Sitting of 1 February 2001

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Thursday 8 February.

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

    Farm Diversification
    Barbara Follett: What support he is giving to farm business diversification projects. [146775]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The England rural development programme supports our diversification policies through the £152 million that is behind the rural enterprise scheme. That money will be made available over the next seven years. There are also processing and marketing grants, the vocational training scheme, the energy crops scheme and tree-planting schemes. In addition, the action plan for farming provides for new farm business advice services that offer business health checks for those farmers who want them. It significantly supports diversification opportunities. We are also producing a free guide to on-farm diversification and, on top of that, we aim to make available free planning advice to farmers pursuing diversification under the rural enterprise scheme.
    The rural White Paper contains a number of extra innovations on planning that will help diversification, and we have consulted on providing time—limited rate reliefs for farmers who wish to diversify into non-farming activities.
    Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and, in particular, for his remarks on the planning process. Is he aware that many farmers, including Mr. Owen of Mansell farm, Codicote, in my constituency, find the planning process too long and too costly to make such diversification practical?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a good point. When farmers consider diversification, they may not have the economic wherewithal to put behind a planning application, with all the professional costs that that entails.
    424
    I hope that it will be possible to help my hon. Friend's constituent with the free planning advice that we now offer, but I would like the planning rules to be more compatible with our objectives for farm diversification. Discussions between my Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are taking place to pursue that objective.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the Minister tell us more about the way in which the proposals will affect people setting up riding stables on farms? Although we welcome the opportunities for farmers to be able to diversify, several people who are not farmers have contacted me. They run riding stables and they fear that they will he placed at a competitive disadvantage. Will the Minister ensure that whatever grants and help are available to farmers are equally available to those who specialise in running riding stables?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and that is why the issue of help for farmers who make use of diversification measures is out for consultation. He is right that diversifying into businesses that offer equestrian sports is one possible way forward. People considering diversification look to what public support is available, whereas those who are already in the sector worry about the competitive impact on their businesses. He is right to raise this point; it explains why the issue is out for consultation.
    Charlotte Atkins: Would the free business service that the Government have set up for farmers also extend to issues such as farmers markets and farm box schemes? They have been profitable for many farmers, especially small hill farmers such as those in my constituency.
    Mr. Brown: It is certainly possible for the farmers who make use of the free business advice—after all, the Government are paying for it—to explore whether it would be practical to go into farm box schemes or other on-farm enterprises. That is one way forward. It is not the answer to every farmer's current difficulties, but it is a useful way of getting more money through farm-based businesses, and one that it is perfectly proper to explore with business advisers.
    Mr. James Paice: The Minister announced 10 months ago in his action plan that £6.5 million would be available for farm business advice services to help farmers to improve their businesses and planning, and to diversify. Yet by Christmas only 2 per cent.—£130,000—of that money had been spent. Can he tell us how much he expects will have been spent by the end of March? Will the underspend be rolled forward into the next financial year, or do we add that to the £26 million that he told us last time would probably be lost to the pig industry?
    Mr. Brown: It is my intention that every penny of the £66 million that was allocated to the pig industry scheme over three years will be spent on the pig industry. Although I cannot announce the outcome now, discussions are taking place in Government that are designed to achieve that objective. I know, for what it is

    425
    worth, that I have the hon. Gentleman's support in trying to achieve that objective. [Interruption.]Let me finish my answer.
    Precisely the same point applies to the farm business advice scheme. If it is not possible to spend the budget in this financial year, I want to carry forward the allocated money into the next financial year and, possibly, following years.
    Every Member who has been a Minister understands the nature of discussions about end-of-year flexibility and carrying budgets forward. There are issues to be discussed with the Treasury, but I make it absolutely clear to the House that I aim to ensure that the money that was made available at the Prime Minister's March summit is spent on the objectives for which it was allocated.

    Organic Farming
    Mrs. Diana Organ: What the Government's budget is for research and development into organic farming; and what it was in 1997. [146777]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government have progressively increased the budget for research into organic farming from £1.1 million in 1997–98 to the present figure of £2.1 million. In addition, as part of the action plan for farming, £2.3 million has been allocated to establish the European centre for organic fruit and nursery stock at Horticulture Research International, in Kent.
    Mrs. Organ: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. If the development of organic farming is to be successful, Government budgets must be administered efficiently and effectively. What would he say to my constituent, Mrs. Ravenshill of Birdwood, an excellent cheese producer who missed the support scheme for conversion by a few days and was debarred because her certificate from the Organic Trade Association came two and a half months after her application?
    Mr. Morley: We have increased the budget for organic conversion and reopened the scheme with an additional £18 million for this year. Following the review of the scheme's working, we have, as part of that increase, formally accepted into the scheme people who have started conversion up to three months before they apply. We have now doubled that window of application to six months, so if my hon. Friend's constituent applied within that six months, she can now apply for the conversion grant.
    Mr. David Curry: The Minister will be aware that when consumers buy organic food they often attribute certain characteristics to it. He will be aware also that often there is no scientific basis that would validate the claims that the consumer makes but which the producer knows cannot be made. Should it not be a purpose of the research to try to lay a sound scientific foundation for the qualities of organic food, so that there
    426
    is no eventual disillusion and consumers do not think that they are being taken for a ride, going voluntarily for a ride, or simply buying expensive food?
    Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that no one has a right to make claims about any food which are not validated by science. The organic organisations know that very well, and I know that the question was addressed in the right hon. Gentleman's thorough and well researched report from the Select Committee on Agriculture. We assist in a variety of research into organic farming, and the Government recognise that there is clearly established research showing that organic farming offers certain environmental benefits. There is much less indication from research that it has benefits for the food itself. If organic bodies feel that there are such advantages, they can commission research to try to justify their claims.
    Ms Debra Shipley: Does my hon. Friend accept that my constituents want the choice of organic food? Will he join me in welcoming the twentyfold increase in funding for organic conversion since the Conservatives were in power? My constituents definitely want such funding because they want a choice of food.
    Mr. Morley: I certainly accept what my hon. Friend says. In the five years leading up to our review of the organic scheme, about 400 farmers converted to organic production within five years; in the last year alone, 1,800 farmers have converted. The Government are committed to supporting consumer choice and those farmers who want to diversify their business by taking advantage of the organic market.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: In view of the concerns of many organic farmers about the threat to the integrity of their produce from neighbouring genetically modified crops, will the Government guarantee that the commercial planting of such crops will not be allowed until English Nature, the Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation, has confirmed that they are environmentally safe?
    Mr. Morley: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a three-year moratorium on the commercial planting of genetically modified crops. That is to evaluate the potential impact on the environment, along with other matters, which is being carefully and independently researched. The Government have made it clear that if there is evidence of problems, we will reconsider the length of the commercial moratorium.

