a list that sets the pace and parameters of the legislation. Indeed, we want much more detail in the Bill. I shall return to that point throughout our debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that the Liberal Democrats wish to retain an open mind about the Bill's prospects. We echo that sentiment. We, too, have concerns about the new hybrid category; hence our Amendment No. 7, which relates specifically to the two tests and the burden of proof.
I shall deal first with our Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, in which we seek to exclude Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which concerns the destruction of or damage to property without lawful excuse, and Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which concerns threatening, abusive or insulting words, or disorderly behaviour within hearing of or in sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. While we are in favour of the introduction of on-the-spot penalty fines in principle for certain clear-cut, minor offences—it is now clear to us that they will not attract a criminal record and we understand that there will be no national register or database that will record those offences—we do not believe that criminal damage involves a proper use of that vehicle.
We are told that the Bill is about fighting crime and, in particular, the so-called yob culture which, sadly, is on the increase and tends to compromise all of us in one way or another in our daily lives. We believe that it should not allow thugs to shrug off their sometimes despicable acts by the payment of a fine. I repeat what I said on Second Reading; namely, that this should not be a case of crime pays so long as one pays up.
I read with interest the Government's response to our concerns in Committee in another place. I am not persuaded that the Government would achieve their stated aim without our amendments. With reference to criminal damage, I quote the Minister of State, Mr Charles Clarke. He said:
"We intend the Bill to catch behaviour at the less serious end of the spectrum where the damage caused is the result of disorderly or antisocial behaviour. We do not intend it to apply where the serious criminal sets out deliberately to destroy or severely damage the property of another person".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 6/2/01: col. 26.]
Where in the Bill is that spelt out? Surely that is what criminal damage is. How can a police officer make a balanced judgment on the spur of the moment? As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, difficult circumstances are often involved, which makes it difficult to establish whether the offence caused is—hitherto, it has been—an arrestable offence. Do the Minister of State's words mean that criminal damage attracting an on-the-spot penalty merely involves damage that is caused unintentionally or, if it is intentional, that it involves only partly destroyed or lightly destroyed damaged property? Do threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour also involve an arrestable offence? There is a plethora of circumstances in which

479
that offence can occur, often with serious consequences. It is easy to imagine situations in which the imposition of an on-the-spot penalty fine would be likely to increase confrontation and the seriousness of the offence.
Part of the difficulty rests with the fact that such offences are not clear-cut. Parking on a double yellow line is clear-cut: if one is caught, that is a fair cop because the evidence is there for all to see. The degree to which someone can be abusive is far from being clear-cut. Further, the measure of actual harm to property will require the police officer to make a tough, subjective, on-the-spot judgment about whether an on-the-spot fine is proper in all the circumstances or whether the thug in question should be arrested.
Another difficulty relates to deterrence. I firmly believe that there is precious little point in putting anything on the statute book unless it is going to act as a deterrent. It is our view that on-the-spot penalty fines will only act as a deterrent for minor, clear-cut offences. It is, we believe, wrong to use that vehicle for offences such as criminal damage which, in the words of Edward Crew, Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, speaking on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, are "triable either way", and can have an enormous impact upon victims' lives even in the most minor instances.
I turn to Amendment No. 4. We made it clear at Second Reading that we believed that there should be an offence for urination or defecation in a public place. It would be clear-cut, tangible and, as such, ideally suited to the use of the on-the-spot penalty fine. As I said at Second Reading, Westminster City Council informs us that street fouling is now perhaps the single aspect of anti-social behaviour that most undermines the quality of life for those who live and work in parts of the city. There is little doubt that where patterns of behaviour manifest themselves and develop in one of our great cities, so it follows over time—usually a brief amount of time—in others. Why not make this an offence now to act as a deterrent, a warning, that we will not tolerate this foul behaviour in our public places?
I note that in another place the Liberal Democrat Member for Southwark North and Bermondsey, Mr Simon Hughes MP, suggested,
"Every male aged over 18 … admitted to having done it when caught short … Women do not have the same problem because they have much better control".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 6/2/01: col. 38.]
Control has nothing to do with it; civilised behaviour does. I hope to receive such a response from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department argued in another place, at col. 36, that,
"it is not currently an offence under any law that applies throughout England and Wales, although it is an offence under certain local authority byelaws. It would be administratively complex to devise a national fixed penalty notice scheme that would apply to a local authority byelaw that applies in some parts of the country but not in others".
480
With respect, that is not a valid argument. This Bill introduces a new offence under Clause 1; that of consumption of alcohol in designated public places. There is therefore absolutely no logical reason why this Bill should not also be a vehicle for introducing the offence of urination or defecation in a public place.
We suggest a further new offence under Amendment No. 5, that of unlawful street trading. This amendment presents a further opportunity to deal with an entrenched wrong which compromises all those who work hard and stick to the rules of fair trading. Again, it is clear-cut and tangible and, at the moment, it is too easy to flout the rules. More than that, as said by Edward Crew, on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, unlawful street trading can attract large audiences in busy market areas, providing an ideal environment for pick-pocketing and street robberies.
The honourable Member for Norwich South, the Minister of State, Mr Charles Clarke, MP, said in another place at col. 29:
"We felt that penalty notices for such offences, which involve financial recoupment, might result in the perpetrator seeking to recoup the cost of the penalty through increased activity elsewhere".
With respect to the Minister of State, it is hard to think of a more defeatist approach. What is the point of the "Let us be tough on crime and the causes of crime" mantra if that is the kind of argument engaged by the Government to pass up the opportunity to combat an albeit relatively minor offence and thereby one suited to the on-the-spot penalty offence?
Amendment No. 6 has a simpler purpose. It would limit the degree of severity of offences that could be added to the list of offences attracting on-the-spot fines under Clause 1 of the Bill. Without that qualification, the Bill is unclear in its intent and therefore uncertain and while the current Secretary of State may be clear in his mind as to the parameters under which the clause should operate, a future Secretary of State may have an entirely different view as to the limits within which he or she may use this vehicle to tackle anti-social behaviour.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I rise partly to support Amendment No. 1, which is very sensible, but more particularly to oppose Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 36.
I could not believe my eyes when I saw Amendment No. 4 on the Marshalled List. I made up my mind that I should speak against it if I had the chance. It seems to me that Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 36 are trying to make offences of acts which should not be offences except in certain, limited circumstances. They certainly should not be included in the Bill as at present drafted. If the Committee felt we should accept these amendments, at least we could take out urination at a later stage.

481
Today, between the turnstiles in Westminster Underground Station and the entrance to your Lordships' House, someone was urinating against the wall. He looked apologetic and had clearly been caught short—I could tell that if only by the amount of liquid proceeding down the wall and across the pavement. People are caught short. Urination and defecation are natural processes and part of the human condition. They should not be included in this kind of legislation and I hope that Members of the Committee will not what is proposed.
Lord Windlesham: For reasons which I explained at Second Reading, I am opposed to the policy of on-the-spot penalties for disorderly behaviour in principle. I believe that they originated from some ill thought out and populist assumptions on the part of the Government and that Home Office officials then had the difficult task of trying to turn them into legislative form. The draftsman in particular must have had an exceptionally arduous task.
The objections are of principle and practicality—the two come together—and permeate this part of the Bill. The amendments of my noble friend Lady Buscombe, who spoke for the Opposition, and of the Liberal Democrats to an extent would ameliorate some of those objections by varying the list of offences in the existing statutes which would attract the fixed penalty. But it is not so much which offences should attract the fixed penalty; it is the concept of the fixed penalty itself which is objectionable.
The Government have recently circulated a document entitled Guidance to the Police on Penalty Notices for Disorder, made available by the Minister of State in another place, Mr Clarke. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is familiar with it. I stress that it is no more than a draft document. It states clearly enough that the aims include the following: trying to deal more effectively with anti-social and disorderly public offending; to provide a swift response that has a deterrent effect, and to save police and court time.
I am fairly confident that none of those three objectives will be secured. Let us take the last of the three, which is often cited, and valuable if achieved; that is, to save police and court time. The Justices' Chief Executive of the Inner London Magistrates' Courts Service stated that it is probable that the proposal might achieve exactly the opposite. That is on behalf of magistrates who sit in the courts, day in day out, trying offenders charged with summary offences. The argument is that it appears to overlook the effect of the Government's own Narey initiative. The justices' chief executive states that since the introduction of the Narey reforms, anyone charged is now brought before a court within a day or two. Under the proposed system the issue of the notice may indeed be swift, but payment will be delayed for at least a statutory period and in many if not most cases will not be made at all, at least without further court appearances either in the form of a summons for the offence or a means warrant for non-payment. The
482
issue of compensation is not addressed. That is one example of how practical experience in the courts runs against the easy assumption that in some way this initiative will save the time of the courts and the police as well as saving money.
It seems to me that claims are being made for a novel proposal which are not based on experience. Ministers are now trying to give effect to what was a policy driven by presentation, to respond to a groundswell of public opinion and dissatisfaction with extremely offensive and disagreeable behaviour. We can all share in and respond to that feeling, which is understandable and reasonable. However, the response has to accord with the rule of law. We shall return to that later in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred to some of those aspects. However, we must also consider the practicalities. I suggest that we address our attention to that at this stage in Committee.
Lord Renton: I, too, have doubts about the whole principle of on-the-spot fines. However, we must realise that the proposal will save public money because it will save the time of the courts. In some other countries—I cannot give details—the system has prevailed for some years. However, we must be careful in our choice of offences.
I am glad that my noble friends tabled Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Offences such as destruction of or damage to property without lawful excuse are not easy matters for a police officer to decide on the spot. They will require careful inquiry, which should be done by the courts. The same comments apply to Amendment No. 3, which seeks to leave out the provision on,
"Threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour".
All those are matters of opinion for the courts.
Having made those general remarks, I wish to support the amendments tabled by my noble friends.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The offences set out in Clause 1(1) of the Bill are already offences, which goes without saying, save for the new offence under Section 12 of the Licensing Act. If one looks at Section 12, one observes that that offence is to be arrestable in that a constable may arrest a person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the constable's requirement to cease drinking in a public place. There is already in existence, subject to the rule of law and control of the courts, a way of dealing with each and every one of the offences set out in this provision.
The Bill seeks to reduce the burden of proof, remove the safeguards of the court process and impose penalties on an individual who is thought to be committing or to have committed those offences simply on a constable's belief. That is a dangerous principle to bring into the criminal law of this country. All the safeguards which surround the conviction of offences are absent in a situation such as that.

483
Some of the offences which are set out are of a minor nature: being drunk, throwing fireworks, trespassing on the railway, and so forth. For the purposes to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton referred—that is, the saving of public money by saving court time—the provision of penalty notices might be justifiable. However, in the more serious offences set out in lines 18 to 32—the subject of Amendment No. 1 tabled in my name and that of my noble friends—one sees that much more complex offences are under consideration. In particular, wasting police time or giving a false report are not matters which can be immediately decided by a policeman in the street. They imply a degree of investigation before a policeman can come to a particular belief. Destruction of, or damage to, property without lawful excuse also involves a value judgment by a police officer if an excuse is put forward by an individual. I omit reference to the Tecommunications Act, although it would be difficult to arrest a person simply because he was standing in a telephone booth and making a phone call without having some means of knowing what was being said and what was being received on the other end of the telephone. That also requires a certain degree of investigation, and is not immediately obvious to and observable by a police officer.
The provision in Section 5 of the Public Order Act regarding threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour throws up all sorts of problems. As I recall, Section 5 requires the words or disorderly behaviour to occur in a public place. There is certainly authority for that. I was involved in a case concerning disorderly behaviour in a front garden of a property abutting a road. The issue was whether that was a public place. One can envisage a situation where words are exchanged over a hedge and a policeman has to decide whether that is a public place and whether the person standing in the garden can be arrested and given a penalty notice in such circumstances.
As regards the person who is likely to be caused harassment, alarm and distress, there is authority as to whether that person merely has to be the policeman. Therefore, is swearing at a policeman an arrestable offence? Can it give rise to a penalty of this nature? Many issues can arise around such a charge.
If the burden of proof is to be reduced in the way the provisions suggest, so that it is the belief of the constable which matters and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, surely such a penalty notice should be confined to offences which are simple and observable and can be dealt with instantly without further investigation by the police officer. The provision goes too far and I support my noble friend in this amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Brennan: The fact that drink is a major component in the commission of many minor offences hardly needs repeating. The first group of amendments with which we are concerned tonight again gives an opportunity to Members on all Benches to question
484
the philosophy of the Bill. I state the problem before I consider questioning the philosophy. The problem is major.
On Second Reading, I had occasion to recount to the House that in Manchester over a weekend—that is the accumulation of three nights—half a million young people come into the city centre from the outlying conurbation and stay up drinking most of the night. I invited the House to note that that was a social phenomenon that we had not previously had to address.
It is not correct to assume that offences relating to drink and the minor, as I am sure we shall be told, consequential offences of threatening behaviour and so on are the product of people who are emotionally or educationally deprived and cannot manage their own affairs. Many irritating minor offences are committed by people with money and good jobs who on occasion display a lack of common sense which they would remember to exercise if they realised that the following day they would have a fixed penalty to meet.
The problem is new. We should galvanise our thinking—even the most dedicated proponents of a traditional criminal justice system—to meet the problem. Fixed penalty notices are worth trying but with two important provisos. One is the scope of the offences that they should embrace. It seems to me that much of the concern expressed on the Benches opposite is directed at Clause 6. That establishes how the Secretary of State will give guidance as to the proper implementation of the power by police officers around the country. I shall return to that matter when the clause comes up for discussion.
Surely that guidance will be directed principally at telling police officers to discriminate between a minor offence, readily observable and easily prosecutable under a fixed penalty, as against the more serious matters which some Members of the Committee put forward as examples. That is the first point.
The second point is more important. What will be the system effectively to enforce the collection of fixed penalties? Nothing will be more likely to undermine the effectiveness of the new system if those involved think they can get away with it anyway. It is a pretty effective system which these days applies to parking offences. We should introduce the same ethos with this new type of penalty for minor offences, not in order to flood the system of fixed penalties but in a genuine attempt, even for offences which may have wide degrees of culpability, of deterring young people with money not to commit the kind of behaviour that will attract fixed penalties. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had a wide-ranging discussion on this group of amendments. It has been said that, on the one hand, we have included too many offences and, on the other hand, that we ought to be adding to them. There is also a degree of consensus about one or two of the offences which might be covered by fixed penalty notices. There has also been further discussion of issues of principle and a picking away at some of the detail.

485
However, there is a consensus in the Committee that this matter relates to an important issue; that is, appalling and offensive behaviour, often described as part of the yob culture, which takes place in our towns, cities and elsewhere from time to time, particularly at the weekend and where drink is at the root of the matter.
I do not claim that we have a monopoly of wisdom in the Bill, but we are trying to develop policies to deal with the developing and expanding phenomenon. We are trying to come forward with yet another approach but it is certainly not the only answer or solution. Therefore, my comments should be considered within that framework.
The criminal damage offence included in Clause 1 is that under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and is the destruction of and/or damage to property without lawful excuse. We have deliberately not included the more serious offence under Section 1(2) where life is endangered, either intentionally or recklessly, as that would clearly be unsuited to the fixed penalty notice scheme. The behaviour that the Bill intends to catch is that at the less serious end of the spectrum where the damage caused is the result of disorderly or, as is more broadly described, anti-social behaviour. We do not intend it to apply where the serious criminal sets out with the intention of deliberately destroying or seriously damaging the property of another person.
I appreciate that the offending covered by Section 1(1) encompasses a range of behaviour and we shall be issuing guidance to the police to make clear the type of offending with which the scheme has been designed to deal. In particular, we shall draw attention to the need to consider carefully before issuing a notice whether, if the case went to court, a compensation order might be made in favour of an individual whose property had been damaged. In such a case, it would understandably be preferable for the case to be dealt with by other means.
The offending behaviour covered by Section 5 of the Public Order Act includes the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by it. That again seems central to the type of behaviour to which we would like the new scheme to apply. Indeed, the description of the offence included the words "disorderly behaviour". It would not seem logical intentionally to omit it from the list before we had the opportunity to see how it worked in practice.
I turn to the offences of wasting police time and using the telecommunication system to send false or annoying messages.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before the Minister leaves the question of criminal damage, it is difficult to expect a policeman to decide on the spot whether any compensation is liable to be paid in a case of criminal damage. Normally, there is a possibility of compensation in a case of criminal damage; if so, an
486
on-the-spot penalty is not to be used. Therefore, this arises only in a case of extremely minor criminal damage where there is no possibility of compensation. That is the kind of the difficulty in which a police constable will be placed in deciding whether to issue a penalty notice. It is very difficult to judge what criminal damage could not possibly lead to any compensation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I accept what the noble Lord says. However, I made the point at the outset that we wish to focus attention on the lower order of this offence, and that will be made clear in the guidance. We have also made it clear in the draft guidance that we intend to issue to the police that we have included these offences to catch the making of false 999 calls. We regard that type of offending as appropriate for the new penalty notice system. I note that noble Lords opposite have not proposed the omission of the similar offence of knowingly giving a false alarm to the fire brigade. If we accepted this amendment, we would be left with an inconsistency in this respect. One could receive a penalty notice for falsely calling the fire brigade but not an ambulance or the police. In any case, we believe that all these offences should be included in the scheme.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Does the Minister not realise that the penalty notice minimises the offence; it does not maximise it so that it is a more serious offence to make false calls to the police and the ambulance service which will be dealt with under the existing legislation? The whole point is that to give a penalty notice to someone is the soft option. The Government are supposed to be tough on crime but they give a soft option in many of these offences.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not believe that it is a soft option; it could well be an effective option. As I argued earlier, we need to recognise that there are new ways to tackle some of the problems that we confront in dealing with yobbish behaviour. That is what we seek to do, and I thought that in measure that principle had been accepted. I hope that Members of the Committee are reasonably reassured by what I have said. If they still believe that we can leave out these offences, they should consider the effect of so doing. Without these offences we would have a new scheme to deal with offences of disorder and anti-social behaviour, but with the new disposal unavailable for much of the relevant offending behaviour. We shall certainly monitor the scheme closely to see how it works in relation to these offences, but we want to start with them included.
I deal next with Amendments Nos. 4 and 36 which deal with urinating and defecating in public. First, the criminal justice system is a limited and scarce resource and should be employed only where there are particular and significant public policy reasons for doing so. Accordingly, and perhaps most obviously, new offences should be resisted where the conduct in question is already defined as criminal. Urinating or

487
defecating in public is currently an offence under by-laws set out in the Home Office model by-laws set No. 8: Bylaws for Good Rule and Government. By-law No. 24 of the set reads:
"No person shall urinate or defecate in any public place".
An offender under the by-law is liable to a fine not exceeding level 2 (£500). The offence can also often be dealt with under other legislation, such as that governing drunk and disorderly behaviour or offences under Section 5 of the Public Order Act.
Secondly, criminal offences should be created only where there is a clear public policy need. To the extent that urination and defecation is a social problem, it must by its very nature be one that is subject to great variation in degree on a geographical basis. In certain urban or high density residential areas a problem may exist which is entirely absent in rural areas. I am tempted to suggest that in the middle of Ashdown Forest, Dartmoor, or the North Yorkshire moors, which one could regard as public places, somebody who must relieve himself—
Baroness Buscombe: With great respect to the Minister, surely on the whole the yob culture occurs only in urban areas. One does not have much yob culture in the Forest of Dean.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The point I seek to make is that the nature of the offence that the noble Baroness seeks to add to the list is a catch-all and the by-law is rather more focused. The point just made by the noble Baroness is a relevant one, but I believe that those who live in small towns and villages that are visited by yob culture would see that behaviour as a threat to their peace of mind and the peaceful nature of their neighbourhood.
A new offence should be created only where it is a proportionate and commensurate response to the social problem identified. In many public places, particularly in the wilder and less populated parts of the country, a person can urinate or defecate without any risk of causing either offence or a public health risk. It seems unreasonable to criminalise conduct of that kind in an environment where there may be no provision of public toilets and no alternative to those upon whom nature calls. For these reasons, adoptive law such as by-laws is an appropriate response to such problems. A by-law is made locally and can be reasonably expected to meet local conditions, such that the provision of public toilets will be taken into account when the by-law is made. The local authority takes the decision in those circumstances whether to prosecute an offender. I believe that I have said enough to explain why the Government cannot accept that new proposition.
I have some sympathy for the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey who said of this proposed offence in another place:
"Every male aged over 18, including me, admitted to having done it when caught short … We must be cautious about making it a criminal offence because anyone could be caught. The answer is more accessible public toilets, not more offences".—[Official Report, Commons. Standing Committee F, 6/2/01: col. 38.]
488
We cannot have a generally applicable offence which criminalises almost everyone at some point in their lives. I do not believe that that is a proper use of the law, and I do not think that noble Lords opposite would so regard it. For those reasons, we cannot accept those amendments.
Viscount Goschen: The Minister relies on the argument that "public place" covers a wide variety of situations: on the one hand, a forest and on the other hand, the urban situation. I note that in Clause 13 in Chapter 2, in connection with alcohol consumption in designated public places, the Bill provides a mechanism to identify public places from which drinking may be banned. For example, it gives the local authority the ability to designate an area as a designated public place. Would not something on the lines of the mechanism provided in Clause 13 remove the noble Lord's objection with regard to what would clearly be anti-social behaviour which we would all recognise when we saw it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It might, but, as I believe I argued earlier, we believe that the issues covered by this particular amendment are dealt with in law in any event, and also by adoptive by-laws. We argue that, even if there is a genuine problem—I fully accept that there may well be one in Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, or perhaps even parts of Brighton and Hove—this is not the most appropriate way to deal with it.
I turn to street trading offences. The Government believe that it is not appropriate to bring offences with a financial motive of any kind into the scope of the penalty notice scheme. Unlawful street trading falls into that general category, and there would be a number of potential difficulties involved. Moreover, it is hardly an offence of disorder. There is a danger that a penalty notice awarded on the street for this kind of offence would have little more effect on the perpetrator than simply being moved on. He might simply seek to recoup the cost of the penalty through increased activity elsewhere. Further, the issuing of a penalty notice for this offence, whether on the street or at a police station, would mean that no consideration could be given to seizure by the police and eventual forfeiture of items used in the commission of the offence, which is a particularly important tool to deal with some examples of this type of activity. We believe that penalty notices are unsuitable for this type of crime and are, therefore, unable to accept the amendment.
Finally, Amendment No. 6 seeks to limit the power of the Secretary of State in his exercise of the power in Clause 1 to add new offences to the list of penalty offences. The proposed amendment would allow the addition by order of an offence only if the maximum penalty for it did not exceed level 3, which is £1,000 or three months in prison or both. The list of penalty offences in Clause 1 already includes four offences which exceed the maximum penalty. I am aware that noble Lords opposite seek to remove three of these, but this still leaves the offence of throwing fireworks in

489
a thoroughfare, which carries a maximum fine not exceeding level 5 (£5,000), to which no one appears to object as a penalty offence. But it may be that it is only offences added by order that concern noble Lords opposite. If so, I give them the assurance that the new system is designed to deal with minor examples of disorder offences only, even if the penalty offence listed covers a broad spectrum of behaviour. We have made that clear on many occasions.
Moreover, the Government accepted an amendment in another place to make this order-making power subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. So there is no danger of new offences being added without Parliament's agreement. While I appreciate the motivation behind the amendment, I am certain that we have put in place enough and sufficient safeguards to dispense with what might otherwise be considered an unnecessary restriction on the power of the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made a point about the reduction of the burden of proof. It is worth saying to the noble Lord that there is in the legislation an absolute right to ask for a trial. That point was reflected in the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It said that,
"we consider the right to request trial is adequately protected,"—
and this is the noble Lord's point—
"bearing in mind that a suspect who has a reasonable excuse for failing either to pay the penalty or elect for trial within 21 days can apply to a magistrates' court to set aside any line in the interests of justice".
The other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, related to penalty notices being suitable only in clear cases. On-the-spot penalties should not be issued where further investigation is required. We are quite clear on that point. We will ensure it is covered in the guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that criminal damage needs to be looked at in some detail because it could be that it is more serious than perhaps is immediately apparent. The point is that careful consultation with the complainant and a careful view of the extent of any damage needs to be made prior to a police officer effecting an arrest.
I hope I have covered most of the comments made. This is a significant amendment because it deals in part with an important point of principle and in part with points and matters of detail.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am most grateful to the Minister for accepting my intervention on whether or not this is a minimising of the effect of criminal offences. The mechanism of the Bill envisages that some of these notices should be issued in the police station. Under Clause 2 of the Bill they have to be issued by an authorised officer. What is envisaged is that—for example—someone who is suspected of having committed an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act could be arrested, taken to a police station and, instead of being charged and dealt with
490
through the ordinary processes of the criminal justice system, given a penalty notice. That is why I used the word a "soft" option.
The provision would enable people who might otherwise have found themselves in court facing the possibility of larger sentences, even imprisonment under Section 5, being given the option of a penalty notice which would save the police an enormous amount of trouble in putting a file together and going to the CPS. The danger of the provision is that penalty notices will be issued where prosecutions would in the past have been carried out.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has made some very important points. One matter which arises out of them worries me. Have the Government envisaged the possibility that a police officer when trying to get the accused person to pay this lower penalty has the opportunity of saying to the accused person, "If you don't pay this, you will be brought to trial and it will cost you much more"? That is a factor we must bear in mind. There will be a great temptation for the police to say that to criminals.
Baroness Buscombe: I speak in response to a number of points made by the Minister. It is very important to repeat the words of my noble friends Lord Windlesham and Lord Renton: first, it is the concept of the fixed penalty which is of real concern; and, secondly, can it actually work in practice?
With regard to criminal damage, while the Minister has made it clear that the Government have been careful not to include the more serious offences—for example, endangering life—the parameters are not actually set out on the face of the Bill. We feel quite strongly about that matter. The Government are saying that they want to have the opportunity, with the benefit of the Bill, to see how the provision works in practice. But surely, with something so new and different—this new hybrid vehicle, as I keep calling it—it would make sense to have a pilot scheme of some kind to see if it works. As we go through our amendments we shall be saying again and again that in practice it is very hard to see how the provision will work. It will be very impractical.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 4 and 36, I am disappointed obviously with what the Minister said. Yes, there are by-laws in place, but the Minister knows that they are much more difficult to invoke. The noble Lord is concerned that public policy should take precedence over them. We believe that to be the case also. However, the Minister really is saying that we just have to wait until the situation gets worse. The reality is that—I quoted Westminster City Council—this is a serious problem already in our cities; a problem which perhaps the Government are not in touch with. It is one which affects many people's lives and one, we feel, which is absolutely suited to the on-the-spot fine. The Government say that they want to avoid criminalising all of us in one fell swoop. Later I shall argue that the alcohol-free zone does just that. There is no difference.

491
We feel strongly that here is an opportunity with—as we called it at Second Reading—a "rag bag" of a Bill to use the provision to include a number of clear-cut offences, such as the offence of urinating and defecating in public, to act as a deterrent against behaviour which is happening more and more. One of the reasons is that many public lavatories have been or are being closed in cities for reasons of which we are well aware. But that is no excuse for allowing this frankly disgusting behaviour to take place, as it now does a great deal, in our cities.
In relation to street trading, I repeat what I said a few moments ago. I feel that the Government are being pretty defeatist when they say that there is no point in having this as an on-the-spot fine offence because the street trader will just move his illegal trading elsewhere. Surely the whole point is that with all of these on-the-spot penalty offences offenders will be able to offend again and again, particularly if they move around the country, without having any deterrent. The provision deals with minor clear-cut offences. Street trading is an offence—the evidence is tangible—that is much more suited to this provision than criminal damage. That we have proposed under Amendment No. 3 with regard to harassment and abusive behaviour. Therefore, we feel considerable disappointment with the Minister's response.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: We have had an interesting debate on an important part of the Bill. We are disappointed that the Government appear to have taken to heart none of the many points that were made. I think it is fair to say that only one speaker in this mini-debate has wholeheartedly supported the Government. We have tried to be constructive in saying to the Government, "Yes, let us give this a go. We have a good deal of doubt about it, but let us give it a chance and see how it runs". The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made the point that it would have been—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I accept the point that this is the stage at which we should be as constructive as we possibly can be about elements of the Bill. I make this observation. We have issued some draft guidance on the way in which the fixed penalty notice scheme will work. If Members of the Committee are concerned about the operation of the detail—a good deal of the discussion has been about the detail—we want to hear more precisely about those concerns. We need to put the legislation in place so that the scheme can work. We intend to pilot the scheme with the close co-operation of the police. There is always an opportunity to see how the scheme works on the ground. That is our intention. We want to make these measures as practicably based as possible. I hope that those are taken as constructive observations.
Having listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, I appreciate that there are problems with urination, defecation and so on in urban areas. I do not dismiss those concerns at all. I look forward to receiving correspondence from Westminster
492
Council on the size of the problem and the shortcomings that it might feel exist in the current legislation. I very carefully drew attention to legislation on the statute book that might be of help.
Members of the Committee have made constructive comments. Those comments were designed for the purpose of taking forward the debate. I do not dismiss those concerns at all.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful for the Minister's assurance. However, it does not satisfy us as we are of the view that if the Government were sensible they would limit the type and number of offences for which on-the-spot fines can be levied. I shall not go over our arguments for believing that beyond saying that many speakers in this mini-debate have referred to the difficulties in establishing the necessary evidence and the necessary mental element in this truncated procedure. I think of what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said. I think also of what the noble Lord. Lord Cope, said in response to the Minister's point about compensation orders, which cannot be imposed under the system of on-the-spot fines. That point was laboured effectively by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford.
For all those reasons, we are not content with leaving matters as they are. What the Minister said about guidance—the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made the point—was not satisfactory. Guidance is guidance. The police have the job of working the scheme. It is their discretion and their authority that will be at stake. Indeed, it would be dangerous if the Home Secretary's non-statutory guidance could tie the hands of police forces. We think that the discretions are too wide and that the experiment is too wide. If the Government were to accept the proposed de-limitations, it would be helpful all round. I am inclined to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 107.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L. [Teller]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Razzall, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Redesdale, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Renton, L.

Falkland, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roper, L.

Hamwee, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller]

Ludford, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tope, L.

McNally, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Walmsley, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Northover, B.

Wigoder, L.

Oakeshott of Scagrove Bay, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Windlesham, L.

493

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor))

Bach, L.

Bamett, L.

Islwyn, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Berkeley, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Blease, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brennan, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brett, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brookman, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burlison, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chandos, V.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

David, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mitchell, L.

Desai, L.

Molloy, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Elder, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gale, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gilbert, L.

Serota, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Simon, V.

Goudie, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thornton, B.

Grenfell

Tomlinson, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Turnberg, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Haskel, L

Uddin, B.

Haymen, B

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Healey, L

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Whitty, L.

Hollick, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hoyle, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.43 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Penalty notices]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 3, leave out "has reason to believe" and insert "believes beyond reasonable doubt"
The noble Baroness said: The subject addressed in Amendment No 7 has already been aired to some extent this evening. Clearly, it is important in relation
494
to the overall Bill. We on these Benches have real reservations with regard to the burden of proof required for this hybrid offence, which has been likened to a caution.
If the offence is treated like a caution then, as would be the case with a parking offence, that offence is civil as no conviction would result, and payment of a fine serves as proof of admission of the offence. However, can the Minister explain what will happen when a penalty notice is issued? When the notice is given, surely the police officer will be acting as judge and jury, deciding for him or herself whether the alleged offence took place and whether it was of a minor nature, to the extent that an instant fine is the course of action under the circumstances, as opposed to arresting the person. In that case, on arrest the burden of proof will shift to "beyond reasonable doubt".
A police officer faced with a situation where, for example, a fierce brawl has broken out between warring neighbours, will have to make subjective decisions as regards, first, who has been wronged and, secondly, whether that wrong is of such a degree that it should be an arrestable offence rather than suited either to a caution or to an on-the-spot penalty fine. As the Bill stands, the police officer only has to have "reason to believe" that a particular party is in the wrong in order to present them with a fixed penalty notice there and then. If, however, the police officer decides that the harm caused is of such severity that the person whom they believe to be the party in the wrong should be arrested and tried under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, the police officer knows that he or she will have to take time to complete the paperwork and persuade a court that they believed beyond reasonable doubt—in my book that means that they must be almost absolutely sure as opposed to only "thinks probably"—that the person arrested was in fact the wrongdoer in that brawl.
Given the lack of police resources, along with the call of bureaucratic demands on police officers' time, I have a hunch that this will mean that, even in the most severe circumstances and in particular where there is doubt about who of the two warring factions was in the wrong, nine times out of 10 the police officer will be inclined to issue an on-the-spot fine. Can this be right? Where is the deterrent here? Surely this means that the Government should change their mantra from "tough on crime" to "quick fix on crime".
Alternatively, there is the possibility—one that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, when speaking to Amendment No. 1—that perhaps we shall see a popular move on the part of offenders to reject the opportunity to pay a fine on the spot, because they will know that their case has far more chance of being thrown out in a court of law as the burden of proof shifts to "beyond reasonable doubt".
Where do the Government stand in relation to repeat offenders? Let us take the example of hoax callers. We have been told that no national register is to be kept of such offences, in which case a hoax caller