    Stewardship Agreements
    Joan Ruddock: What plans he has to increase the area of farmed land subject to countryside stewardship agreements. [146778]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a substantial increase in the countryside stewardship budget in December 1999. As part of the England rural development programme, £500 million is allocated to the scheme over the

    427
    seven-year period 2000–06. Each year, we will be accepting roughly double the number of applications that we did in 1999.
    Joan Ruddock: May I tell my hon. Friend how important the countryside stewardship scheme is to those of us who live in cities and who greatly value the conservation of landscape and wildlife in rural areas? Will he confirm that spending under this Government on such schemes has trebled? Will he also confirm that, in terms of public support for farmers, it is further proof, if any were needed, that the Tory party can no longer claim to be the friend of the farmer?
    Mr. Morley: I can certainly confirm my hon. Friend's point. The budget has increased by the amount that she claims. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to the countryside, to the people who live and work there and to the taxpayer, who pays for the schemes. The schemes are good news for all our objectives. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, compared with 1996–97, when spending on countryside stewardship was £10.9 million, by 2006–07, under our projected budget, the Government will be spending £126 million. That will be more than a tenfold increase—a commitment to the countryside unlike that of the previous Administration.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: As the Minister who had the privilege of launching the countryside stewardship scheme, I am delighted that progress is being made. However, will the Minister tell us when the backlog of payments under existing schemes will be cleared?
    Mr. Morley: I was discussing that very point —ensuring that payments are made to those who are part of the countryside stewardship and environmentally sensitive area schemes—in one of the regional service centres yesterday. There has been a computer problem. I understand that it has been largely resolved, and that the vast majority of payments are now being made.
    Mr. David Taylor: May I tell my hon. Friend that throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s I had the good fortune to live in a house that overlooked open countryside in which hedgerows were a prominent feature? However, they were steadily uprooted as a result of farm practices and the inducements of the then Governments. Is my hon. Friend confident that the countryside stewardship scheme, which I believe has restored about 6,000 miles of hedgerow, will continue even further to reverse the tragic losses of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s?
    Mr. Morley: I am confident of that. Farmers have been taking advantage of the countryside stewardship scheme and have been restoring hedgerows. Many have been planted over recent years. As my hon. Friend rightly said, about 6,000 miles of hedgerow have been reinstated. The advantage of stewardship is that we can adapt it to changing circumstances. We have introduced the new arable stewardship pilot scheme. The increasing budget means that we can further extend various aspects of the scheme, to the advantage both of those who live in the countryside and of those who want to see it protected.
    Mr. Colin Breed: What can the Minister say to the Hosking brothers of South Hams, who
    428
    have been turned down once again for countryside stewardship funding, despite exemplary farming practices which they have pursued for many years? Does he agree that the focus on paying for improvements in standards rather than on standards themselves has real disadvantages for conscientious farmers who have taken it upon themselves to engage in best practice to meet environmental standards? Would not such farmers be better off if they had bulldozed their hedges, ploughed up pastures, filled in ponds, and then applied for funds to repair the damage?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman has a point. It is true that the priority of the scheme is to reinstate lost habitats and introduce features that have been lost. It is right to have priorities, and I am sure that Members would accept that we need to get maximum gains from the budget in relation to the benefits that the scheme is paying for. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that conscientious farmers, many of whom have kept important environmental, wildlife and landscape features because they are committed to conservation, are at a disadvantage owing to the way in which the scheme works.
    The priority can be justified, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in 2003, we are having a mid-term review of such schemes and the way they operate. That is an opportunity to look at how we can address problems of that kind, bearing in mind the fact that, under this Government, there will be a continually rising spend on the budget for those schemes.

    Dairy Supply Chain
    Mr. Eric Martlew: What steps he is taking to improve co-operation in the dairy supply chain. [146779]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government encourage all involved in the dairy industry to work together to bring about an improvement in the dairy supply chain. Last November we set up the milk taskforce as part of the Government's action plan for the long-term development of agriculture. It is seeking to identify methods of beneficial collaboration along the supply chain, from the milk producer through to the retailer and consumer.
    Mr. Martlew: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. When I visit the Nestlé creamery in my constituency tomorrow, I am bound to be asked why there is still a ban on the export of dairy products to Saudi Arabia when there is no justification for it. I should be grateful if the Government informed us of progress on that. There is no doubt that farmers in my constituency and throughout the country are not getting a fair price for their milk at present. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what the Government are doing to achieve co-operation between dairy farmers and retailers to ensure that the dairy fanners get a decent price and the retailers remain competitive?
    Ms Quin: I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns about the position of dairy farmers in his area and the concerns that he raised about the unjustified Saudi ban on dairy