495
will be able to move with ease and continue his or her despicable behaviour, at the mere risk of picking up a fine.
I repeat that we are in favour of introducing on-the-spot penalties for disorderly behaviour. However, we are seriously concerned to ensure that our criminal justice system is not diminished. It is our duty as legislators to uphold and enhance our system of justice, not to compromise our criminal procedures in order to try to apply a quick fix to the system. We should not skirt round the issue of lack of resources. The system must be adequately resourced and thereby improved.
We would do well to recall the words of the Prime Minister when he said: "I want to be associated with eye-catching initiatives, especially on law and order". Eye-catching initiatives should not lead to knee-jerk legislation. In the words of my noble friend Lord Windlesham, when he referred to this on Second Reading, this will lead to,
"thin ice in terms of criminal procedure".—[Official Report, 2/4/01: col. 677]
Those who are unable to pay will be sent to prison. If these fines are supposed to be, in the words of the Secretary of State, equivalent to a caution, is prison the sensible route for a person who fails to pay for that caution? What if they cannot pay? I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Surely it is in the interests of justice that the Government should accept the amendment. The clause as it stands at the moment—which has a purely subjective test on the question of whether an offence has been committed—is wrong. It is a subjective test at the moment because the words,
"A constable who has reason to believe",
refer to his own reason to believe, not to an objective reason.
By proposing that the constable should believe beyond reasonable doubt, my noble friend seeks to make the constable subject to an objective test, which is right in the circumstances. I am afraid that unless the amendment: is accepted there will be injustices.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We support the amendment. The way the criminal justice system works at the moment is that a police officer may arrest someone for an arrestable offence on suspicion or reasonable belief. However, he then has to consider whether that person should be charged. When he comes to the charging point, he has to take a decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence to persuade a court beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. The matter will then ordinarily go to the CPS, which will apply the same test; that is, is there at least a 50 per cent chance that a court will be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused person?
If the Government choose to introduce an alternative way of dealing with a criminal offence by the use of these fixed penalties, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out, the same objective tests should be used for the alternative procedure as would
496
normally be used by those charging and by the CPS in taking a decision to prosecute. That is a sensible way forward and I support the amendment.
Lord Windlesham: As we have heard in previous speeches on the amendment, the standard of proof is that a police officer has reason to believe that a person over the age of 18 has committed a penalty offence. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, argued so effectively, that must be the police officer's own reason to believe and must be subjective. How can it be anything else? I believe that this is another—imperceptible perhaps to some, but nevertheless gradual—erosion of civil liberties, as we have seen in other criminal justice measures which have been brought before this House during the current Parliament.
I do not accuse the Government of any bad motives; I do not think that it is deliberate. I think that these are consequences which have not been thought out. It is the law of unintended consequences that often does much harm before the situation is finally put right by subsequent legislation, often when the harm has been done.
We must remember that the concept of the burden of proof describes the duty which is on the prosecution in a criminal trial to establish the facts beyond reasonable doubt. As all law students know, this has long been regarded as a golden thread in our criminal jurisprudence. It should surely be maintained when there are alternative, novel forms of penal sanction and when we are not sure where they will lead. During the initial stages they do not involve an appearance in court, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, that may be the consequence at the end of the day.
At present the Bill requires that a police officer has only to have reason to believe that a penalty offence has been committed in order to issue a fixed penalty notice. As I have argued, this standard obviously is less than the criminal burden of proof. So the effect of accepting a fixed penalty notice will be to accept that behaviour has occurred to a criminal standard; that the behaviour is criminal behaviour. Police officers imposing penalty notices should therefore surely be required to be satisfied to this standard before being able to impose them.
The noble Lord will need notice for this question, so I ask him and those who advise him to listen closely. If an accused is brought to a police station, does he have access to legal aid and the duty solicitor? If he is accused of a criminal offence, he does; but I do not know whether or not it has been thought out what will happen if he is not accused of an arrestable offence at this stage. It is possible that that question is not right in the front of the Minister's mind either, but there must be those who can advise him and who, by the time we reach the end of the debate, can give an answer. For those reasons, I strongly support the amendment.
Viscount Goschen: In regard to the issue of the level of the burden of proof, perhaps I may ask the Minister two factual questions about the procedure which will occur if such circumstances arise. If a person is arrested for, perhaps, being drunk and disorderly or

497
for criminal damage and is offered the penalty notice, as I understand it, that is the equivalent of a 21-day option. He can accept it and pay the fine, or he can during that period ask to be tried. If he does ask to be tried, will the fact that he originally wished to take the fixed penalty option weigh with the court? Will that be brought up in court? In other words, will he have made an admission of guilt? Will that count as an admission of guilt or not?
Similarly, if the individual—who may well, if it is an alcohol-related charge, not be in a fit state to make such a decision—should say to the police constable, "No. Under no circumstances do I accept this. I will see you in court", can he then change his mind the other way? In other words, is there a two-way 21-day option? Can be decide at a later date—perhaps when he sobers up the next morning—"Oh yes, I did do that and I shall be better off with a fixed penalty"? Can he do that?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: At first sight the amendment looks as though it puts a torpedo below the waterline of the whole idea of on-the-spot fines. I do not believe that it does. In a strange way it assists the process that the Government are seeking to put in place, albeit that it may reduce the number of occasions on which constables will use the power. The fact that it will give further pause to police before they use the on-the-spot fine will, in the long run, prove of benefit to the scheme as a whole. That is partly why we support the measure.
7 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment concerns the circumstances in which a constable may issue a penalty notice. It would have the effect of changing the test that a constable would have to apply before issuing a penalty notice. Instead of having reason to believe that an offence had been committed he would have to believe beyond reasonable doubt that an offence had been committed.
It needs to be understood that there is a degree of subjectivity in all of these matters. Police officers are used to making subjective judgments from time to time. It is part of their job as operational officers. The important point is that it must be believed that the test "has reason to believe" is appropriate. We believe that it is appropriate to what we have described as a lower order of offences. It is appropriate also in terms of the other part of the scheme; namely, that the behaviour must clearly have occurred, that it must have been plain on the face of it that that was exactly what was going on, and for those reasons the police officer "has reason to believe" that an offence has been committed. It must have been plain to the officer that he or she had good reason to believe that offensive behaviour had occurred. I agree that sometimes the test will be applied in a subjective way. That is the way in which policing is conducted.
We believe that the test is appropriate for a scheme such as this. The scheme is based on consent; it has no impact on the fundamental rights of the individual;a
498
similar test is applied in the case of road traffic fixed penalty notices, so it is consistent with fixed penalty notices in other instances; and if on receiving a fixed penalty notice an individual does not accept the allegation, he or she may challenge that allegation in court, where the test of proof—of the matter being "beyond reasonable doubt"—would apply. The provision does not qualify that in any way. In reference to a more rigorous and objective test, if people do not like the suggestion of conforming to a fixed penalty notice, they have the important option to test the veracity of the evidence. In this way, the right of a person who receives a penalty notice to a trial of the allegations is preserved and the higher threshold is therefore not necessary. For those reasons we cannot accept the amendment.
A number of questions have been asked. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, raised one that is not contained in my immediate briefing, as the noble Lord accurately surmised, and I should like to reflect the point he raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made some points about how a police officer might consider giving a penalty notice. The police officer will know, if the alleged offender asks for a trial, that he will have to back up the allegation with evidence in court in a full test of the proof. That is the more important consideration. The police should look on the scheme of fixed penalty notices as part of a range of approaches to dealing with some of the problems with which we are all trying in our different ways to grapple. The police already have the power to caution or to give informal warnings. This is a further option. As I said, police officers already exercise discretion in deciding how to deal with an offence. There is no reason to believe that they will use these powers any less appropriately than they use other powers.
The example given by the noble Baroness had to do with warring factions. I suspect that that is exactly one of the circumstances in which a fixed penalty notice may be less appropriate. It is important in such circumstances that evidence is properly tested.
Baroness Buscombe: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister. The point I was trying to make was this. There may be a situation where an on-the-spot fixed penalty notice may be less appropriate, but the police officer may weigh up quickly in his mind that given the fact that the case will take up a great deal of time in form-filling and that if the case goes to court he will be involved with a shift in the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it will be much easier to hand out an on-the-spot penalty—and our criminal justice system is thereby diminished.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I cannot accept that point. In effecting an arrest, the officer will have to make a judgment. He will know that if he wishes to go along the route of a fixed penalty notice, it is not an absolute: it is not in his discretion; there is another party to this.

499
If the individual does not wish to accept the fixed penalty notice, he or she can ensure that there is a proper legal challenge.
Baroness Buscombe: Supposing that the offender prefers to accept the on-the-spot penalty, he does not have to go through the embarrassment of a court case, even though the offence that he has committed is quite severe.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I keep returning to the important point that these will be lower order offences. We need to focus on that and I hope that the noble Baroness can accept it. The noble Baroness must choose whether or not she supports fixed penalty notices. Having heard some of her points, I am not sure that she does. If she accepts the principle, as I thought she had—
Baroness Buscombe: We accept the fixed penalty notice in principle, but we should prefer the burden of proof that a police officer must apply when deciding whether to go for a fixed penalty notice to be the same as that used in a court of law; namely, that the matter is "beyond reasonable doubt". If, in the words of the Minister, we are talking about clear-cut offences that have occurred, what is the problem with retaining the same threshold as already applies in a court of law? Why lower the threshold for the burden of proof?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: What we are trying to capture here, with a range of other measures including cautions, final warnings and so on, is in part anti-social behaviour. If we were to apply the higher burden of proof, the test that a matter is "beyond reasonable doubt", I suspect that an argument might be made that fixed penalty notices were being used for more serious offences. I have made it plain that we do not believe that that should be the case. The noble Baroness cannot have it both ways.
We are trying to use this provision and focus it on a lower order of offences to ensure that we capture such offences as anti-social behaviour. Yes, I accept that the police will have a judgment to make. They will have to arrive at a proportionate decision. I am sure that, with guidance and training and with their understanding of the way in which it is intended that the scheme should work, and given our belief that we shall need to pilot these provisions carefully with the police and work out how best use can be made of these proportionate measures, the scheme should work well.
Lord Renton: Having listened carefully to the Minister, I hope that he will give this matter further thought between now and Report stage. What may happen is this. A constable deciding to ask an accused person to pay the immediate penalty may be influenced by mere folly or by excessive zeal. He may have no valid reason but may hope to get away with it. If we simply stick to the subjective test, he may get away with it, or—and this will lead to public expense—the accused person may think the circumstances
500
unreasonable and may refuse a penalty and have to be taken to court. I implore the noble Lord, in the public interest, to bear those factors in mind.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I merely want to add to the accurate comment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. There is a fault-line running through the Minister's argument about applying on-the-spot fines to what he terms "lower order offences". All such offences can be taken to court, in which case they are not lower order offences at all; they are ordinary offences for which the normal criminal test applies. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House whether there is any example in our legal system of this duality of test applying in the way that it does in this case. I doubt whether there is. If there is, it should not be there; it is a logical nonsense
Lord Thomas of Gresford: What we are really discussing is lower-order plea bargaining. Public policy in this country has always set its face against plea bargaining which involves this sentence. Time and again, the Court of Appeal has said that the judge who imposes the sentence should play no part in the decision as to whether a prosecution is continued, what charges are accepted, and so on. We are talking about the police station where the police officer says, "Well, look, I'm not really sure that I can get a conviction as a result of the disorderly conduct for which you've been arrested. I can try. I could take you to the court for affray; I could take you to the court under Section 5 and, if I get a conviction, you would get something on your record that will always be with you. On the other hand, if you pay this penalty under the notice, you will hear no more about it. It won't be on your record and it won't be a conviction. Just pay up and that'll be the end of it". That is the whole problem with this system.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: I came entirely fresh to this argument. However, I have listened most carefully to what has been said during the past half-hour. The arguments in support of the amendment have been put forward with overwhelming reason and force. This is a serious matter; indeed, more serious than might immediately appear to be the case. We all know that the police will do their best; but we all know that police officers may be tempted to use this facility in a way that was doubtless not intended by Ministers. However, the temptation would be there, and it ought not to be. I urge the Minister to think again and to accept the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I wonder whether the Minister intends to say anything further on the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall certainly reflect upon all the comments that have been made. However, I make that observation with no commitment to take such reflection beyond that point. I accept that the arguments have been put honestly and with integrity, coupled with a concern to get the matter right I return to the point that I made at the outset of my response; namely, that this proposition will assist law

501
enforcement. It will enable police officers to make reasonable judgments as to what is the right and appropriate way forward. It will add to a panoply of ways of tackling yobbish and anti-social behaviour. Indeed, it will entail a degree of consent between the police officer on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the person who is the subject of the allegation and who the police officer reasonably believes has committed an offence that can best be dealt with through a fixed penalty notice. Moreover, there are reasonable measures in place to ensure that the individual's rights are properly protected. I am not prepared to go any further on the amendment.
Lord Windlesham: Perhaps I may add this as a footnote. When he attended a meeting last week to which representatives of all parties who are interested in the Bill were invited, the Home Secretary made it quite clear that he would take careful account of what was said in this House. We appreciated that fact. I ask the Minister to report back to the Home Secretary in person what has been said. Perhaps he will draw attention to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, who has held very high responsibility in this exact field, has added his own weight after hearing the argument.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I feel duty bound to do exactly as the noble Lord suggests. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary did indeed make that commitment.
Baroness Buscombe: Notwithstanding the commitment that the Home Secretary made last week and despite the fact that it is early days yet in this Committee stage, I have to say that I am a little disappointed that the Government have responded to a number of the points raised this evening in exactly the same way as they did both in Committee and on Report in another place. Therefore, I do not have a great deal of faith that the arguments so forcefully put forward this evening will make any difference. I strongly believe that the amendment would add credibility to the whole principle that the Government are determined to take forward in relation to this new vehicle—this hybrid offence. That being the case, we should like to press the amendment and test the opinion of the Committee. We believe that it should be accepted.
7.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 98.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Astor of Hever, L

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Attlee, E.

Ashcroft, L.

Barker, B.

Astor, V.

Blatch, B.

502

Bradshaw, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McNally, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Maddock, B.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Byford, B.

Marlesford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Colwyn, L.

Monson, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Northover, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Falkland, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fookes, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Razzall, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Glentoran, L.

Roper, L.

Goodhart, L

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Greenway, L.

Selborne E

Hambro, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hamwee, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Stewartby, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Tope, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Waddington, L.

Jopling, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Kingsland, L.

Walmsley, B.

Ludford, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Luke, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lyell, L.

Windlesham, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ahmed, L.

Goudie, B.

Amos, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bach, L.

Grenfell, L.

Barnett, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Berkeley, L.

Haskel, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hayman, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blease, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Brennan, L.

Hollick, L.

Brett, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brookman, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Burlison, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Chandos, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Islwyn, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

Crawley, B.

David, B

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Desai, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Dubs, L

Lipsey, L.

Elder, L.

Lockwood, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Filkin, L

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Gale, B

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Gilbert, L.

Mitchell, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Molloy, L.

503

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Thornton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Ramsay of Carl vale, B.

Tumberg, L.

Rea, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Uddin, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Whitty, L.

Simon, V.

Wilkins, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Symons of Verriham Dean, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 3, after "aged" insert "16 or over, or (in the case of a penalty offence which may only he committed by a person aged 18 or over) aged"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would reduce to 16 the age at which a person could receive a notice. There is no doubt that the kinds of offences for which Part 1 of this Bill are intended are often committed by those under the age of 18. The House of Commons Library estimates that 25 per cent of all offences are committed by persons under 18 and many of those are in the 16 to 18 age range.
Given the kinds of offences set out in Clause 1, it will surely be extremely hard for police officers to differentiate between offenders over and under the age of 18. In Committee in another place the Government argued that police officers have to deal with that situation every day. However, with respect, they have not had to deal with this procedure hitherto. The provision will also mean that where a group of young people commit an arrestable offence, those over the age of 18 can get off with a fine if they can pay it, but those under the age of 18 will be arrested and tried in a court of law, can be convicted and thereby earn themselves a criminal record. Is that what the Government intend? And is it reasonable?
We know that the Government are reluctant to invoke any new system which might upset the reforms to the youth justice system introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We on these Benches are, however, not at all persuaded that it is right that the kind of minor offences envisaged by the Government to apply to on-the-spot penalty notices should not apply to 16 to 18 year-olds. Why cannot these penalty notices complement the progressive system of reprimand in certain limited circumstances as listed in Clause 1 of the Bill? Would they not act as a useful deterrent showing that the law will bite without delay if people are intent upon disorderly and anti-social behaviour? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The question of whether under- 18s should be included in the schemes is a very significant one. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place, a balanced judgment has been made not to include the under-18s in these provisions. The reforms to the youth justice
504
system introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are in place and working well and, tempting though it might be, we feel that it is better not to destabilise that position by adding penalty notices to the range of options available.
At present, a person under 18 is subject to a strictly progressive system of reprimand, final warning and charge in which there is positive intervention by youth offending teams to confront the offender with the consequences of his or her actions. The addition of financial penalties of the kind set out in this chapter of the Bill do not fit well into that tightly controlled and much praised framework and risk causing serious disruption to it.
Some people under 18 would be dependent on their parents to pay the penalty for them. Some speakers have already said that it would be unfortunate to put in place penalties which catch those not directly involved or who should not or are not able to pay. That raises the prospect of juveniles having to respond to penalty notices on the basis of their parents' willingness or otherwise to pay, rather than from their own choice. We want to confront young people with choices and the issue of responsibility.
We believe that it is preferable to ensure that under 18 year-olds are confronted with the consequences of their actions through the current arrangements than possibly to confuse those arrangements by attempting to dovetail them to the new penalty scheme.
Noble Lords on the Opposition Benches have to decide whether they want to narrow or broaden the effect of fixed penalty notices. If we were to adopt the course urged upon us by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, we should be unnecessarily broadening the scheme when we want it to have a proper, appropriate and better focused application to issues of disorder and yob behaviour. For all those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I have listened with care to what the Minister said. I am disappointed with the response although not surprised by it. Much that the noble Lord said was stated in another place. However, we felt it important to air this important point again. When we met the Secretary of State last week—on behalf of these Benches perhaps I may say how grateful we were to have that opportunity—he said that it was, in his words, a close call as to whether or not these offences should impinge also upon those aged 16 and 17.
I find the argument about dependency of tinder 18 year-olds upon parents to pay the penalty a somewhat spurious red herring. Why should we not turn to parents to pay a penalty fine for those over the age of 18? Parents do not stop supporting young people as soon as they reach 18. The Government have ensured that parents have to continue to support young people over the age of 18 with regard to tuition fees and means-tested grants for university. There is no question of a cut off in any family home because an individual reaches the age of 18.