    429
    products from this country, and, indeed, from other countries in the European Union. On the Saudi ban, we have made repeated representations to the Saudi Government: the ban has no basis in science and has certainly not been justified by the Saudis in relation to any risk analysis.
    The most recent contact was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who discussed the issue on a visit to Riyadh in January. We will continue to press the issue. The fact that the Saudis have recently extended the ban in the wake of BSE concerns in the European Union is not helping, but we will continue to make the case, which, we believe, is extremely powerful. Encouraging co-operation and collaboration in the dairy supply chain is an important issue, and the taskforce that I mentioned is to report by the end of March.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: While the Minister talks about reviews and taskforces, is she aware that, over the last 12 months, the income of dairy farmers has dropped by 21 per cent.? Is she aware that 16 per cent. of all dairy farms have gone out of business since her Government came to power? Is she also aware that, from 1998 to June 1999, more than 5,000 dairy farm workers left the industry? Does she not realise that under her stewardship, the dairy chain has been broken?
    Ms Quin: The dairy chain has certainly not been broken; I listed the number of measures that, by contrast with the previous Government, we have taken to encourage collaboration in that chain. I do not underestimate in any way the difficulties facing dairy farmers. None the less, Government have introduced a large number of measures, including the abolition of dairy hygiene inspection charges, agrimonetary compensation—which we gave in full to dairy producers—securing the retention of the school milk subsidy, and removing the weight limit on cattle over 30 months old. All those things were urged on us by dairy farmers, and we have responded positively to them.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that the industry has faced major changes since the demise of the Milk Marketing Board, Milk Marque, and subsequently. Does she feel that the industry is now in a position to go for high value-added milk and dairy products to meet the needs of consumers in this country, thus ensuring that milk producers get the best value for their milk?
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend highlights an important issue. There are now encouraging signs regarding the organisation of the market and the response given by some of the companies to the challenges imposed on them by the findings of the Competition Commission. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said that the companies could become involved in processing, as such involvement is an important means of adding value to products in the way that my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: What will the Minister do to encourage co-operation in dairying? Dairy Crest has salami-sliced jobs in west Wales and Cardiff, where 550 jobs have been lost from the industry. A plant lies empty in Whitland, although it
    430
    could perfectly well sustain the jobs. Will she please help the dairy industry to restore those jobs and to make organic and environmentally friendly products in Wales?
    Ms Quin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the initiative for some of those matters lies primarily with the Secretary for Agricultural and Rural Development in the Welsh Assembly. I assure him that the Government discuss the dairy sector in meetings with devolved Ministers, in order to share ideas and to encourage greater collaboration on the dairy supply chain throughout the United Kingdom. The rural development scheme contains a number of measures that are of interest to the dairy industry and which it should consider. Currently, however, price is the main issue. Despite some recent and welcome increases, prices remain depressed for dairy producers.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What his priorities are for the 2002 review of the common fisheries policy. [146780]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government wish to see the maintenance of key features of the present arrangements such as national quotas based on relative stability and access restrictions within national six and 12-mile limits. At the same time, we want to secure improvements to make the CFP a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks. That includes enhancing the regional dimension, integrating environmental considerations more fully and reducing discards.
    Mr. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he give a commitment to fishermen that no other countries will fish in the no-fishing zones? Our fishermen are a bit cheesed off, as we keep to every dot and comma of European law, while our competitors—our partners, I should say—are flouting it to their advantage.
    Mr. Morley: Claims are not always borne out by the facts, but I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance: I am confident that we will ensure in negotiations on the review of 2002 that our six and 12-mile exclusive fishing limits remain. Indeed, I intend to argue that they should be a permanent feature of our national limits. I am confident that we will achieve that outcome, as we have been engaging with our European neighbours and have adopted a consensus approach to the matter.
    Our approach contrasts with that of the Conservative party, which has unworkable policies on fishing. In last week's debate on fisheries, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), made it clear that the Conservative party will be unelectable if it pursues its half-baked proposals.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: How can the Parliamentary Secretary have the gall to speak about making the common fisheries policy a more effective instrument for conservation, when it has been a conservation disaster? Would he not be better employed facing up to what he acknowledged in opposition—that it

    431
    is only by obtaining control of our own waters that we will ever be able to conserve stocks, as well as the British fishing industry?
    Mr. Morley: When it comes to issues such as enforcement, we have control of our own waters. We need to ensure that the necessary enforcement is provided. Hon. Members may like to consider the location of the fishing grounds specified in the recent cod recovery programme. Almost all the most important cod fishing grounds for our country are currently outside our national limits. Unless we have a European mechanism for dealing with conservation, we will have no influence on matters that are vital to our industry. That is the mistake that the Conservatives are making: they are considering narrow national interests, rather than the long-term interests of our fishing industry.
    Mr. Frank Doran: My hon. Friend has made it clear that he understands Conservative party policy well. Conservative Members would withdraw from the common fisheries policy, effectively make a unilateral declaration of independence in the North sea and the channel, and enter into complex negotiations over access, which our fishermen have had for decades, if not centuries—
    Hon. Members: Order!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must ask about ministerial, not Opposition policy.
    Mr. Doran: At a time when the fishing industry is facing its most serious crisis in decades, can the Parliamentary Secretary imagine a more serious threat to its future than Conservative policy?
    Mr. Morley: I cannot imagine a more serious threat. I should like to know the exact details of the policy, because last week's debate revealed that it would not involve non-UK vessels leaving our waters, or returning the quotas of non-UK fishermen to British fishermen. It would lead to a loss of UK influence on fisheries control and management. The Opposition's policy is half-baked, ill thought out and undeliverable.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that the uncertainty with which many fishermen regard European negotiations was increased with the release of documents under the 30-year rule? They revealed that, in European negotiations about fishing in a wider UK context, fishermen would be regarded as expendable. He and I can remember more recent European negotiations when fishing interests were subordinated to other objectives.
    What is the Parliamentary Secretary's perspective? When entering into negotiations, does he regard relative stability as an essential, without which there can be no common fisheries policy? Will he persuade the Government to subordinate other European objectives to fishing, for a change?
    Mr. Morley: I believe that relative stability is vital and that we need to maintain it after 2002. I am confident that we can do that, because it is in our country's interest and that of other countries. As for the hon. Gentleman's
    432
    comments about the fishing industry being expendable, the documents related to a previous, Conservative Government. They do not represent the Government's view. We have given the fishing industry probably unprecedented involvement in making decisions on issues that are important to its future.
    Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend doubtless knows the strength of feeling in Grimsby and Cleethorpes about the impact of no-fishing zones on income and jobs. Is he sympathetic to calls for compensation for loss of income? What will he do to get money from the Treasury to further that aim?
    Mr. Morley: It is difficult to grant compensation for limited closures to protect fish stocks that have been damaged by fishing. However, I accept that the fishing industry faces structural problems. I met industry representatives this week to discuss ways in which the Government can help with the long-term problems that they face.
    In relation to the cod recovery programme for the north-east ports, I stress to my hon. Friend that the prawn grounds have been kept open and that the inshore fishing industry's interests have been protected. There is a balance to be struck between protecting fish stocks and ensuring that our industry has fishing opportunities. I believe that we have got that balance right.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the UK industry is now in crisis owing to swingeing quota cuts imposed by the common fisheries policy and the high price of fuel, and that the problem has been exacerbated by the recently announced cod recovery programme in the North sea? Given that financial support by Spain and France for their fishermen is under European Commission scrutiny as a possible breach of competition rules, how exactly does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to give financial support to our fishing industry in the short term?
    Mr. Morley: Structural measures are available; funds are available in our structural programme. Regional programmes can also assist fishing ports. We must explore all those methods. There is also decommissioning, and consideration of whether there is an argument for reducing the capacity in the UK fleet. Those measures are under discussion.
    I accept that policies have financial implications, and some funds are available. I note that financial commitments are not forthcoming from the Opposition. Given their pledge to make cuts of £16 billion in public expenditure, it is difficult for them to make such commitments.

    Farm Animal Welfare
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What recent representations he has received concerning the impact of agricultural trade liberalisation on farm animal welfare. [146782]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I have received a number of such representations. We support the European Commission in its recent formal proposal to the World Trade Organisation, which explicitly calls for animal welfare to be considered in trade liberalisation negotiations. The proposal was tabled by the EU Commission in Geneva in December, with the unanimous support of EU member states.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that it would be a disaster if trade liberalisation were to mean that UK livestock was exported to countries with lower animal welfare standards? Will he give the House an assurance that Britain will be at the forefront of EU efforts to place this matter high on the agenda in the next WTO round of negotiations?
    Mr. Morley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The issue has been raised by the UK and the European Union. It did not feature in the previous World Trade Organisation talks, and it is a welcome step forward that it will now do so.
    In relation to the higher standards being implemented by UK and European Union farmers, consideration is given to issues of quality standards in the context of globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is legitimate that those issues be raised in the context of the WTO talks, and they will be.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: In the context of moves towards more trade liberalisation, do the Government share the concerns of many poultry farmers that some imported poultry may have been reared using growth-promoting drugs that have been banned throughout Europe on health grounds? Are there any circumstances in which the Government would consider blocking such imports?
    Mr. Morley: Under this Government, we now have an independent body—the Food Standards Agency—responsible for monitoring the safety and quality of food coming into this country. Quality standards are monitored in the UK and throughout the EU, with further inspections of plants in third countries. If the FSA has evidence of a problem, it will make recommendations to the Government, who will have no hesitation in acting on them.
    Kali Mountford: Farmers in my constituency have no problem keeping within the guidelines for animal welfare. They keep their livestock to a very high standard, but are concerned about the quality of imports. What advice does my hon. Friend the Minister have for those farmers on informing consumers
    434
    of the high quality of animal welfare in this country, and advising them how to make decisions when buying their meat?
    Mr. Morley: A number of quality assurance schemes are already in place, supported by a range of bodies, including the red tractor standard supported by the National Farmers Union. Consumers should consider that information carefully. The Government are keen to ensure that consumers have as much information as possible, so that they can make informed choices and use consumer power to support our producers, who are applying the very high standards that people want.

    Agrimonetary Compensation
    Sir Robert Smith: When he intends to reach a decision on the payment of agrimonetary compensation to British farmers. [146783]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The final figure will not be known until later this month. However, the amount available is likely to be about £200 million. We have until 30 April to decide. Since 1997, the Government will have paid £629 million in agrimonetary compensation, at a cost of £455 million to the United Kingdom taxpayer.
    Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for his answer, as far as it goes, and recognise that some money has been paid in the past.
    The message from the farmers whom I met in Alford and Stonehaven last week—confirmed by figures from the Ministry showing a fall in farm incomes—is that they would like an end to at least one element of their uncertainty as soon as possible. Will the Government make a commitment, in principle, to recognise that a mechanism is available to alleviate the currency problems that the farmers face, and that they are willing to access the money involved as soon as possible to alleviate that uncertainty?
    Mr. Brown: The Government recognise that such a mechanism is available. We have made extensive use of it, both on the mandatory side—it is worth reminding the House that this Government negotiated the mandatory element of agrimonetary compensation—and on the discretionary side. We have made use of the instrument when times have been very difficult for farmers, particularly in the livestock sector.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Now that the euro has regained about 10 per cent. of its value against the pound, what effect will that have on the money available in agrimonetary compensation? More generally, does not that rise mean much better support prices and better market prices? Indeed, could not it herald the turnaround in the fortunes of agriculture?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. However, the calculations are of course historic, so they relate to where the euro was rather than to where it is

    435
    going, although he is right to say that a strengthening of the euro would be to the advantage of United Kingdom agriculture.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: In the light of the facts that dairy farmers in Wales last year earned as little as £3,000, that further money is available in agrimonetary compensation, which the Minister accepts, and that the figures are historic and reflect the lack of support payments to farmers over the past few years, will he now give farming industries in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom the assurance that the Government will receive every penny possible despite the Fontainebleau agreement, which was negotiated by the Conservatives?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the previous Conservative Government's Fontainebleau arrangements because those arrangements put the cost of agrimonetary compensation primarily on the shoulders of the British taxpayer. The issue of further agrimonetary payments is under consideration by the Government and a decision will be made, as it usually is, in—[Interruption.] I cannot tell whether Conservative Members, who are shouting at me, are making the case for membership of the euro or for devaluation of sterling, but it is clearly one of the two. No doubt a Conservative Front Bencher will intervene in a moment to say which.
    In answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), when we considered the circumstances of the dairy industry for the previous agrimonetary round, we drew down every penny we could in recognition of the difficult circumstances. I know that averages are always held to be unfair, but that decision is worth £900 per dairy farmer.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a typical livestock farmer has benefited by between £1,000 and £1,500 through agrimonetary compensation? Will he consider the fact that an increase in that would benefit farmers who are in need this year and also confirm what the previous Government paid in agrimonetary compensation?
    Mr. John Bercow: That is not enough money to heat a swimming pool.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Buckingham is right. The sum paid in agrimonetary compensation under the previous Conservative Government would not pay to heat anything at all, because they did not pay out a penny in agrimonetary compensation—not a single penny. [Interruption.] I do not know how I managed to stir Opposition Front Benchers from their usual lethargy, but, for the sake of the record, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) is shouting, "Three months, three months!" Before the general election, it would have been possible for the Conservative Government to commit to just under half a billion pounds of agrimonetary compensation, if they had so chosen. They did not commit to a penny.
    It is worth reminding those who follow these debates that, although Conservative Members now call for substantial extra public expenditure on agrimonetary compensation, they also call for overall reductions in
    436
    public expenditure and tax cuts at the same time. I would be as interested as everyone else to hear how on earth that could be done.