505
I shall not press the amendment. I continue to believe that it would have supported and assisted the youth justice system rather than disrupting it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2001
7.33 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that these draft regulations be approved. In so doing, I shall speak also to the other Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper. I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate that the regulations and order are designed to achieve the same purpose, which is why it makes sense to consider them together. I shall also endeavour to show that all of the provisions contained in these regulations are uncontentious and deserve your Lordships' support.
The purpose of all these instruments is to correct some minor defects in existing regulations. Let me first, on behalf of the Government, apologise unreservedly for those defects. All I can say is that mistakes can happen in the best run of departments and I hope that your Lordships will be forgiving.
The genesis of these regulations was a debate that was held during the recent passage of the Elections Act 2001, which is the Act which postponed the local elections until June. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, tabled an amendment to correct a defect in respect of the supply of electoral register updates. Responding, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said that the Government were sympathetic to the purpose behind the amendment but that we did not feel that the Elections Bill, as it then was, was the right vehicle to make the change in question. Instead, my noble friend made a commitment to your Lordships that, as quickly as possible, we would bring forward self-contained regulations to correct the defect. The result is the four sets of provisions that are currently before your Lordships' House.
The first three sets of regulations relate to parliamentary and local government elections in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, while the fourth—the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) (No. 3)
506
Order 2001—relates to elections to the Scottish Parliament. As I have indicated, the main purpose of all four sets of provisions relates to the supply of updates of the electoral register which come about as a consequence of the introduction of rolling registration.
Regulations 46 and 47 of the various Representation of the People Regulations 2001, which came into force earlier this year, deal with the supply of free copies of the electoral register either on request or automatically. Regulation 46 provides for the automatic supply of the register, together with the monthly updates to it made under rolling registration, to bodies such as the Electoral Commission, the Secretary of State and the British Library. Regulation 47 provides for the supply of the register on request to MPs, councillors, the political parties and candidates.
Although the intention was also to provide for the supply of the monthly updates under Regulation 46 to MPs, councillors and candidates, in the event this was not specified in the regulation. Some electoral administrators have interpreted the regulation to mean that they are unable to do so. Others have taken a different view and interpreted the regulation in the spirit in which it was intended and have supplied the monthly updates to these people.
Clearly this situation is unsatisfactory and the main purpose of the regulations before your Lordships' House is to put it beyond doubt that monthly updates should be supplied to those involved in contesting elections.
For the sake of completeness, I should make clear that in the case of elections to the Scottish Parliament which, as I have indicated are the subject of the fourth Motion, the relevant instrument is the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999. However, the changes made by article 3 of this order are the same as those being made in respect of Westminster parliamentary elections by the other regulations.
Regulation 3 of each of these regulations deals with the definition of the term "data". Regulation 3(1) of the various 2001 regulations (and paragraph 7 of the Scottish Parliament election regulations) define "data" as having the same meaning as in Section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. But that definition includes data other than electronically held data. In the 2001 regulations, the term data is meant only to refer to electronically held data. Accordingly, Regulation 3 of these regulations substitutes a new definition of data which derives from paragraph (b) of the definition in the 1998 Act and confines it only to electronically held data.
The regulations contain a couple of other minor points. Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the England and Wales regulations are designed to introduce a measure of consistency. Under Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000, people may apply for an absent vote for,
"an indefinite or particular period".
However, the 2001 regulations, when dealing with the same issue, refer to a "definite or indefinite period" and to a "defined" period. The regulations simply change "definite" and "defined" to "particular" to ensure consistency with the original Act.
Finally, I deal with Regulation 6 of the England and Wales regulations, which is Regulation 5 of the first set of Scotland regulations. Regulation 56(5) of the 2001 regulations provides that if a voter who has been granted an absent vote wants instead to vote in person, their application to be removed from the list of those who have been granted absent votes must be received by 5 p.m. on the 11th day before the date of the poll if it is to have effect for that election. Once that deadline has passed, the returning officer is likely to start sending out postal ballot papers.
However, various other provisions relating to proxy votes have a deadline of 5 p.m. on the sixth day before the date of the poll. These include cases in which the proxy no longer wishes to act in that capacity. The problem with that is that in a relatively small number of cases those who act as proxies vote by post. Potentially, therefore, a proxy could quite properly apply to cease to be a proxy after a ballot paper had already been sent to him.
Accordingly, Regulations 6 and 5 of these regulations amend Regulation 56(5) to introduce a common closing time so that all such applications need to be received by the registration officer by the same point, which will be 5 p.m. on the 11th working day before the date of the poll. Article 4 of the second Scottish instrument makes a corresponding change for elections to the Scottish Parliament.
I have done my best to explain the purpose of the regulations in straightforward language. I hope that I have not been too technical or too confusing. I emphasise that they are designed to correct minor and, in some cases, purely drafting defects. The only substantive change they make is to ensure that those who are supplied with copies of the electoral register on an annual basis can also receive the monthly updates to it. I am sure that all your Lordships can see the benefits of that. We have consulted the Electoral Commission on the regulations and it has endorsed them. I therefore hope that your Lordships will see fit to approve all the instruments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd April be approved. [14th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Viscount 13ridgeman: My Lords, I, too, acknowledge the generous response of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to the amendment that my noble friend Lord Cope and I tabled to the Elections Bill. We are grateful to the Government for giving prompt effect to the intentions behind that amendment. All political parties will be grateful for the regulations, which will save them all considerable expense. We support them.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I shall speak on behalf of my party in respect of the first three measures. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie will deal with the fourth as it relates to the Scottish Parliament.
It is obviously correct that the regulations should be passed. It is plainly desirable that those who receive annual copies of the register should also receive the monthly updates. It is essential for candidates and political parties to do so. I entirely support the amendments that these new regulations make to the existing regulations.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for explaining the Scottish parliamentary order. I hope that I have understood it. The No. 3 order deals with the provision of electoral registers and tidies up the implications of the rolling register and the various means by which it is now recorded and distributed. Presumably it refers to electronic records and CDs.
The No. 3 order also sets down a final date 11 days before an election for an elector to remove their name from the register of absent and proxy votes. I hope that the Government will promote the use of the absent vote, by which we mean the postal vote. I accept that there is potential for electoral fraud, but I believe that many electors would find a postal vote surprisingly convenient. A campaign to promote postal voting may even increase the turnout, which is desirable.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister on the Scottish order. He may have answered the first and I missed it, because, even though he tried to use ordinary language, he was describing something rather complicated. People will be able to remove their name from the list of absent voters up to the 11th working day before the poll. Is that the same for Westminster parliamentary elections? It ought to be, but I just wondered.
I have lost my place. If the Minister could answer that question, I may think of the other one in a moment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hope that I am able to answer the questions without provoking further ones, lest I get into deep waters.
I very much appreciate the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who recognised the desirability of ensuring that the crucial data on the electoral roll are available in the most up-to-date form possible to all concerned with contesting elections.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked about the 11 days. We are bringing the two dates into line so that we do not have a ridiculous situation in which a person can withdraw from being a proxy after the ballot paper has already been designated to them. I entirely accept the noble Earl's point that we should facilitate the exercise of the democratic opportunity in

509
the best way we can. He is right that improved ways in which we can facilitate postal votes may assist in that. The regulations merely bring the dates into line and in no way inhibit that. The noble Earl will recognise that a number of steps have been taken in recent years to promote the opportunity to obtain the right to vote by post, which meet his substantive point.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I was seeking to say—although perhaps not as coherently as I might have done—that the 11 days are days on which the clock ticks towards an election date. As she rightly said, they are often called working days because they are days of the week, excluding bank holidays and one or two other days that are outwith the parliamentary calendar. Therefore, she is absolutely right in her assumption that it is intended to bring the Scottish position fully into line with, and be totally consistent with, that of Westminster.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I apologise for having lost my place earlier. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether the security of the relationship between the postal vote and the voter is the same as for Westminster. If it should turn out that the system does not work very well, will the Government suggest to the Scots Parliament that it be changed before the Scottish Parliament elections? I believe that we are very keen that people should be able to vote by post. However, that must not be abused, and I wonder whether the system for the Scottish Parliament elections will be the same.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I believe that I can assure the noble Baroness that the arrangements are to be the same. I can also assure her that our increasing experience of the extended opportunity for postal voting enables us to guarantee, in the phrase that she used, security; that is, the person on whose behalf the vote is cast will be the person who has received and cast the vote and who has signed accordingly. Any proxy arrangement is common to all the elections in those terms. Therefore, I believe that I can assure her on that point. In doing so, I hope that I can assure the House of the significance of the regulations and orders and of the justification behind them. At the same time, I apologise for the small administrative reason which gave rise to them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2001
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2001
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2001
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2001
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order amends the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999, which makes provision for the conduct of elections and the return of Members to the Scottish Parliament. The Electoral Commission has been consulted, as required by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
The changes amend the timetable for proceedings to fill a vacancy in a constituency seat of the Scottish Parliament and align it with the minimum notice required for an election to the UK Parliament. That will mean that an election to fill a vacancy in a constituency seat in the Scottish Parliament can be held more easily on the same day as a UK Parliament general election or by-election.
It makes sense for by-elections to the Scottish Parliament to be held at the same time as the general election, whenever that may be called. As shown by evidence on voter turnout, we know that, when faced with a number of elections, electors prefer to vote on the same day.
However, the present provisions in the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order would not permit polls on the same day if a general election were called, as it could be, at notice which is less than the shortest period required for notification of a Scottish Parliament by-election. At present, the relevant returning officer must publish notice of an election to the Scottish Parliament not sooner than the
511
28th working day and not later than the 21st working day before the date of the poll. That is the same timetable as for Scottish local government elections.
However, the writ for a general election to the UK Parliament can be issued up to 17 working days before the poll and only 14 working days in the case of a by-election. That means that, if there is need for an election to fill a constituency vacancy in the Scottish Parliament at approximately the same time as an election is to be held for the UK Parliament, voters in Scotland may be faced with two elections held within a very short time of each other.
The changes brought about by the new order will not apply to the timetable for general elections to the Scottish Parliament, thereby retaining the significant link with local government elections in Scotland; nor will they alter the returning officer's earliest date for publication of the notice of election. However, the latest date for publication will now match the last date possible for calling a UK Parliament election.
Similarly, for the delivery of nomination papers, the same earliest date has been retained within the timetable, but the latest possible date for delivery will now match that within the timetable for an election to the UK Parliament. Therefore, that will allow the returning officer maximum flexibility. I ask the House to support the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Conimittee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, for explaining this Scottish parliamentary order. It was not long ago that we had before us the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) Order—a substantial document extending to 19 pages. Tonight, we are adding amendments to that order. Those seem to be benign in character and probably correct hidden and unintended omissions from the original amendment order. I presume that the references to the No. 2 and the previous No. 3 amendment orders presuppose that the earlier order was No. 1.
It would be uncharacteristic of me not to comment on the Explanatory Notes. While I recognise that this order originates from the Secretary of State for Scotland, I understand why there is no ultra-clear Executive Note from the Scottish Parliament—it is not consulted on this reserved matter. However, I am pleased to say that the Explanatory Notes given tonight deserve a plaudit rather than a brickbat. May clarity remain a virtue at Meridian Court in Glasgow.
This No. 2 order introduces a new timetable for a by-election for a constituency seat. Both the notice of election and the return of nomination papers are given a wider period within which to operate, and they are brought closer to the actual poll. Presumably, that is aimed at increasing the participation of candidates. If so, that is good. I note the possibility of combining a by-election with a UK general election.
512
It should be noted that thus far there have been two by-elections for the Scottish Parliament—both constituency by-elections in Ayr and in the seat of the late and much respected First Minister, Donald Dewar. Another is, of course, pending following the resignation of Dr Sam Galbraith. Perhaps that by-election will be covered by these new rules.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I, too, have looked at the Explanatory Notes. The last paragraph states that the 1999 order was also amended by the Scots Parliament. However, the amendments made by that order were not relevant to the purposes of this order. Can the noble Baroness explain that so we all understand everything we are doing? The order appears to be an excellent idea.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to this order. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has been very kind about the Explanatory Notes. We have taken on board his comments and, indeed, the comments from the Front Bench opposite about the differences in the quality of the Executive Notes which the Scottish Parliament produces. But, as we explained previously, they are intended for slightly different purposes.
However, we have taken on board comments made consistently in this House about the various orders and legislation taken through by the Scottish Office here that the Explanatory Notes should be more enlightening than sometimes they have been in the past. We are very glad to hear that, in this case, they have met with approval. The noble Earl is right that there is not an Executive Note. This order does not require the Scottish Parliament to act. It is very much a reserved matter.
The noble Earl suggested that the order might increase the participation of candidates; in fact, it is intended to increase the participation of voters. The idea is that having two elections within a very short time of one another is not the way in which to encourage people to go to the polls. We are trying to make it possible, when the timings fit, to have votes on the same day.
Two elections would be affected by the order. The first, as the noble Earl said, is that resulting from the vacancy at Strathkelvin and Bearsden; the other, I understand, is the election at Banff and Buchan, where there could be a constituency election to the Scottish Parliament on the same day as the UK general election, whenever that might be.
The noble Earl rightly suggested that the first order was the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) Order 2001. I have moved the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2001. It is referred to as "No. 2" because it was tabled in this Parliament before the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2001, which was correctly grouped with the other regulations that we recently considered because they all relate to the register of voters.

513
I turn to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I am advised that the earlier amendment order, which dealt with a completely different matter, was not at all concerned with the election timetable. That is why it was amended by the Scottish Parliament. The subject matter of the orders is a reserved matter.
I hope that, with those elucidations, the House will agree to the order.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, that means that the same order was amended by the Scots Parliament in relation to a devolved matter and is now being amended in this Parliament as a reserved matter. Is that what the Minister is saying? It is rather interesting that the two Parliaments can both amend the same order.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, that is my understanding; if I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Baroness and put a copy of that letter in the Library. The Explanatory Notes state that the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999 was amended by the Scottish Parliament. My advice is that that amendment dealt with a completely different matter and was not concerned with the election timetable. My understanding, from my advice, is that what the noble Baroness said is correct.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.3 to 8.35 p.m.]

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert "or produce his warrant card for inspection by the person to whom the notice is given"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 9, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. This group relates to the giving of false information and particulars in relation to penalty notices and related procedures.
Amendment No. 9 is a straightforward, simple amendment which is designed to bring some flexibility into the system. It is a probing amendment which seeks the opinion of the Minister on whether or not a police officer, out of uniform and witnessing an offence, must stand by and ignore the offence because of the clothes he happens to be wearing.
We on these Benches believe that it makes sense to allow an officer who may, for example, be active in the line of duty but for surveillance reasons be in plain
514
clothes, to apprehend an offender as long as he or she is able to produce their warrant card for inspection by the person to whom the notice is given.
At the risk of repeating myself, we support the principle behind the fixed penalty notice system for some minor offences. However, it is the practical implications of invoking the on-the-spot fine that concern us. Indeed, many of our amendments in Part I focus on the hows and wherefores on behalf of our over-worked, under-resourced but nevertheless superb police force which, frankly, deserves unreserved praise for its work. We appreciate that Part I is supposed to help them in their fight, on our behalf, against crime.
We need to bear in mind the many situations in which officers find themselves where it might be possible to give a penalty notice. In many of those situations, the offender or, more likely, offenders, will be drunk, disorderly, possibly abusive and uncontrolled in their overall behaviour. What chance then that they will co-operate with the police, give their correct details and go quietly on their way? I would say, "Slim chance". Indeed, having read the draft guidance to the police on penalty notices for disorder sent to my honourable friend in another place, Oliver Heald MP, on 26th February 2001, I wonder whether we are almost wasting our time debating these points. The proposed exceptions to the use of on-the-spot fines are so extensive and, in many cases, rightly so, that they may prove to be a big non-event, which is often the case when Prime Ministers come up with off-the-cuff big ideas that bear no relation to reality. Part 1 seems to come from the quote by the Prime Minister of 5th July 2000,
"There should be on-the-spot fines for those people who engage in disorderly conduct. Summary justice, on the spot, is the essence of the proposal".
Of course, there is the alternative of taking the offender to the police station. But in using that argument, as I suspect the Minister will, is the on-the-spot fine going to be a viable proposition in practice? Our belief is that, without the threat of a further offence committed if the person fails to give the correct details, the answer is no. That is why Amendment No. 13 is important. It provides an express deterrent against the provision of false information in relation to the name, address and date of birth of the person to whom the penalty notice is given.
As I have already said, the police officer concerned will be dealing with a tough situation. No matter what any code of practice or guidance notes issued under Clause 6 may say with regard to the steps the police officer must take to ensure that the information given by the offender at the time is correct, in practice it is going to be extremely difficult to achieve results without the threat of a further offence hanging over the offender, drunk or otherwise. I beg to move.
Lord Brennan: Earlier I commented to the House that it is extremely important that the fixed penalty system should be capable of effective enforcement. I speak to Amendment No. 13, for which I have some sympathy. If there is no effective way of ensuring that

515
people do not undermine the system by giving false information, the fixed penalty system will be gravely damaged. I invite the Government to give sympathetic consideration, not just to another fixed penalty offence but to a criminal offence of not properly complying with the fixed penalty system.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 15 in this group. The amendment seeks to require the formalities in connection with the giving of fixed penalty notices to indicate clearly to the person accused, if that is the right expression, how the elements of the specific offence are satisfied in a way which is compatible with Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. That provision deals with proof by written statement.
The object of this exercise is simple. It seeks to ensure that notices when given are compatible with one of the linchpins of the criminal justice system. It will be obvious to the House that many of those who will be involved in these offences will not necessarily understand how their behaviour constitutes the alleged offence. There will be many suspects who do not seek legal advice. I would say that the majority will not. Others, despite the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, will have literacy, language and learning problems, although there will be many who do not. Therefore, it makes sense to clarify exactly how they are implicated. The amendment seeks to do that.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I shall address the three amendments in the group separately. I begin with the proposal in Amendment No. 9, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that plain clothes officers should be able to give penalty notices for disorder. We do not believe that it is appropriate for plain clothes officers to issue penalty notices.
An essential part of the concept of the penalty notice scheme, and part of its usefulness, is that the action is taken by a uniformed officer who is visible and public. Such visibility would be reduced if the officer was in plain clothes. In addition, the giving of fixed penalties is a role clearly associated in practice with that of a uniformed rather than a plain clothes officer. It is a formal offer of the opportunity to discharge liability for conviction. Although clearly that is not a charge, if the offender were to be charged and went to the police station, this would be done by a uniformed officer.
I do not believe that the extension of the power to give penalty notices in that way would be appropriate. However, recognise one part of the force of the contribution of the noble Baroness; namely, that we would not want to render the plain clothes police officer powerless when he is witness to an offence. He will still be able to arrest or report for summons. The individual would then be taken to the police station where a uniformed officer would issue the fixed penalty notice. The contention behind the Government's position is clear. Fixed penalty notices are important documents and it is important that they should be given by an officer in uniform or at a police station in order to emphasise their importance.
516
I turn to Amendment No. 13. We recognise that correct identification details will be essential to the efficient operation of the new system. I recognise the contribution on this point made my noble friend Lord Brennan. We are not so naive as to believe that every offender engaged in disorderly or antisocial behaviour will volunteer correct information when asked. It is for that reason that we have built in a range of safeguards to deal with that potential problem. We believe that such safeguards make the creation of a new offence envisaged in the amendment unnecessary.
First, the Bill includes a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police about the issue of notices and the exercise of discretion under the new scheme. We intend to issue such guidance making clear that penalty notices should not be issued when identification is in doubt and that powers are available under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to arrest offenders and take them to a police station for proper identification to be established.
Secondly, we believe that the deliberate telling of a lie to a police officer in those circumstances could be charged as an offence of wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty under the Police Act 1996.
Thirdly, if a penalty notice is completed with false particulars of the offender, those may relate to a person completely unconnected to the offence. If so, the first that person is likely to know about it is when he receives a notice informing him that a fine has been registered against him. We have included special provision in Clause 10 to deal with such a situation. Briefly, a default court considering the case will have the power to adjourn to allow the claim that the named person did not commit the offence to be investigated. It will then have to accept the claim unless the contrary can be shown. The court also has the power to set aside the fine in the interests of justice.
The fourth safeguard is against the possibility that a juvenile offender falsely claims to be over 18 and in consequence is issued with a penalty notice. We believe that in those circumstances the notice would be void, and provided the offender was informed of that and why, and any payment returned, it would be possible to deal with the juvenile for the offence in any way that would have been possible had the notice not been issued.
We believe that those various ways of handling the provision of false identification evidence are sufficient to deal with the problem to which noble Lords have alluded, and that the creation of a new offence is therefore unnecessary. If, as I hope I have shown, sufficient remedies already exist to cope with false personal details, which we do not deny could be a factor in the new arrangements, there is no need to create yet another offence to deal with the problem. I am afraid, therefore, that we are not able to accept the amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 15, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The amendment seeks to require a police officer issuing a penalty notice to provide detailed information about why he says that

517
the recipient of the notice has committed the offence in a form which would be admissible in court under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 as oral evidence given by the police constable who issued the notice.
We do not believe that that is necessary. The information about the offence to be given under Clause 3, as presently drafted, should be sufficient to inform the penalty notice recipient of the specific offence he is alleged to have committed.
If after considering the matter the person receiving the notice does not accept that the offence is committed, he is free to opt to go to court. If he does so, he will be prosecuted in the normal way with the full protection of the criminal law, including the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
We do not therefore believe that it is necessary at this stage, when the notice is issued, for this level of detail to be provided. I am therefore unable to accept the amendment.
Lord Brennan: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may again raise the question of Amendment No. 13 and invite those who advise him to consider the following two points between now and Report stage.
First, I fully accept the range of alternatives that he mentioned in relation to the failure to give proper information. However, when one introduces a new system into society people will ask obvious questions. One obvious question is, "What will happen to me if I don't give the right information?". The four alternatives might be considerably complicated for the ordinary yobbo in the street, with whom we are apparently dealing.
Secondly, to the best of my recollection, a fixed penalty notice for a parking offence contains an express provision stating that if one does not give the correct information a particular criminal offence has been committed. If we are to introduce the concept of fixed penalties, could those advising the Minister take into account that there should be consistency in the working of the system?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand the force of the arguments presented by my noble friend. He is right in saying that the new system will throw up issues which we need to consider in advance of implementation. I believe that we have had due regard to the scenario he has depicted. I recognise that the parking fine notices are in a different form and contain a definition of the circumstances in which fixed penalty notices will be implemented. We shall certainly consider the points he has raised.
Baroness Buscombe: I listened to the Minister's response to our Amendments Nos. 9 and 13. In relation to Amendment No. 9, I do not understand why it makes a difference whether or not the officer is in uniform. I hear the Minister's point that if the officer is in plain clothes he can arrest that person and take him to the station, but I do not understand the
518
logic behind the provision. Why does the fact of whether the officer is or is not in uniform make a difference to whether an offence can stand?
In relation to Amendment No. 13, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, took the words out of my mouth. I was grateful to the Minister for setting out the different safeguards, but although I have taken a long, hard look at the Bill through its various stages I found difficulty in finding them.
The system is new and many questions will be asked. Indeed, we are asking questions today about issues which had not previously occurred to us; for example, in relation to legal aid. Surely the Government will want to make it as straightforward and simple as possible for anyone to understand that providing false information carries with it a real sting in the tail.
Whenever I have received a notice for a parking offence I have always been aware of that sting in the tail; that if anything false is written, a criminal offence has been committed. In order for the provision to be effective, it is important that that should be on the face of the Bill. I believe that our amendment is clear and simple and much easier than trying to invoke all the different safeguards.
However, I hear the Minister's reply and his undertaking to consider the points that we have raised. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 8, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: I have a brief, simple question in relation to Amendments Nos. 10 and 12. Why must a penalty notice be given only by an authorised constable at a police station when any constable can issue a penalty notice on the street? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is at the chief officer's discretion as to which constables should be authorised. We do not wish to fetter that, but the amendment, which I realise is a probing amendment, would do so. We believe that it is right operationally that the opportunity should exist for chief police officers to control the issue of penalty notices at police stations. They will do so through those who they authorise to issue them and they must give careful consideration to that.
We do not believe that it is an onerous provision. We believe that it is a sensible tool partly for managerial control purposes.
Baroness Buscombe: I do not understand the procedure. When the penalty notice is being issued on the street, the chief police officer has no discretion; so why is it suddenly different in the police station?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It will be the case that the chief officer will want to be confident that the person

519
issuing the ticket is more than competent to do so and has been properly trained for that. I am sure that that is an important part of the process in the police station.
Baroness Buscombe: I wonder whether I should have made this more than a probing amendment because I am not satisfied with the Minister's response. I shall not press the amendment, but I ask him to think carefully about this simple question: is it really consistent? On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Amount of penalty and form of penalty notice]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
"() The Secretary of State may, in respect of a penalty offence contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c. 48), specify the amount of compensation for which a person may be liable."
The noble Baroness said: I was incorrect in not moving Amendment No. 11, but I can pick up the point with Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 in relation to compensation. These are probing amendments and reflect our continued concern with the Government's will to include criminal damage as an offence leading to an on-the-spot fine. The point was raised earlier today by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley.
As the Bill is drafted, there is no opportunity for a victim of criminal damage (where the fixed penalty system is applied) to receive compensation. The amendments would enable the Secretary of State to set a level of compensation that could be awarded to the victim in relation to the fixed penalty.
When the issue of compensation for victims of on-the-spot fines was debated in Committee in another place, the Government sought to reassure the Opposition that they will state in the guidance that where a person can be identified as a victim, no penalty notice should be issued. Further, the Minister of State made it clear that penalty notices should be reserved for cases in which the victims are unknown or are corporate bodies unlikely to seek compensation in minor cases.
This explanation for dealing with the important question of compensation tells me that it is an afterthought prompted by a diligent Opposition, rather like when the little matter of whether or not penalty notices attracted a criminal record was raised by Her Majesty's Opposition at Second Reading in another place. Clearly, the Government were not sure.
We are pleased with the direction in which the Government are heading with regard to compensation. However, we also believe that their intention to exclude from the fixed penalty route all cases where there is a known victim is fundamental and should therefore be on the face of the Bill. As ever with this Government, far too much that is fundamental to the effectiveness of the legislation is being left to
520
guidance notes which may—I stress that word—be issued by the Secretary of State. That gives us no opportunity to debate the matter on the Floor of either House. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: Before the Minister replies, can he tell me at this stage, or later in writing if it is not possible to respond now, whether there has been any consultation with Victim Support on the issue just raised by the noble Baroness? In putting that question I declare an interest as president of Victim Support.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are in sympathy with the idea that victims of criminal damage should not be denied the opportunity to receive compensation; indeed, we are determined to ensure that the penalty scheme does not do so. We believe that the best way to achieve the objective is to ensure that guidance is given to the police that, where a victim may wish to claim compensation, no penalty notice is issued in the first instance. Penalty notices should be reserved for those cases where the circumstances of the case suggest that compensation is unlikely to be sought. This could include, for example, victims who are corporate bodies that are known to be unlikely to seek compensation in minor cases. This is a matter which will require very careful study during the pilot phase.
This amendment would ask a great deal of a police officer dealing with such a case. He would have to evaluate the scale of the damage and assess whether it was likely to exceed the compensation payable under the penalty notice. It is very difficult to see how a figure could properly be set for compensation under such an arrangement. There would be a good deal of opportunity for disagreement and difficulty where the victim disputed a damage assessment, or believed that an amount fixed by the Secretary of State was inadequate in his particular case. We believe that the setting of compensation is properly a matter for the courts, and that our proposals to deal with this issue in guidance represents a balanced approach. They allow the police discretion to deal with minor offending swiftly without removing the expectation of individuals that compensation will be considered.
The amendment would also lead to additional bureaucracy and administrative difficulty. Systems would have to record victims' names and compensation amounts and be able to pay the appropriate sums to victims and account for them. We believe that if corporate victims or public authorities wish to discuss the application of the scheme to damage to their property, the crime and disorder partnerships provide an excellent forum for discussion at local level. We are in favour of victims of criminal damage receiving compensation if a court so decides, but we believe that the way to achieve that is by guidance to the police about the issue of tickets, not by the complex means of building compensation into the scheme. For those reasons we cannot possibly accept the amendments.

521
To pick up the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, we have not consulted Victim Support about issues of compensation. Obviously, we shall be more than happy to consult that body before we issue the guidance. The noble Baroness complained that the Government placed too much emphasis on codes of practice and guidance. I recall that that was an argument which my party deployed when the House considered important pieces of legislation such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I believe that that Act can be described as famously important for its many codes of practice and guidance. Ultimately, we accepted that piece of legislation in good faith. We believe that those codes of practice and guidance have served very well the police and also those who are the subject of charges and allegations. There must be a degree of trust in these matters, but guidance needs to be subject to very careful consultation.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments. I am disappointed. The question of compensation is so important. I believe that it is an afterthought but it should be on the face of the Bill. The Minister said that codes of practice had worked well. If the noble Lord says that when in opposition his party advanced a similar argument, my response is: why not implement it in government? I shall not press the matter and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Secretary of State's guidance]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 23, leave out "issue guidance" and insert "by order issue a code of practice"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17 takes us in more detail to the question of guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State. As my noble friend has just pointed out, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State "may" issue such guidance. Clearly, it should say "shall" because the Government rely heavily on it and have distributed copies of the drafts. However, I do not press that. We believe that this might be better issued instead as a code of practice; it would have slightly more force. Although we have not specifically suggested it in the amendment, it could be made subject to proceedings in this House and in another place so as to give more formality to the code of practice and, hence, make the position clearer if the policeman is thought to have gone outside the guidance in the course of issuing a particular penalty notice.
I believe that inevitably the guidance will be a little vague in some respects. One sees that by looking at the draft guidance. Although it is obvious that those concerned have done their best, there will be matters of judgment in it. What is the legal position if a policeman is thought to have gone outside the guidance in the
522
course of issuing the penalty? Clearly, the matter can end up in court, but is the court entitled to take account of the guidance which the Home Secretary has given?
The other four amendments in the group all relate to more detailed points on the guidance. Amendment No. 18 suggests that the constable's witness statement should be covered in the guidance as to the form, length and kind of detail that is required. That is obviously important if the matter does not finish with a penalty notice but goes on to become a court case. It could also be important for the person concerned when deciding whether or not to go on to a court case. If there is a powerful statement of case against him—an "open and shut" case, as it were—he would obviously be best advised to settle there and then at penalty. If there is not, he might be best advised to go to court and argue about the matter, particularly given that the standard of proof required is higher against the Crown if the matter goes to court.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham asked whether or not the individual will have legal advice. We can no doubt get an answer to that question in due course.
Amendment No. 19 concerns whether or not the constable is to take account of the apparent means of the individual concerned to pay the penalty specified. That will make a difference because some people obviously would readily pay a penalty and might accept it as part of life's rich pattern, in the way that people accept parking fines. Every now and then the best of us gets caught for a parking fine of one kind or another and one has to cough up and go ahead. Given the amounts that might be involved, it is not so easy for everyone to do that.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 concern the seriousness of the actual cases which will be raised. In Amendment No. 20 we suggest that a penalty notice should not be issued when there is considerable risk to life and safety and so on. That matter is covered in the draft guidance. It would be reinforced if it was on the face of the Bill. It would also ensure that the guidance was not altered in the future.
There are two points covered by Amendment No. 21 which relate to seriousness. Paragraph (a) states that where there is a significant risk of exacerbating the disorder a penalty notice should not be issued. Imagine an awkward situation in the street, maybe late at night—which after all is what all this is about—with disorderly behaviour going on. The constable suddenly produces a pad of penalty notices and starts waving it about and saying, "Hey, you there in the T-shirt. What is your name?" I have very little experience of this; the Minister may have more experience of these matters. The officer attempts to identify the individual concerned sufficiently to write down the particulars. It will not necessarily be easy at two o'clock in the morning with a load of drunks all over the place actually to carry out this procedure. That is particularly so if one starts saying, "My name is Mickey Mouse and I live all over the place" and so on, or "I live on the third park bench from the left", which is apparently sufficient for the electoral register

523
these days. That is a point which constables will need to bear in mind, and maybe we should state it in the Bill.
Obviously, none of us wants to diminish the opportunity for restorative justice and reparations which we have discussed on other occasions. All these amendments deal with the seriousness of the offences which will be covered by these penalty notices. We know that the offences will not be frightfully serious.
There is one matter about which I have some doubt regarding the penalty notices. Charles Clarke, the Minister of State in another place, said in Committee that these penalty notices come below a caution in the scheme of things. A caution goes down on one's criminal record. It is a stage below that. The Home Secretary appears to have the view that they come between a caution and a court case—actually being taken to court and fined by a court.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, talked about the penalty notice being a soft option by comparison with a trial. That is obviously true, but is it a soft option by comparison with a caution, given that the penalty notice does not go on the record whereas a caution does? Financially it is not a soft option, but in legal terms the position is a little more confused. This is, as I say, a question of the seriousness. We know that these notices will not be used for very serious offences. We think it might be better to write the offences covered by these types of amendment on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: Now that we are on the theme of procedures, I wonder whether the Minister would be good enough to drop me a line—and perhaps copy it to other Members of the Committee—giving an answer not only to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Windlesham about legal aid but also about the procedural questions that I raised in connection with Amendment No. 2. I think that I am justified in raising those matters at this stage because they all have to do with the procedure of what actually happens once the offender has been identified by the police and a decision is being made whether to issue a fixed notice penalty.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Brennan: I am a little concerned that so little enthusiasm has been displayed in the Committee with regard to these amendments. Aside from the effective enforcement of fixed penalty notices, the other critical part of making them effective is that there should be an effective system for the police to apply them across the country. As I understand the Bill, the amendments are directed at the clause that seeks to establish such a system.
Although the first amendment, Amendment No. 17, appears to be only a form of words, it may well be a significant form of words. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act introduced the idea of codes of practice. Whether they were intended that way or not, years on, lawyers certainly regard them as having special legal significance and hence the public might regard them as
524
more significant than mere guidance. I invite the Government to take seriously into account the presentation of the guidance to the public.
If the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will forgive me, I shall deal briefly with Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 by saying that they are either overly bureaucratic or too nebulous, but that is meant gently and not over-critically. The far more important question concerns what goes into the guidance itself. If the Committee will allow me, I wish to deal with three aspects of it. The first is the preparation of the guidance and how it works; the second is implementation; and the third is review. The amendments provide a convenient opportunity to mention those three points.
First, with regard to preparation, it is absolutely essential that the guidance is produced in co-operation not only the with Association of Chief Police Officers but also with the Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation and everyone who will be practically involved in applying it. In addition, there must surely be training for police officers as to the way in which they are to apply the provisions. Issuing them with a guidance booklet is not enough. I have a final point on preparation. If the Bill eventually becomes law in this Parliament or the next, it will be the subject of major media interest. How will it work? Will there be consistency? Can we be sure that it is fair? The document to which everyone will look is the code of practice or guidance. Therefore, I think that preparation is very important indeed.
Secondly, I turn to implementation and identify one serious caution that I have and introduce one serious problem which the Government may face. I ask Members of the Committee to look back to Clause 1 of the Bill. As I sought to indicate at Second Reading, the offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act—threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour—is commonly associated with a racial motive. I brought up that matter at Second Reading. I realise that the draft guidance is very much in draft but I found, with a little dismay, that there is no reference whatever in that document to the fact that that offence, if racially motivated, cannot conceivably be properly met by a fixed penalty notice.
This is serious stuff. The BNP and similar organisations will quickly determine how the law will work. A police officer faced with such people should not be in the predicament of having to decide whether to apply a notice, let alone the victims of such racial abuse. Many of us involved in the criminal law know that such threatening behaviour is often part of a process of demoralisation of ethnic communities living in a majority white community, and sometimes vice versa. That is my caution.
I shall now turn to a problem. A drunken farm labourer in a rural community will earn far less than someone who has just got drunk on champagne in the City. Each breaks a window and abuses a policeman. Is the fixed penalty system going to be uniform in its amount in relation to the offences involved? If not, how are distinctions to be drawn? Given the historical experience of the experiment in unit fines, which was