    Hunting with Dogs
    Mr. Peter Luff: What assessment he has made of the impact of a ban on hunting with dogs on arrangements for the disposal of fallen stock. [146784]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Burns report considered that, in the event of a ban on hunting, farmers would lose a large part of the collection service for fallen stock currently offered by hunts. Farmers would then need to use an alternative disposal method, such as the rendering or knackery services or incineration. Proposed European Union rules could also affect the disposal routes available to farmers. We are in close touch with the disposal and farming industries over possible future arrangements.
    Mr. Luff: The Minister has, for the second time, honestly admitted that the Government value the service provided by hunts to farmers in connection with fallen stock, but, given the increasing problems in disposing of stock to which she alluded, including on-farm burial and incineration, is not it time for the Government to produce an authoritative figure for the cost that would be imposed on British farmers were hunting with dogs ever to be banned? Will she at least admit that that figure would be substantial?
    Ms Quin: The Government commissioned the Burns report precisely to look at those issues, and I commend its findings in that regard. However, the position is uneven across the country, depending partly on the geographical distribution of hunts, and partly on the availability of other services. Given that situation and the fact that there are European Union rules and proposals in the pipeline, it is important, as I said in my answer to the hon. Gentleman, to discuss with farmers and the existing industry how best to move forward.

    The Solicitor-General was asked—
    SOLICITOR-GENERAL

      Narey Reforms
      Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: What effect the Narey reforms have had in expediting the prosecution of offences. [146805]
      The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Early indications are that the Narey reforms, brought about through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, are having a substantial effect on reducing delay and improving efficiency. They have been implemented in two stages. The first stage, which was introduced in November 1999, led to all defendants appearing before a court within days of being charged, rather than four or five weeks later, as

      437
      was previously the case. That enables defendants who wish to plead guilty at the first hearing to be sentenced very quickly, often the day after charge.
      The second stage, which came into effect just over a fortnight ago, ensures that defendants charged with the most serious cases, such as murder and rape, appear in front of a Crown court judge in little more than a week after charge, following a single magistrates court appearance.
      Mrs. Lawrence: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. I am sure that, like me, he realises that in more serious cases, the delays before the final resolution is achieved often cause extra distress to the individuals or the families concerned. What overall reduction in delay will be offered by a speedy Crown court appearance?
      The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right that delay has an effect, for example, on victims and witnesses. The idea is to move such cases into the Crown court quickly. The experience in the past fortnight has been good. For example, a case was reported to me yesterday involving a rape committed on 19 January. The case was heard in the Exeter Crown court a couple of days ago, and the person will be sentenced shortly. Such swift treatment of serious cases is to be welcomed. I shall be visiting my hon. Friend's Crown Prosecution Service area in the next week or so, and I hope to get good news about swift justice there, as well.
      Mr. John Burnett: The Narey review stressed the importance of an efficient and effective Crown Prosecution Service. At the last Solicitor-General's questions, I mentioned to the hon. and learned Gentleman that additional funding had been made available to the Crown Prosecution Service, but he knows as well as I do that the morale of the CPS has been rock bottom. I should like the Solicitor-General to answer the question that I asked him last time: will he cause to be conducted an independent review of the morale and effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service? If so, when, and will he put the results of that review in the public domain?
      The Solicitor-General: I do not accept that CPS morale is rock bottom. There were problems last year, but there has been a significant increase in funding—about 23 per cent. nationwide in the next year. The hon. Gentleman's area has hit the jackpot, as it will receive a 14 per cent. increase in real funding next year. Overall, nationwide, that means some 500 more people in the CPS to carry out prosecutions. There will be a certain number in the hon. Gentleman's area, as well. There was a problem of stress. The CPS management will re-examine that in the coming year.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare an interest as a practising lawyer. Bearing in mind that part two of the Narey reforms is now coming into effect, will my hon. and learned Friend learn the lesson of the procedures that took place in Northampton and other places during the experimental period, where it was found that if the process went ahead too quickly, the case that finally came to trial was deficient from the prosecution's point of view, because not all the statements and forensic evidence had been obtained? Although
      438
      speedy justice is welcome, one must be careful that the full case goes before the court, not a partial case, which can lead to a miscarriage of justice either way.
      The Solicitor-General: I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is always tension between speedy justice on the one hand and the rights of defendants on the other. Certainly, cases must not move so quickly that the rights of defendants are prejudiced.

      Criminal Justice
      Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the average length of time between arrest and trial. [146806]
      Mr. George Mudie: If he will make a statement on the length of time the CPS takes to bring cases to court. [146810]
      The Solicitor-General: The average length of time between the commencement of proceedings and trial, or guilty plea, is reducing. The latest available data on all defendants in the magistrates courts shows that the average time fell to 49 days in September 2000. As for the Crown court, the average time between charge and committal for trial is also falling. The average time for adult defendants fell to 89 days in September 2000. The figures for youth defendants show a reduction to 85 days between arrest and committal.
      The Crown Prosecution Service has made a substantial contribution to the achievement of those results. I am confident that the additional funding that I have mentioned, and other changes, will maintain this encouraging progress.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his characteristically comprehensive reply.
      Although I accept that a reduction in the average length of time between arrest and trial is an important policy objective, does the hon. and learned Gentleman in turn accept that it is less important than the pursuit of justice and the nature of the trial itself? Will he belatedly acknowledge that the proposed removal of the right to trial by jury in a number of very important cases is a gross affront to justice, and that even at this stage the Government should withdraw their disgraceful proposal?
      The Solicitor-General: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the mode-of-trial proposals, which concern only a small number of cases. As for his point about quick justice, under the last Government the time was 142 days for persistent young offenders, which was simply unacceptable. It did not bring home to wrongdoers the need for them to change their ways. We have now reduced the time to under 100 days—an average of about 94 days nationwide, although in some areas it is much lower than that. The idea is to bring persistent young offenders before the courts quickly, so that they have to address their wrongdoing. I think that that is the right policy.
      Mr. Mudie: Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on the time between arrest and trial of youngsters, particularly in the light of a recent case in my