525
designed to reflect the offender's capacity reasonably to pay within his income, it would be unjust, culpable though people who engage in misbehaviour are, if someone from a poorer area was faced with the same penalty as someone from a more affluent background. That is a very difficult problem.
As I understand the guidance, it will be for the Secretary of State to advise the police on setting the levels of fixed penalties in their local areas. The public will readily seize on inconsistencies in the way that this is applied.
Finally—noble Lords have been most patient—I refer to review. This is a completely new venture in the criminal justice system. The objective of the guidance, as set out in Clause 6, is said to be,
"with a view to encouraging good practice in connection with the operation of",
the fixed penalty system. I invite the Government to put into the code, by way of codicil, rider or other method, that within a given time—but within a relatively short time of, say, 12 to 18 months—it will be made the subject of a full review and the results of that review made public.
All my points are designed to help to make the system work well. To that end, Clause 6 is central to the Bill.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Before the noble Lord sits down, I take his point as regards the different effects of fixed penalties on different people. However, if a fixed penalty system is introduced, is it not inevitable that the amount of the fixed penalty is bound to be uniform? That is not same with regard to fines, to which the noble Lord referred. However, surely the inevitable consequence of fixed penalties is that the amount must be same, whether the penalty is levied from a wealthy young man in the City or from a farm labourer in a poor area.
Lord Brennan: The example of parking offences suggests that consistency in this regard is readily achievable because, for most people, if they can afford to run a motor car they can afford to pay the basic fines. However, the point I am bringing to the attention of the Committee is that if fixed penalties are logically forced to be the same, then we shall have this potential injustice. I do not necessarily agree that the fixed penalties should be the same. I know that it will be extremely difficult to apply, but at what level should the penalty be set? Should it be set at the level which best accommodates the richer offender or the lowest common denominator that affects the poorest? A problem will arise at each end. I introduced the subject as a problem, but I did not offer a solution.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We have had an interesting debate on an extremely important part of the Bill. First, perhaps I may give an assurance on behalf of my right honourable friend in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, whose earlier contribution was noted very carefully. Of course we shall write to noble Lords
526
who raise factual issues which cannot be answered satisfactorily during the course of the debate. We shall also ensure that that information is made known more generally.
The aim of issuing guidance, which is the main concern of these amendments, is to help the police and others to operate the scheme fairly and consistently, a point emphasised in the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Brennan. This will ensure a swift and immediate response to disorderly offending, while at the same time saving police time and bureaucracy. As Clause 6 suggests, guidance may help the police in the exercise of their discretion under the scheme and on the issuing of notices and encourage good practice in the operation of the scheme.
The Government believe that the Secretary of State would be able to issue guidance to help the police and others with the operation of the new penalty scheme without the power currently contained in Clause 6 but, because the scheme includes a number of discretionary elements, we felt it advisable to include a specific power to issue guidance which gives an indication of the areas which any such guidance can be expected to cover. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, recognised, the Government have made available an outline of the guidance to the police, although this clearly needs further development with those most involved. It is, of course, draft guidance at this stage and is subject to further development and clarification.
I am sure that the need in a disorderly situation not to make matters worse by the issue of a notice—or, indeed, to issue a notice where the offence involves risk to a person's health or safety—will certainly be included in the guidance. Similarly, we shall ensure that some guidance is issued to the effect that it would not be appropriate to issue a penalty notice to someone who clearly does not have the means to pay. I hope that this response meets some of the points raised by the noble Lord. Lord Cope.
Amendment No. 17 seeks to replace this concept of guidance with a statutory code of practice. The Government's view is that this would be excessive and unnecessary. Statutory codes of practice are used, for example, in the regulation of coercive or determinative powers. Examples can be found in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act where a statutory code is necessary to set out the detailed rights of persons in police detention or of those stopped in the street and searched.
The new penalty notice scheme is entirely different. It contains no coercive powers. It merely offers an offender a way of discharging liability to conviction by paying a penalty. The offender's rights are completely preserved in that he is equally free to have his case heard by a court in the same way as he would have had if the scheme had not existed. In these circumstances, a statutory code of practice appears to be entirely unnecessary. Guidance issued by the Secretary of State is the time-honoured and appropriate way to proceed when new arrangements are introduced.
Of course, I recognise that my noble friend Lord Brennan has cautioned us about a range of important issues that need to be considered before the scheme is

527
implemented and which should be included in the guidance. We take on board the points he made. The point that he raised in regard to the issue of race is particularly pertinent at a time when it is at the forefront of public concern. We also recognise the value of his suggestion that such guidance should be subject to review from time to time, and certainly to an early review against the background of a new scheme in British justice being developed.
In relation to Amendment No. 18, Clause 3 of Chapter 1 states that a penalty notice must,
"state the alleged offence",
and,
"give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary to provide reasonable information about it".
We do not believe that it will be necessary when a penalty notice is issued to serve a separate witness statement with it. The information on the penalty notice itself will be sufficient to enable the recipient to take an informed decision on whether to ask for a trial or to pay the penalty. If he contests the penalty notice in court, the prosecution process, including the service of statements, would proceed in the normal way.
We believe that the information that is already required to be included in the penalty notice under the provision in Clause 3 is sufficient for the purpose of the notice. A requirement that the constable provide a statement in every case, as appears to be assumed in the amendment, would considerably reduce the saving of police time that we hope to bring about by this measure. In the absence of such a requirement, the amendment serves no purpose. Therefore, the Government do not accept the amendment but recognise the value of this debate to the development of our thinking on the guidance to be issued.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The more I listen to this debate, the more I realise the difficulties that will face the police officers who are supposed to put the fixed penalty scheme into operation.
If we were dealing with a situation in which a police officer was going round with a pocketful of notices to hand out to sober, quiet people who had thrown a stone or a firework in the street, that would be one thing. But we are not. We are dealing with a situation in which any constable on the street, who is not authorised—I take the point made by the noble Baroness—by the chief officer of police to issue notices in a police station, is faced with a drunken or violent person and attempts to issue him with a penalty notice.
From the police officer's point of view he is exercising a "reasonable belief'. That is all. He does not have to satisfy himself beyond that standard. He must simply believe that the person to whom he is issuing the notice has committed an offence. With a drunken and violent person he has to stand and write out the notice. During that time the person's friends, indeed his enemies, may all gather round and carry out a great disturbance because the policeman is standing there writing out the notice ready to hand to him. In
528
that time, the police officer not merely ascertains the name and address of the drunken or violent person to put down on his notice; he also has to give the person some idea of the basis on which the notice is being issued. Then comes the amusing part. The Minister said that the person who receives the penalty notice—I am talking about a notice issued in the street—makes an "informed decision" as to whether to accept the penalty notice or whether to demand a court hearing. That is cloud cuckoo-land, is it not? The drunken person—one of those included in the schedule—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord is peddling a misconception; namely, that the person who is in receipt of the fixed penalty notice makes the decision there and then as to whether he will or will not contest it. That is not the intention of the legislation. It will not work in that way.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: So the informed decision is to be taken the day after, when the person has no recollection of what happened the night before.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The person has 21 days in which to make the important decision, whether or not he or she has a recollection of the event.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In a situation in the street, any police officer newly out of police training school will have the power to issue fixed penalty notices. He has to fill out the notice regardless of what is going on around him and hand it to the person who is drunk or violent, who then has 21 days to make an informed decision as to whether to contest it. That is one situation. The other is that the man concerned has committed or, in the view of the police officer, may have committed an arrestable offence. So the police officer arrests him and he is taken to a police station.
The first thing that then happens is that the police officer must explain to the custody sergeant on duty why the man has been arrested. That custody sergeant has to take a decision as to whether to allow the charge, or whatever the technical expression is. One presumes that the notice is then written out—this is where the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, arises. Before he takes his informed decision on whether to put his hand into his pocket and pay up, does the person concerned have a right to legal advice at that point? Do the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 apply to him in that situation; for example, the necessity for a custody sheet to be completed, as well as all the other safeguards that surround a person in that position? As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, asked, does he have a right to legal aid and the right to consult the duty solicitor before he decides what to do?
We then come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, with such force; namely, that, as the scheme is envisaged, there is no room for mitigation. There is no room for the question of the resources of the individual to be considered; he pays the fixed penalty. Presumably, that fixed penalty will not differ throughout England and Wales between one council

529
area and another, depending on the gross earnings or level of average earnings in a particular district. Surely it will be a fixed penalty all round. The personal circumstances of the individual will not be taken into account; nor, indeed, any mitigation for the fact that he is drunk—such that his wife has left him, or whatever, or that he was racially insulted in a public house. None of those factors can be taken into account. He must face the penalty.
The more one studies the scheme, the more one realises how much it must be confined into a narrow set of circumstances. Is it not a matter of dressing up some new scheme just before an election? I respectfully suggest that the amendment be accepted.
Viscount Goschen: I should like to pick up one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Clause 6 states:
"The Secretary of State may issue guidance—
(a) about the exercise of the discretion given to constables by this Chapter".
As I read Clause 2, which deals with penalty notices, it seems to me that there are two elements of choice in that a person to whom the opportunity is being offered has a choice as to whether or not to accept the fixed penalty route. However, Clause 2(1) states:
"A constable who has reason to believe that a person aged 18 or over has committed a penalty offence may give him a penalty notice in respect of the offence".
But what if, for whatever reason, that does not happen; and not because it will incite further aggravation? One can perfectly envisage the latter occurring if someone who was drunk and abusive was given such a penalty. It would be rather like an abusive footballer being given a yellow card, who then turns round and gives the referee grief, and subsequently ends up with a red card. Indeed, one can imagine such a chain of events.
However, if someone ends up in court without having been offered the opportunity of a fixed penalty notice for an offence that could be subject to such a penalty, he might be liable to pay four-times the fine that someone else who was offered the opportunity had to pay. Therefore, in giving this guidance, will the Secretary of State make it clear on what grounds the constable may not issue a fixed penalty notice? Indeed, if someone requests such a notice in a situation where it was not offered, will there be guidance as to whether or not that person can be offered one? If someone who perpetrated an alleged offence were arrested, taken to the police station and then told that he would be charged, one could well envisage a possible situation arising if that person happens to know about such penalties. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said that this scheme will receive a great deal of publicity in due course, especially by way of the tabloid media. Will it be open to the person who is going to be charged to request a penalty notice, instead of having to go to court?
Lord Windlesham: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but does not this show what extraordinary
530
difficulties will arise in administering the scheme across 42 police areas? As we have heard, there are two mechanisms. The Secretary of State can issue guidance. One must hope that within a police area the police force will try to achieve some sort of consistency. If we accept that consistency is a basic element of any system of justice—which it must be—this begins to seem almost impossible to achieve, does it not?
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, mentioned an extraordinary range and variety of offending behaviour and the possible consequences. The situation in inner cities may be quite different from that in large urban conurbations. He spoke evocatively of the number of people who flood into Manchester at weekends. We should compare that with the situation in a quiet, prosperous residential area. Are there to be different levels of penalty according to the circumstances of the individual? There should not be. However, some of the comments that have been made seem to suggest that the scheme may have little, if any, consistency. The longer the debate continues the more unsuitable becomes the concept of a fixed penalty in situations involving drunken or drug addicted offenders who are often excitable and "guyed up" by those around them. Those situations may also be exacerbated by racial conflict.
How can the Government or any Minister compare such situations with the imposition of fixed penalties for parking fines and certain driving offences? On the whole there is consistency in the imposition of parking fines. Parking fines are willingly paid by a large percentage of those who incur them. However, to say that the imposition of fixed penalties is effective for parking fines and speeding offences and therefore one should apply them to disorderly conduct is to invent a chimera.
Lord McNally: I do not wish to add to the Minister's woe but I refer to a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, mentioned to which the Minister did not respond; that is, police training. It is clear that we are asking the police to carry out a different kind of policing. Is there built into the measure—or is it under discussion—provision for training to enable the police to implement the proposals? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, asked for clarification on that point.
Lord Goldsmith: The debate has gone wider than the amendments. Therefore, I am encouraged to comment further. It seems to me that one either takes the view that this is a useful, additional way to deal with problems, which happens to be the view that I take, or one does not. If one takes that view it is important to recognise that police forces who are to exercise the powers will need to have operational discretion and that those in charge of police forces will need to have discretion to instruct their officers in a way which is appropriate for their area.
Having listened to the debate, I am concerned at the suggestion that the Committee should impose prescriptive guidance in what are essentially

531
operational matters. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, mentioned an important issue. He asked what would happen if a police officer decided to impose a fixed penalty and was then confronted with more disorderly behaviour. I anticipate that chief constables and police officers will be aware of that possibility. An officer may do the only thing that he can do in those circumstances which is to arrest the person involved. Whether that is in the interests of the person who has committed the offence, others can decide. In those circumstances the offender is likely to face a more serious penalty. The police officer, if he has the opportunity, may point that out to him before events reach that stage.
What is the position of someone who wishes to put forward the circumstances of the offence in mitigation? It is important to bear in mind that a notice of this kind does not oblige the person to whom it is given to pay a fine. There is a choice to be exercised within 21 days, or perhaps even later, whether to submit to a trial and put before magistrates the circumstances relevant to the offence.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord will appreciate that in so doing that person opens himself up in serious offences to sentences of imprisonment and fines of four times the level of the fixed penalty.
Lord Goldsmith: That is what he is subject to at present. In the absence of the fixed penalty scheme, that is all he will be subject to. I do not regard that as an answer.
It comes back to this issue. One either considers it a useful additional weapon in the armoury to maintain law and order—there will be cases where it is wholly inappropriate; that much is clear—or one does not. I simply say in relation to these amendments that too much prescription will undermine the operational freedom that police forces will need in order to make the system work.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The only contribution to the debate to which I violently objected was the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that it was my time of woe. I was enjoying the debate and learning from it. I enjoyed even more the contribution from my noble friend Lord Goldsmith. He presented, but in a more erudite and accurate form, the arguments I would have sought to deploy on the issues raised.
Of course these are operational matters in one obvious respect. There are certain circumstances where, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, accurately defined, it would be beyond belief that the policeman would calmly issue a fixed penalty notice. The noble Lord referred to drunkenness. Drunkenness is often attended by violence. We would all expect our police officers to be able to protect themselves effectively without incurring unnecessary risk to themselves. In those circumstances the police officers would either effect the arrest themselves or ensure, with assistance, that the individual reached the police station where the
532
matter could be dealt with. If the offender were drunk, that might occur after a period of sobering up. If an individual had been violent, some constraint would be attached so that the policeman was able to discharge his responsibility without threat to himself.
These are fixed penalty notices with the same penalty attached. It is not expected that an enormous range of potential punishments will be attached to it. The fixed penalty means exactly that. If you are caught, that is what you will get. Of course there are elements of unfairness. There are massive unfairnesses in parking and speeding fines. Someone may cost the community several thousand pounds by his illicit parking, but he receives the same fine as someone whose parking in the wrong place has caused minimal trouble to his fellow citizens. That element of injustice applies to any concept of fixed penalty.
It is clear that this approach is being extended to a different range of narrowly defined and lower scale offences. I am not sure whether I am expected to exercise the judgment of Solomon as regards where the offences lie in the list of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State or my dear friend the Minister of State. However, these are defined as offences which can appropriately be dealt with on most occasions in the judgment of the police officer at the point at which the offence is committed. That must be a limited range. That is why the issue is presented in these terms.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith. He identified that the issue must be tackled with appropriate discretion. I bear in mind his point, emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that training will be necessary. Our police forces will be faced with a new situation. We all recognise that this is a new development. Appropriate training will be needed against the background of the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. I assure your Lordships that that is envisaged.
Viscount Goschen: Can the Minister answer my question?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am sorry. I thought that I had answered all the points that had been raised. I said that if there was anything that I had not covered, I would ensure that I wrote to the noble Lord concerned. If there is a particular question that the noble Viscount asked that I have forgotten, I shall be only too pleased to respond.
Viscount Goschen: The debate has emphasised that, while there are considerable advantages in theory to the idea of fixed penalty notices, there is a great deal of detail that needs to be probed through, particularly the points raised by my noble friend Lord Cope and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, invited us to accept that we cannot be too prescriptive in the legislation but it will be all right, on the night. There are some important questions of detail.
I apologise for having intervened three times on the amendment. I was looking for an answer, not on the first set of questions but on the second set about an