      439
      constituency? A young lad abused an antisocial behaviour order within a week of its imposition. That was last March, but the case was brought to trial only a few weeks ago. Does that indicate that our pledge is being met, or does it indicate—more interestingly, and more worryingly—a lack of interest in the success of ASBOs on the part of the CPS?
      The Solicitor-General: It certainly does not indicate a lack of interest. We take antisocial behaviour orders very seriously.
      I cannot explain why that case took so long without knowing more about it. In some cases, the offending of persistent young offenders is linked with that of adult offenders; such cases might go to the Crown court. That might explain the delay, but if my hon. Friend gives me details I will look into the matter.
      In my hon. Friend's area, the average time is down to the national average of about 94 days. That is good news, but I reiterate that we are driving the figure down even more. We must meet the 71-day pledge, and we are on track to do so later this year.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is the Solicitor-General satisfied with the time that it takes to get a case that is referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the Court of Appeal?
      The Solicitor-General: That does not fall within my responsibility. There are a number of possible reasons for the delay. Such cases are often extremely complicated, and some—including the one in which the hon. Gentleman has an interest—are historic, often requiring detailed investigation. Generally, however, we are trying to speed up justice, and we are achieving that aim.
      Mr. David Kidney: The CPS is one of many contributors to the prosecution process. Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that there is still scope for improved co-ordination and co-operation between all those contributors to speed up cases?
      The Solicitor-General: One of the beneficial effects of the persistent young offender pledge and of other changes, such as the Narey changes, which I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), is that the different agencies are now working together. Under the previous Administration, they were very much autonomous institutions. They now have to work together, and they are working together. Recently, as my hon. Friend knows, I visited the CPS in his constituency and saw how successfully it is working with police. Under the Glidewell changes, which are now being rolled out nationwide, prosecutors are often with the police in police stations making quick decisions.

      Crown Prosecution Service
      31. Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What procedures the CPS follows prior to making a decision not to proceed with a prosecution which is at an advanced stage. [146807]
      The Solicitor-General: Crown prosecutors review each case on its own facts and merits in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. The process of review is a continuing process; fresh evidence may become available which alters the prosecutor's assessment of a case, or the public interest considerations may change. Wherever possible, Crown prosecutors will discuss significant changes to the charges, or stopping the case, with police before a decision is made.
      Attorney-General's guidelines have just been introduced on the procedure to be followed by advocates when decisions are taken at court. Those guidelines emphasise the importance of prosecutors speaking with the victim or the victim's family so that their views and interests can be taken into account.
      Mr. Mackinlay: May I ask the Solicitor-General whether the Crown's decision not to offer evidence at the trial, on 8 June 1999, of Linda Watson and Amanda Williams for the murder of Richard Watson had anything to do with the fact that the security and intelligence services had some interest in the case? If so, was that interest disclosed to the Police Complaints Authority when it pursued that botched prosecution?
      The Solicitor-General: I have written to my hon. Friend about that case. Certainly as far as I know there was no involvement of the security and intelligence services whatsoever. As I explained to him, the CPS made the decision not to continue simply because the prosecution's forensic evidence did not amount to proof. The defence produced forensic evidence, and frankly, our evidence could not match it. On such a basis, as I said in my reply to him, the prosecution must be stopped. That is in the interests of defendants.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the Solicitor-General accept that victims and victims' families are frequently bewildered by the lack of information on the reasons for either dropping or reducing charges in given cases? Does he accept that the Opposition's proposal that there should be a named CPS officer or lawyer to act as a point of contact between victims or victims' families and the CPS is a good one? Would it not eradicate as far as is humanly possible the sense of bewilderment facing victims and their families? I am sure that he is a reasonable man. Therefore, if he accepts our proposal, why does he not implement it?
      The Solicitor-General: I am afraid that the Opposition are stealing our policies—because that is precisely what is in our proposals that will be rolled out later this year. There have already been pilot projects to test our proposals whereby the CPS will be the point of contact for victims, victims' families and others in relation to decisions on charges. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that, often in the past, that has not happened and people have been bewildered about why, for example, charges have been dropped or pleas have been accepted.
      As I said, the national scheme will be rolled out later this year. Under the Attorney-General's guidelines, which I mentioned earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), if a case is there for trial and a plea is accepted, victims and their families must be informed so that they can have an input.