533
individual who went to court and told the magistrate that he had not been given an opportunity to get the discounted fare of the fixed penalty. If he was issued with a fine, which could be four times the fixed penalty, would that individual have any redress against the court? Could be use that defence to get the fine lowered?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The categorical answer is no. It is for the police officers concerned to decide whether to issue a notice. There can be no subsequent plea bargaining in the court with the individual claiming that they never had the chance to pay the fixed penalty. If the individual did not take advantage of the opportunity to respond to a fixed penalty notice when it was applied to him, the fault would rest with him. If he was involved in an offence for which a fixed penalty was not applicable, he could not plead to the court that the offence was applicable under the framework.
Viscount Goschen: I apologise for troubling the Committee further, but with the greatest respect, that was not the question. Let us suppose that next year, when the Bill has received Royal Assent, I went into the street and let off a firework, which is clearly covered under Clause 1 as an offence for which a penalty notice can be served, and was arrested by the police and not offered the opportunity to pay the fixed penalty. I would have done nothing different from another individual who had committed a comparable offence. Would I have to pay the full fine that could be imposed by the court, or could I argue that I should be allowed to pay only a quarter of it?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am clearly not going to satisfy the noble Viscount on that point in sufficient detail this evening. I shall have to write to him about it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As has been pointed out, we have had a much wider debate than I anticipated when I tabled these modest amendments. I hope that our contribution will be helpful to those who will work on the guidance.
The original question was whether we should have a code of practice or guidance. The Minister responded with the same phrases that were used by his colleague in another place when similar points were made. The Government believe that codes of practice should be used specifically to safeguard the rights of individuals. However, the rights of individuals are being safeguarded by the opportunity to go to a court. I suspect that the Minister's response to my noble friend will be that, when one appears in front of a court, one can argue in mitigation all types of circumstances. Unlike a police constable, the court is able to vary the level of a fine or other penalty from nought to whatever the maximum may be in accordance with the pleas that are put before it. I believe that that is a genuine way in which flexibility exists in the system, even though the penalty for different offences will be fixed under Clause 3.
534
I believe that we want to give the police all reasonable help in their very difficult task. However, we are also all concerned that such help should be practicable and workable. There will be difficulties in connection with this scheme, particularly during the early stages. I hope that the idea will work. I believe that we all want to see it work if it helps the police to do their duty and helps to protect the public.
However, we must try to tease out the details of what we seek to achieve through this measure. Clearly it will not provide an easy, "snap" solution to the difficult problem of the disorderly behaviour of people over the age of 18. The measure applies only to people over the age of 18. By definition, it applies to people who are likely to be drunk, and so on, and often such situations will arise in the small hours of the morning or late at night in difficult circumstances for the police.
I hope that we have made at least some contribution towards ensuring that the guidance makes the provision as workable as possible. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said, it will need to be subject to review. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Payment of penalty]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert "by recorded delivery".
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 22, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. In earlier debates, we identified the importance of establishing the identity of an individual against whom a penalty notice will be issued. However, that will be very difficult, given that, unlike motor cars, people do not have licence plates with numbers on them that can be read and followed up—at least, not yet.
In Clause 10, provision is made for what would happen in the court if an argument arose as to whether the individual concerned was the person who committed the offence. In order to take into account such a circumstance, we have made some modest suggestions to try to improve the drafting, such as the use of recorded delivery. Various ways exist to attempt to show that a letter with payment was posted when in fact it was not; for example, by asking a friend to testify that he saw it being posted. However, there is a simpler way to ensure that those difficulties, at least, do not arise—that is, by using recorded delivery.
In Amendment No. 24, we also suggest that a person's last known address should be sufficient. The type of offender who will dodge penalties may make himself difficult to track down when it comes to giving notice. I hope that these modest suggestions will help to avoid some of the problems. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: These are relatively minor amendments compared with those which we discussed recently. However, I believe that they are practical and important. As it stands, if a person says that a letter

535
was posted, that is a very vague notion. My noble friend's suggestion in Amendment No. 22 that it should be posted using recorded delivery is practical. I should have thought that the Government would welcome that. I have to say to my noble friend that I have a very small doubt about Amendment No. 23, which would use the word "send" instead of the word "give". There are various ways in which to move a letter. Using the word "send" is rather limiting. However, my noble friend may be right.
Amendment No. 24 refers to a person's "last known address". That is helpful because people move and the police do not necessarily know that. The best that can be done is to send a notice to the last known address.
10 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: If the word "give" were left in the Bill, the justices' chief executive would, either physically himself or through a representative, have to hand the notice to the defaulter giving notice of the registration. In practice, however, the notice will come through the post. That is why I suggested using the word "send" instead and proposed sending the notice to the "last known address" by recorded delivery.
Lord Renton: My noble friend may well be right, but we should perhaps bear in mind the fact that the word "give" is somewhat wider than the word "send".
Lord Davies of Oldham: I appreciate the good intentions that lie behind the amendments, which serve as potential aids to make the Bill more effective. Unfortunately, I am not sure that the Bill would be improved by them.
I turn first to Amendment No. 22. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 7 have a twofold purpose. First, they will ensure that people who make their penalty payments by post can rely on the letter having arrived in due course,
"Unless the contrary is proved".
If they can prove that the letter was posted, it would be for anyone disputing the fact of payment to show that it did not arrive in the usual way. Secondly, those subsections will ensure that claims to have posted payments are not accepted without evidence. We do not wish the provisions to be restricted to people who use only the recorded delivery system. If they wish to use it, that would be helpful but some people might prefer to use registered post or simply get a certificate of posting, which can be obtained free of charge from a post office. We regard each of those as adequate evidence of posting and of the date of posting. In each case, we think that it is right for the person to be able to rely on the presumption of delivery.
In other words, the burden of proving non-delivery should be borne in these cases by anyone seeking to assert that the fine has not been duly paid. It is important to ensure that people cannot simply claim to have posted a payment without any evidence to support that claim. However, when they can produce that evidence, they should be entitled to the presumption.
536
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 would be inappropriate. Clause 9(3) as it stands does not exclude the possibility of notice being sent to an offender's address but it does place on the courts the responsibility of ensuring that notice is given. We think that that is right. A registration is a serious matter and the responsibility must rest with the courts. Ultimately, whether notice has been given is a matter of evidence in the circumstances of any given case. I emphasise once again that I appreciate the intentions that lie behind the amendments but I am not convinced that they would improve the Bill.
The justices' chief executive must issue notices of registration at the last known address. That is the answer to Clause 24; that is, that the responsibility lies with the justices' chief executive.
The registration certificate issued under Clause 8 must include the defaulter's last known address, so that where there is notification it will be sent by the justices' chief executive. That will ensure that the notices are sent effectively, that there is proof that that is so, and the responsibility thus rests with the court.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall reflect on that answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Registration of sums payable in default]:
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 21, at end insert "and the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 25 is a probing amendment. We want to look a little closer at which police officers from which forces will be empowered to issue the fixed penalty notices.
A number of police forces, apart from the regular forces, come under the purview of the Home Office. It is clear that officers of the British Transport Police will be able to issue fixed penalty notices and will have responsibility for specific offences such as trespassing on the railways. But in the Armed Forces Bill the Government are significantly extending the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police.
The intention is clearly that the force's role in relation to the wider community should be increased. That is a move not without controversy, as was clear in the debates on the Armed Forces Bill. I believe that it would be more contentious if the Ministry of Defence Police were empowered to issue fixed penalty notices to members of the civilian population who were nowhere near Ministry of Defence property and thought that point worth probing with the aid of this amendment.
Other forces, such as the Royal Parks Police and the Atomic Energy Authority Police, may also be included. If the Minister can tell us anything about the Government's policy in that regard, that too will be

537
helpful. I should make it clear that I am speaking here specifically about the Ministry of Defence police force, not about the service police—the Royal Military Police, the RAF police and the marine equivalent—because their remits are within their respective services and it would not be appropriate to include them in this amendment. This is intended to be a probing amendment to draw out the Minister's thinking on this matter. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before putting the question on Amendment No. 25, I must stand part Clauses 9 and 10. The Question is that Clauses 9 and 10 be agreed to.
Lord Windlesham: We went over Clause 10 rather swiftly. I have a point I wish to make on it in relation to enforcement. We are right at the end of the first chapter of the Bill and I should like to leave this point with the Minister for his consideration. It relates to Clause 10 and the enforcement of penalty notices. Enforcement is likely to prove the Achilles heel of the whole scheme. Some information from Australia has just come to my notice and I hope that the Government will consider it carefully. In New South Wales the police have powers to issue on-the-spot fines for certain breaches of the Police and Public Safety Act. Those include failure to comply with a reasonable direction by a police officer and being in possession of a knife. The New South Wales debt recovery office recently carried out a survey which shows that very few people paid their fines, either in the time allowed or at all. Even when infringement notices were issued, only 6.1 per cent of the total were paid within the 28-day period allowed.
The published figures on fine defaulters for those categories of fixed penalties were 95 per cent of those who received a fixed penalty notice for the possession of a knife and 91 per cent for those who had refused a direction or order from a police officer. Those figures of non-compliance are simply astonishing. As we come towards the end of this part of the debate, perhaps I may ask a question. Does that not show once again that the whole concept of fixed penalty notices for offences of disorder, which are totally different in character to parking and driving offences, is such that the likelihood of them having the effect sought by the Home Secretary is minimal?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I too may raise a query under the same heading as that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I understand that the policy of the Bill is that a person who is served with a penalty notice will not have a conviction recorded against him. Consequently, unlike a caution, it will not form part of any criminal record kept in the criminal records office.
Let us suppose that a person is a defaulter. Would that then become something that is recorded against him in the criminal records office? What is the future position? If, for example, a person has 10 penalty
538
notices for breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act, will no record be kept of that? Is that not a matter which would come before a court at a subsequent time?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I may deal with the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Windlesham, concerning fixed penalty notices. All I can say as regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is that that is the Australian experience. Obviously, those figures are dramatic and interesting. I shall certainly want to see the evidence.
There are problems within the criminal justice system of recovering fines in any event, but compliance figures are far higher with fixed penalty notices which relate to traffic offences. I suggest that we need to build on the experience in that field. The fixed penalty notices will probably be comparable in terms of quantum. There will be a default court provision for the processing of fixed penalty notices. It will therefore be in people's interests to pay them. Experience and time will tell, but I would expect there to be a far higher compliance level in this country where there is more generally a history of compliance with such matters. I register the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Windelsham, and shall study the research with interest when I am presented with it. However, I do not share his gloomy prognosis.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. A record will be kept of a fixed penalty notice, but not in the same way as a criminal record. That record will be kept locally and the accumulation of FPNs on a regular basis will be known.
I see no reason why the accumulated number of notices cannot be drawn to the attention of a court where perhaps subsequently someone is in default of a fixed penalty notice because he has not paid it; or perhaps where someone opts not to pay the FPN and contests the issue in court. I see no reason why the record of there having been fixed penalty notices cannot be made known to the court. Obviously, we must study that matter closely and take careful cognisance of people's views.
I turn to the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, moved a few moments ago.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Burnham: Are we not discussing the Question whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I concede the point.
Lord Burnham: The noble Lord seems yet again to equate parking offences and public order offences. Does he really believe that? Furthermore, he seems to believe that the British are more likely to pay up the FPNs than are the Australians. Why is that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I equate them in the sense of process and operation. As regards compliance levels here, there is a tradition of compliance particularly with fixed penalty notices—
Lord Burnham: But not in Australia.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Australian situation is the Australian situation. Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has made an interesting point but it does not undermine the point that there is great relevance in having fixed penalty notices. The noble Lord's party supports the principle of them, and I am interested that that is the case given some of the hostile observations that have been made by Members opposite during the course of the debates. I understand and appreciate the importance of having a critical debate, but we need to concentrate our minds on ways in which we can make the provisions practical and workable. That is what we are trying to do in government.
We believe that the provisions are valuable and resist any effort to oppose Clause 10. We believe that over time fixed penalty notices will prove their value to the criminal justice system and make an important contribution.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Like the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I am concerned about the possible effect of the proposals. In principle, I support what the Minister said about fixed penalties in cases of this kind because it helps to reduce the number of people who will have criminal convictions for the rest of their lives in respect of perhaps reasonably minor indiscretions at a young age.
However, if the effect is that more people go to prison for non-payment of the fine, the scheme will have failed. I understand that the comment of my noble friend Lord Windlesham was that where the system has been tried it has had that result. Therefore, can we be assured that the Government will keep a close eye on the matter? If it is shown that in practice the non-payment of fines causes a greater increase in the prison population than the existing law, the whole system of attempting to have a fixed penalty rather than a criminal offence for various matters will have failed. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As to Clause 10 stand part, I cannot answer the question about the higher compliance rate in Australia. It is a good thing that the Australians are not regarded as a race; otherwise, the aspersions cast on those individuals might get the Minister into serious trouble, but it is an extremely good point.
As to the question of a record, the draft guidance states that where it is known that the alleged offender has been issued with a number of penalty notices for disorder offences within the previous six months, or a year, a penalty notice is unlikely to be a suitable response to the offence. It may be known to the policeman in the street who is about to issue a penalty. However, the guidance goes on to say that chief
540
officers can obtain information which will enable local ticket office records to be checked for the purpose of deciding whether to issue a penalty notice for the current offence or to charge the alleged offender. In practice this will happen only if the officer has gone back to the police station to consult the records rather than in the street, but it throws light on the idea that no criminal record will exist. It is not a criminal record in the ordinary sense of the word, but it is a record of the penalties which will be available both to the police when making their decisions and also to the courts if the offender is charged. It is not quite true that there is no record and no penalty with repeat offences, unless the offender is ingenious enough to commit the offences in different jurisdictions, or follows a football team which travels, in which case it will be less easy for the police to trace the record.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he is aware that the current practice in court is for a list of convictions and cautions to be produced when a person is sentenced. Apparently a third list of fixed penalty notices is to be produced.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am delighted that we have had more debate on this matter which has provided the opportunity for further clarification and new information. I take to heart the 'sensible observations of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. The noble Lord was kind enough to support fixed penalty notices, and I am pleased to see that support for them is growing within the Committee. The noble Lord is right to suggest that we need to keep under review such matters as the collection of fixed penalty notices and fines, and we undertake to do that.
As I indicated in earlier debates on this Bill, we intend to pilot these matters very carefully after detailed consultation. The guidance will be all-important as to the way in which the fixed penalty notice scheme operates. All of those points need to be taken into account very carefully when considering this particular clause stand part debate.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We return to Clause 11, Amendment No. 25. Amendment proposed: page 6, line 21, at end insert "and the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police".
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall not repeat the remarks I made prematurely a few moments ago. I beg to move.
Lord Burnham: As my noble friend said, there is here a degree of cross-fertilisation with the Armed Forces Bill, which is why I rise to speak to this amendment. It is noticeable that the British Transport Police are included in the Bill but the Ministry of Defence Police, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary and the Royal Parks Constabulary are not. The Ministry of Defence Police is the tenth largest

541
force in the country. I can only assume that the Government team concerned with this legislation has not spoken to the team responsible for the Armed Forces Bill. At the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Bill we shall oppose the provisions whereby the Government seek to extend the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police. The relevant clause is Clause 31. We shall not oppose the clause as a whole but parts of it, as indeed did my honourable and right honourable friends in another place.
Overall, there is an extension of the authority of the Ministry of Defence Police in the Armed Forces Bill. I cannot see the logic for not extending the powers in the same way in this Bill. In the Armed Forces Bill the Government clearly seek to equate the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police within the vicinity of or on Ministry of Defence property, so far as is possible, with the Home Office Police. They are also extending their powers when travelling between one place and another.
Many of the provisions are quite logical, although, in our opinion, they have gone too far. However, I ask the Government to carefully look again at the relative powers of the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police with the other police forces I have named. I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As my honourable friend Mr Charles Clarke said in another place:
"The role of the Ministry of Defence Police is an important and significant issue".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 15/2/01; col. 205.]
I should like to make it clear, as he did, that we would not want to give the Ministry of Defence Police extra powers in these matters unless there were powerful reasons so to do. No such reason really has been advanced prior to this debate. We have as yet received no official request from the Ministry of Defence Police for it to be given these powers. We have been in touch with that force. It has been asked for its view on these matters. It has made no official request to have this range of powers.
The protocols of agreement between the Ministry of Defence Police and the territorial forces about how they should operate together are important and complex. We would not wish to jeopardise the relationships involved by granting powers which the police force involved has not requested. The MoD Police has not requested these powers. We have been in touch and consulted it on these matters. Therefore, the amendment is not one that we can accept.
The term "chief officer of police" only covers so-called police forces—for example—for police areas in England and Wales. It does not cover the Royal Parks Police, MoD Police or any other non-territorial police forces. The British Transport Police has been included within the legislation because it expressed a wish to be so included. Logically that makes a great deal of sense because the range of offences covered in Clause 1 comprise offences which could take place in areas where the British Transport Police is operationally active.
542
I hope that I have clarified our position on this issue. For those reasons I hope that noble Lords opposite will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Burnham: The Minister says that he can see no case for extending the provision to the Ministry of Defence Police. The positions of the Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police are absolutely identical. They are meant to defend the cause of justice, law and order, whatever one chooses to call it, on land for which they are responsible, either Ministry of Defence land or railway land. The cases are absolutely identical.
If, as the noble Lord says, he can see no case for extending the powers to Ministry of Defence Police, why can he see a case for the British Transport Police? Is it merely because the noble Lord happens to have talked to the British Transport Police and encouraged that force to ask for these powers and not the Ministry of Defence Police? There can be no other reason.
Lord McNally: Further to that point, it would seem also that the parks police are even more four-square with the British Transport Police. Have the Government simply not talked to them? Why were they left out?
10.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sure that all of those police forces have been consulted over these matters. I am not aware that the parks police have expressed a desire to have these powers, although, particularly with regard to the parks police, I can see the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. However, the MoD Police are quite clear that they do not require the powers. It would be wrong of us, particularly given the protocols of agreement between the MoD Police and territorial forces, to oblige them to take on powers that they have not positively expressed an interest in having. Members of the Committee have made their points forcefully. I shall ensure that we redouble our efforts and check once again, but I am confident that that is the position.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The amendment has produced another interesting debate. We shall reflect on what has been said. I shall not add anything at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Alcohol consumption in designated public places]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 32, at end insert "and reasonably believes that their behaviour may lead to an offence"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 26, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. These amendments bring me to a point which I raised at Second Reading with regard to the