      Chile
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What plans he has to start proceedings relating to the deaths of William Beausire and Father Michael Woodward in Chile. [146808]
      The Solicitor-General: It will not be a surprise to my hon. Friend when I say that I have no plans. Many people, including William Beausire and Father Michael Woodward, were tortured and murdered under General Pinochet's regime in Chile in the 1970s. Our courts, however, do not have jurisdiction to try those responsible for those appalling acts. As I said in my statement to the House on General Pinochet, on 2 March 2000, the criminal offences both of torture—which is contrary to section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988—and of hostage-taking under the Taking of Hostages Act 1982, which otherwise might apply, were not retrospective and could not be made to apply to matters such as the two deaths about which my hon. Friend inquires.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am disappointed with that answer. Also disappointing was the Department's attitude to the possibility of holding a private prosecution of General
      442
      Pinochet when he was held in this country, and to supporting an application in the Chilean courts. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a case has been successfully deposited in the High Court in Chile regarding Charles Horman, a US national who was also murdered in that country? That case is listed for hearing. Will not he re-examine the mountain of evidence relating to the cases mentioned in my question, and the new evidence from a Chilean navy officer who witnessed the torture of Father Woodward?
      The two victims will never return. Will not my hon. and learned Friend also meet their relatives, and see what practical legal support can be given to the families to help them mount a serious case against Pinochet and all his henchmen in the Chilean courts, where hundreds of such cases are at last being mounted?
      The Solicitor-General: Under the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, it is possible for authorities in this country to assist prosecutors in Chile, and that might well happen.
      In addition, what this country did in relation to Senator Pinochet has had a catalytic effect in Chile. That is a good thing. Secondly, were these appalling crimes to occur today—God forbid that they would—the cases could be tried in a court here.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business of the House is as follows:
MONDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Failure of the Government to Address Social Exclusion, Poverty and Job Losses in Wales" on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru, followed by a debate on personal care for the elderly on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
TUESDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill.
Motion on the Draft Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Disapplication of Part IV for Northern Ireland Parties, etc) Order 2001.
WEDNESDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Homes Bill.
THURSDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.
FRIDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
Remaining stages of the Capital Allowances Bill.
WEDNESDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill.
THURSDAY 15 FEBRUARY—We hope that there will be a debate on the report of the BSE inquiry by Lord Phillips on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 16 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The House will wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 14 February, there will be a debate in European Standing Committee A relating to the prevention and control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 14 February 2001:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 5196/99, Control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 23-xxxi (1999–2000) and HC 34-xiii (1998–99).
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on Thursdays for the next four weeks will be as follows:
THURSDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Debate on social security fraud.
444
THURSDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Debate on the reports from the Education and Employment Committee on standards and quality in education and the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.
THURSDAY 22 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
THURSDAY 1 MARCH—Debate on the report from the Health Committee on provision of NHS mental health services.
Perhaps I can take this opportunity to remind the House that not only will the House not be sitting on Friday 16 February, but it will not return until Monday 26 February.
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. It comes as something of a surprise to find that after just a week the Government have changed their mind about holding a debate on Thursday 8 February on standards and privileges. That is an important debate which, as the right hon. Lady knows, has the support of those on the Conservative Benches. What has happened in the past week to change her mind about that being an appropriate subject for debate by the House? Is it that standards, as far as Ministers in this Government are concerned, are their own standards, and that privileges mean the exploitation of their office?
During the past week we have seen the Prime Minister dismiss a Cabinet Minister in the morning for not telling the truth, and tell the House in the afternoon, with tears in his eyes, that that is a tragedy, while two days later the Prime Minister's press secretary described that tragic figure as "detached" and "lacking focus". No one could describe the right hon. Lady as detached and lacking focus, so will she explain why we are to be deprived of that very important debate next Thursday?
May I also ask the right hon. Lady to explain why a debate on social security fraud scheduled for next Thursday is to be taken in Westminster Hall and has not been allocated time on the Floor of the House? It is a very important debate, not least because since the Government came to office they have made no fewer than 46 announcements about tackling benefit fraud. It was a major pledge in their election manifesto, yet it is clear from parliamentary answers that social security fraud is out of control. The issue deserves the scrutiny and consideration of the whole House in the Chamber, rather than being kicked into Westminster Hall in the hope that it will not be noticed.
I refer the right hon. Lady to the request that I made on 21 December last year. There is a need for a debate on the intelligence services; she will be aware that members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are very anxious to have such a debate. Last year, the Government were late in holding that debate and promised that it would be held on a more timely occasion in this Session. Will the right hon. Lady look very carefully for a slot for that debate in the near future?
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: We can't tell the hon. Lady, it's a secret.
Mrs. Browning: There is another secret in which I am even more interested; perhaps the right hon. Lady can help us with it. Can she prevail upon the Chancellor to disclose publicly the date of the Budget? We are now into February and the date must be in the Chancellor's diary.

445
Could I prevail upon her to persuade him to disclose that date so that next week when she comes to the Dispatch Box she can share that information with us?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement in the House early next week on the public-private partnership that the Government have proposed for the tube? We have recently heard from Mr. Kiley—a man who knows something about these matters—that the Government's proposal is undeliverable. If that is the case, the House would like to discuss the matter in some detail.
Mrs. Beckett: First, the hon. Lady asked me about the provisional business that I had announced. I always make it very plain that provisional business is exactly that.
The hon. Lady is right that we have moved the debate that was originally proposed on standards and privileges. However, she seems to have overlooked something, which I think that the Conservative Members who raised the matter last week also overlooked. When we eventually have that debate, it will be on the recent report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. As I said to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who raised the matter last week, I am very mindful of the prerogatives of the Chair to decide what is in order. However, as the report does not deal with the behaviour of Ministers, because that is not a matter for the Register of Members' Interests, and their conduct, it would be hard to argue that it would be in order to raise such matters.
I think that the hon. Lady is clutching at straws, in a desperate attempt to find yet another excuse to raise the events of the past 10 days or so. However, I can tell her of the two other factors that have led the Government to decide to move the debate. First, we are ready to deal with the remaining stages of legislation, which, as she will know, has to be a priority for the Government. Secondly, I understand that the Committee is continuing to take evidence from Conservative Members on the report that it is proposed that we should discuss. The Chair of the Committee let me know that although it was obviously a matter for discussion, there would nevertheless be merit in letting the Committee finish taking evidence before the House discussed the matter. That is the view of the Committee's Chairman, and it is obviously a legitimate point of view.
The hon. Lady asks me why we did not find time on the Floor of the House for the debate on fraud, which will be held in Westminster Hall. As she will remember, the Conservative party did not seek to hold that debate on the Floor of the House. Indeed, if it is such a vital matter and as neglected as she suggests, it is surprising that the Conservative party has not found the time to raise it, given that it has had several Opposition day debates already. Furthermore, she seems to have forgotten that we have introduced a Bill on social security fraud, so the notion that there is a lack of opportunity to discuss that matter seems somewhat flawed, to put it no higher than that.
I accept, of course, the need for a debate on the intelligence and security services, and the Government will seek to find time for one at some point. I cannot enlighten the hon. Lady about the date of the Budget, and I do not think that that is unreasonable.
446
The hon. Lady will know that there have been constant statements about the tube from Mr. Kiley and from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and that such matters are under discussion. No doubt when those discussions are at a more refined stage, there may be something to announce to the House.
Mr. Mackinlay: May I take the Leader of the House back to the reply that she gave me a couple of days ago? I reminded her of the Prime Minister's promise to the House on 13 July, that we would have a free vote on the proposals in the Liaison Committee report, "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive". She said:
"I am entirely familiar with the Hansard reference that my hon. Friend quotes. I am familiar also with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said because I was sitting two places away from him at the time."—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 171].
I was watching her when he made that statement. She grimaced because he was speaking off-message; it was not part of the script. The fact is that the Prime Minister unequivocally gave an undertaking that we would have a free vote on the matter. No other construction can be put on it but that we would have that vote this side of the general election. There would be no purpose in having it after the general election, because the whole idea was to have those measures in place when we return—if we return—after the general election. Will she think about that again?
Mrs. Beckett: With great respect to my hon. Friend, when he has already raised a matter some half a dozen times with me, there is no need to ask me to think about it again. I have thought about it repeatedly. He knows what my view is; I have expressed it, I hope, with clarity as well as with courtesy. I simply say that the position remains as I have told him on many occasions.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Did the Leader of the House notice that Conservative Members did not welcome the BSE debate? We on the Liberal Democrat Benches warmly welcome that debate, which is on an issue of huge importance to the countryside and particularly to the much damaged livestock industry. However, will a statement be made well in advance of that debate about the Government's response on BSE and to the Phillips report? Obviously, that it is extremely important.
Will a statement be made, and can we have a debate on the politicisation of the civil service, not just in relation to the role of Mr. Alastair Campbell, but more generally? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Cabinet Office and the Treasury have now admitted that civil servants have been used to calculate the cost of various Opposition policies, yet the House has not been given access to that information? Civil servants are doing a job at taxpayers' expense, yet we, who represent taxpayers, cannot question Ministers on the work being undertaken.
Given that the right hon. Lady is reviewing various matters in her role as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, will she review the arrangements for recording abstentions? She will be aware that, especially since the Queen's Speech, those on the Conservative Front Bench have been recommending abstentions so