543
consumption of alcohol in designated public places, most commonly referred to, under current bylaws, as alcohol free zones.
As currently drafted, if a constable reasonably believes that a person is or has been consuming alcohol in a designated public place or intends to consume alcohol in a designated public place, the constable may require the person concerned not to consume the alcohol in that place or to surrender the alcohol to the constable. We believe that, in order for a constable to exercise his or her powers under Clause 12 of the Bill, he or she should, as our amendment suggests, reasonably believe that the behaviour of the person either consuming or likely to consume the alcohol in a designated public place may lead to an offence.
Perhaps I may repeat the example that I used at Second Reading. Let us suppose that a group of people—perhaps on a family outing to a beach which is in a designated public place—take with them a few beers and a bottle of wine. A police constable will have the right to remove that alcohol on the spot even though it may be obvious to most people that the likelihood of that group's behaviour deteriorating to such a degree that it may lead to an offence is fairly remote. The fact is that once this Bill is passed all of us will feel fairly uncomfortable about consuming alcohol in a designated public place, just as we do if tempted to park even for a brief moment on double yellow lines.
The Minister responded to those concerns at Second Reading by saying that drinking alcohol in a designated public place does not by itself constitute an offence. I accept that. However, we firmly believe that for that effectively to be the case Clause 12 must be more narrowly defined. As currently drafted, a keen constable would be acting quite within his power to compromise all of us, no matter how innocent the activity. This is an example of a nanny state if ever there was one. Amendment No. 27 deals with the disposal of anything surrendered to a constable under Clause 12. We on these Benches have considered this point at some length and have concluded that, while it is important to retain as much flexibility in procedures to be followed by police officers as possible, it should be the responsibility of the chief of police in that area to dispose of anything surrendered as and when he or she deems it appropriate. For example, there is always the possibility of some dispute arising following the confiscation of alcohol or containers, a dispute that may be hard to settle if the physical evidence is disposed of prematurely. In addition, I believe that we are now all very aware of the dangers involved in handling receptacles of any kind found in a public place. Surely it would make sense for the responsibility to rest with a senior police officer.
Turning to Amendment No. 28, this emphasises our wish to see flexibility in the system, given the often difficult circumstances that a constable will need to face and the realistic time-frame within which he or she must decide the right course of action and implement the right procedures. In essence, we think that it would be too draconian to expect a police officer, when seeking to restrain someone or, more likely, a group of
544
individuals, from consuming alcohol and, if necessary, removing the alcohol from that person or those persons, to remember to state that failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirement is an offence. Yes, that would be both a good idea and good practice, but it should not be made a hard and fast rule of law.
What would happen if, on one occasion where the offence was clear cut, a constable should forget to make the statement? It would be a nonsense for the offence to be negated in a court of law just because the constable failed to meet the requirements of Clause 12(5). I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government believe that these amendments would both weaken and complicate the new police powers provided by the clause. Clause 12 will not make it an offence for a person to drink in a place that is designated by virtue of Clause 13. The noble Baroness has accepted that an offence would be committed only if a person continues to drink alcohol in such a place after having been warned by a police officer not to do so, or fails to comply with the officer's request to surrender any alcohol or alcohol containers in his or her possession, in accordance with Clause 12(2). There is, therefore, an important safeguard written into the clause to protect those who may innocently or unwittingly be drinking in such a public place. We would expect people in this position to comply with the officer's request.
The police will have a discretion as to the circumstances in which they exercise these powers. If they do not warn an individual not to drink, no offence will be committed. In addition, by virtue of Clause 13, it will be only those public places that have experienced problems associated with anti-social public drinking that will be designated by the local authority for this purpose. It is right that the police should have effective powers to tackle antisocial drinking in such places and to contain public disorder situations where alcohol misuse plays a part.
We must avoid a situation occurring in which the police consider it to be appropriate to exercise the Clause 12 powers in a designated public place, but then are required to exercise a judgment in respect of each and every individual as regards whether an individual may go on to commit an offence if allowed to continue drinking before exercising their powers.
Baroness Buscombe: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for intervening. The Minister has just contradicted himself. On the one hand he has said that by drinking in an alcohol-free zone, one is not committing an offence, but on the other hand it is entirely at the discretion of police officers to decide that it is an offence. That does not make sense.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that the position is plain. It is not an offence to drink; it is an offence to refuse an officer's request. That is the important point to remember here.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: While I accept that it appears not be an offence to be drinking, even though

545
someone may have been told by an officer that he should not do so, this gives a power to the officer to confiscate from an individual anything he may have in his possession. Following on from the point made by my noble friend Lady Buscombe, if I visit a beach not knowing whether it is a designated area and have with me a cask of wine, is the Minister saying that the police will have the power to remove that cask of wine simply because I happen to be in a designated place? Not unreasonably, having a cask of wine and a glass with me, the police might think that I am likely to have a drink. I understand that the police will be given the power to remove that alcohol from me.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As they do in many instances, the police will have a discretion to exercise such powers. I think that we can expect the police reasonably to exercise that discretion. What they are looking for is anti-social drinking in places where they reasonably believe that public disorder may occur. That is the important point. An area will not be designated unless the area is likely to be a place where disorder may occur. That is how this particular set of powers has been built up and developed in our thinking.
There are already 113 local authorities which exercise similar powers—many of them, I hasten to add, Conservative authorities. They have welcomed these powers and the reasonable way in which they have been exercised. If the noble Baroness would like to draw to my attention to real, practical examples of where there have been difficulties of the order and the nature that she has described to the Committee, I shall be very interested to hear of them.
Baroness Buscombe: The situation at the moment is slightly different; it is much more difficult to invoke by-laws. If the Bill is introduced, it will be a straightforward process for local authorities to introduce these alcohol-free zones—probably in a blanket way—to try to eradicate anti-social behaviour. However, because it will be so easy and straightforward, it will not solve the problem; it will only move it. Creating these blanket areas of alcohol-free zones could make criminals of all of us. That is the point that I am trying to make.
Lord McNally: I should like to bring a word into the debate which I know is much loved by the Minister—that is, "proportionality". The noble Baroness is getting out of proportion the dangers of what is proposed against the real menace it is intended to deal with.
Late at night we always get marvellous images. The thought of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in shorts and sandals, toddling on to the beach with a cask of wine in one hand and a glass in the other, can be considered only as a social exercise and not as an anti-social one. Knowing the noble Lord's hospitality, I am quite sure that a beach party would soon be in motion.
It has been pointed out that Liberal Democrat councils, Conservative councils and Labour councils have all come up against the problem of areas of a
546
town being taken over and denied to ordinary citizens. That has been caused by one of the facts of modern life; that is, the easy access to cheap alcohol in supermarkets, and to not only groups of deadbeats and ne'er-do-wells but also groups of young people making whole areas no-go areas for the ordinary citizen. The fact is that local government has increasingly needed to use these powers. I do not see that as the action of a nanny state but as a reasonable power to deal with a real menace to the ordinary citizen.
I am not as convinced as the noble Baroness that this power will merely move the problem to another area. The areas that become known drinking centres are easily identifiable and, once the drinkers are removed, some of the problems will be removed with them.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: Perhaps I may respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. We on these Benches collectively are not against alcohol-free zones. My concern is that a blanket approach will not solve the problem but merely move it to another area. Does the noble Lord think that people will stop drinking? Of course they will not. It will not make a difference in that sense at all.
The amendment seeks more narrowly to define the offence to ensure that a police officer will approach those people only where it is reasonably likely that an offence will take place. In other words, the rest of us will be left to have a social drink, as opposed to an antisocial drink. That makes it easier for the police officer to carry out his duties in a sensible way. He will not be accused, if he stands back, by some who say, "Look at them. They should stop drinking. It is not allowed. It is an alcohol free zone". He can then say, "I am absolutely correct to stand back and allow those people to carry on drinking because I do not believe that what they are doing at the moment is likely to cause any difficulty or that they will commit any offence". That is the point I am making. I simply want to see a more narrowly defined provision.
This is not about being prescriptive. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said in relation to the need for us not to be too prescriptive in terms of the operation of the Bill's provisions. That is important. We have tried in some of our amendments to concede that point and to help the Minister in that way. But, at the same time, the public need to be reassured that they will be allowed to continue to go about their lawful business and to enjoy urban areas and rural areas, no matter whether they are alcohol free zones, if they are behaving in a way that is social and is not likely to lead to an offence. That is purely what this provision is about.
Lord McNally: Before the noble Baroness sits down, does she agree that a large group of people, even if they are drinking socially, in a public place can be intimidating to the rest of the community? She must take that point into account when deciding whether it is to the greater good that people should be able to exercise the kind of freedom to which she refers. It is

547
not about people unfurling the rug and opening the picnic hamper somewhere and enjoying a glass of wine. It is about groups of people—often young people in quite large numbers—drinking alcohol that they have bought in supermarkets. They may not be going to commit any offence, but they certainly cause disquiet, particularly among older citizens. In the end, whole areas where this activity is carried on become no-go areas for those other citizens.
Baroness Buscombe: I find it hard to accept this argument coming from a Liberal Democrat. I assume, therefore, that the noble Lord is suggesting that, even if groups of young people are in no way in danger of committing a n offence and their behaviour is not likely to deteriorate to the extent that they are committing an offence, they will have to be teetotal? Is that what the noble Lord is saying?
Lord McNally: No. But if 20 or 30 young people go into Tesco's in central St Albans and then go across to the Arena Plaza and start consuming the alcohol that they have purchased, they cause disturbance and in some cases distress.
Baroness Buscombe: That is exactly my point. If they cause disturbance, our amendment kicks in. They are likely to cause an offence, in which case the police officer then feels comfortable that he is right to go up to them and ask them to surrender their alcohol to him. It is to assist the police that we are proposing this amendment. It is not in any way to try to make the provision more difficult or more draconian.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not quite sure that the noble Baroness lives in the real world. I have been dealing—
Baroness Buscombe: Forgive me, but I find that deeply insulting. I hope that the Minister will refrain from such remarks and that he will retract that statement.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not one for being offensive across the Dispatch Box. That is not my style. I try to be polite and precise. But what we are trying—
Baroness Buscombe: Will the Minister apologise for that statement?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I apologise if I have given offence. It was not intended as a personal aside. But we do have to have real world considerations. That is the point that I am trying to drive home. I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on that. I live in a city which is very busy for 24 hours of the day in summer. There is a real problem with young males aged 20 to 35 drinking on the streets in a particular part of the city, St James Street. The local authority is extremely keen to have this range of powers in the way in which they are described in the Bill. It feels that they will help it to deal
548
with a real nuisance. There is actually cross-party agreement within the city council as to how those powers might properly operate.
The Government have very carefully consulted with the Local Government Association and with local authorities generally about the exercise of these powers. We are simply trying to replicate a situation that existed by application through by-laws. That is all that we are seeking to put in place. When the noble Baroness says that this is the "nanny state", that is when I say that we need to deal with real situations in real places and in real time. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, this will give genuine relief to people who feel threatened and menaced by others in such circumstances. I give way.
Lord McNally: Perhaps I may give the Minister another example; namely, the city of Liverpool, which, as he knows, is under Liberal Democrat control. The local authority has taken very strong measures against this kind of public-place drinking, partly because the old image of Liverpool was associated with whole areas where such behaviour could take place. This reflected very badly not only on the image of the city but also on the commerce and the trade; and, indeed. people's willingness to visit the city. One of the first results of that hard-line policy is the fact that more people now go into central Liverpool to enjoy themselves in a social way because they no longer feel intimidated by such public abuse of alcohol.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is precisely the point, is it not? In a city like Liverpool, or one like Brighton and Hove, people will want to drink socially in restaurants and in bars where there are, perhaps, open areas in the summer from which people spill out on to the streets in a confined way. Indeed, tables are often placed on the pavements so as to enable people to enjoy a meal in the open air. It is to protect that very social act of drinking in a more generally considered public place that we are seeking to enable local authorities to make application in the way proposed.
There is adequate protection in the legislation. Officers will be able to exercise judgment and discretion. The power will not be abused in the "nanny state" way of which the noble Baroness is so afeared. I certainly cannot see it interfering with her glass of wine on the beach at Rock, or wherever it is that she takes her pleasure in the summer—according to the example that she mentioned on Second Reading. There are significant safeguards available. Clause 13 will ensure that it is only those public places that have experienced problems associated with public drinking that will be designated for this purpose. In those circumstances, I have absolutely no doubt that the local authority will very carefully define the area to be covered.
I know from my own example in Brighton and Hove that very careful debate has taken place with local amenity groups, local traders, hoteliers, restaurateurs, local action groups on alcohol, and so on, so as to define where the line should be drawn. Indeed, that debate has been most important. Because local

549
councils will be held to account locally, they will have some difficult choices to make as to exactly where that line is drawn.
We do not find these amendments to be workable. We do not believe that they will significantly enhance the quality of this legislation. As I said at the outset, I believe that they would significantly weaken it. For all of those reasons, I must continue to resist the amendment. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Buscombe: In responding to the noble Lord, perhaps I may, first, point out that I, too, live in the real world. I happen to live in London where I know that all of these problems manifest themselves on a daily basis—hence my reaction to the rather insulting comment that was made.
I am disappointed in that I do not believe that the Minister responded to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. We are looking for ways to emphasise the need for flexibility in the system and to help police officers in the process of carrying out what we know to be a very difficult job for all of them on a day-to-day basis. I am sorry that the Minister does not seem to understand that I am trying by way of these amendments to
550
support the work of the police in terms of effectively managing these alcohol-free zones in a way that we believe would help everyone in the long term. Such provisions would help the general public to understand where the parameters lie within the Bill. However, I shall not press my arguments at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Communities Against Drugs Initiative: Funding Distribution
  Communities Against Drugs Initiative: Funding Distribution
  Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee Meetings
  Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee Meetings
  House of Lords: Report of Committee on Standards in Public Life
  House of Lords: Report of Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Zimbabwe: Commonwealth Ministerial Mission
  Zimbabwe: Commonwealth Ministerial Mission
  Nice Treaty: Enhanced Co-operation Measures
  Nice Treaty: Enhanced Co-operation Measures
  Solomon Islands
  Solomon Islands
  European "Reunification"
  European "Reunification"
  Mr Illie Ilascu
  Mr Illie Ilascu
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Government Departments' Websites
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Government Departments' Websites
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Diagnosis
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Diagnosis
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Livestock Slaughter Payments
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Livestock Slaughter Payments
  Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Storage
  Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Storage
  Factortame Litigation
  Factortame Litigation
  Farming and Tourism: Contribution to Gross Value Added
  Farming and Tourism: Contribution to Gross Value Added
  Small Local Abattoirs: Start-up Funding
  Small Local Abattoirs: Start-up Funding
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Assistance by Hunt Servants
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Assistance by Hunt Servants
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Vaccination Approval
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Vaccination Approval
  Swine Fever: Payment Scheme
  Swine Fever: Payment Scheme
  Rendlesham Forest: Tree Felling
  Rendlesham Forest: Tree Felling
  Pig Industry Outgoers Scheme
  Pig Industry Outgoers Scheme
  Tourism, New Media and Information Society Projects: EU Support
  Tourism, New Media and Information Society Projects: EU Support
  UK Jobs and EU Membership
  UK Jobs and EU Membership
  UK Withdrawal from EU: Tariff-free Access to Single Market
  UK Withdrawal from EU: Tariff-free Access to Single Market
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Assistance to Equestrian and Other Rural Businesses
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Assistance to Equestrian and Other Rural Businesses
  Greater Manchester Brain Injury Vocational Centre
  Greater Manchester Brain Injury Vocational Centre
  House of Lords: Writs of Summons
  House of Lords: Writs of Summons