447
regularly—indeed, they did so even last night—that we do not know whether Conservative Members are abstaining on principle or simply going home.
Mrs. Beckett: I really must take the hon. Gentleman to task for that foul slur. Given the massive number of occasions on which those on the Opposition Benches call for us to sit ever longer days and ever longer hours, it surely cannot be that they have gone home—even if they are not registering their numbers in vast quantities in the Division Lobby.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the BSE debate. I recognise that Liberal Democrat Members, at least, have raised that matter repeatedly. That is why I was anxious to give an indication as to when the Government hope to be able to schedule the debate. Of course, I understand the wish to see the Government's response in a timely period before that debate; that is partly why I stressed that the date I mentioned was when we hoped to hold the debate. The Government are anxious to put before the House the right combination of information, and, of course, to hold a debate on it.
The hon. Gentleman also asks about the politicisation of the civil service. On that, I have to take issue with him. The Prime Minister's official spokesman is on a special adviser contract and his role is in accordance with that contract. There is no suggestion of it being politicised or in any way outwith the rules.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the use of the Treasury to cost policies, but nothing whatever is new or untoward about that—it has happened since time immemorial. In consequence, it does not seem to me that the matter requires any special statement.
As for recording abstentions, I have already dealt with that issue. From my observations, the hon. Gentleman may be entirely right; a large number of Tory Members are not always here for the long hours that they claim to be in this place, but that—I am happy to say—is a matter for them.
Mr. Tom Clarke: May I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the terrible earthquake in India, and also in the south and south-east of Pakistan? Does she recall that, following similar earthquakes in Turkey, the relationship between Greece and Turkey improved considerably? Does she agree that a debate in the House might encourage India and Pakistan to work not only on their recovery programme, but on wider issues to their mutual advantage? That would have the support of the whole Commonwealth and, indeed, of the wider international community.
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. It has often been said that the aftermath of the tragic events in Greece and Turkey was to encourage recognition of the degree to which they benefited from assisting each another. I entirely take his point that the same argument has validity in the case of India and Pakistan. At present, the great concentration of concern in both countries must be to deal with the aftermath of that appalling event. I hope, however, that in the long term, it will indeed have the effect suggested by my right hon. Friend, although I fear that I cannot find time for a debate on the matter at present.
Sir Norman Fowler: Yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to the appalling plight of millions
448
of people in Africa suffering from HIV and AIDS. Recent figures have also shown a developing problem in this country, although, obviously, it is not on the same scale. May we have a debate in the House on Aids and will the Government make a statement on what they are doing to help to combat the challenge both in this country and overseas?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot find time for an early debate on AIDS, although as we are hoping to take the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill on Wednesday 14 February, the right hon. Gentleman may find an opportunity to air the subject during debate on the issues raised in that Bill. I take his point that it is a matter of great concern in Africa. I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate, but I recommend to him the attractions of Westminster Hall.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Could the Leader of the House arrange a debate on admission policies to primary schools? That is a problem for many local education authorities at present—including mine in Durham. Four and five-year-old children living in Coxhoe in my constituency—a village that has expanded over the years—cannot obtain places at the local school because the maximum class size is 30. The children have to attend local schools two or three miles away where there are many empty places. It is not acceptable for four and five-year-olds to have to travel such distances in bad weather because they cannot get a place in a local school; there are sound educational reasons why they should not. I fully support the Government's policy of having a maximum of 30 children in a class, but can we have a debate on the issue to see whether a solution can be found?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents who face those difficult circumstances. I recall that, in my city of Derby, a fast-developing new estate caused the same type of difficulties because sufficient provision for children had not been planned under the Conservative party.
My hon. Friend will know how much work the Government are doing to try to improve the position in education. For example, we have the highest number of teachers employed for more than a decade—7,000 more than there were in January 1998. He will also know of the substantial programme of capital investment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced recently.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the particular problems that my hon. Friend has identified in his constituency. However, I remind him that oral questions to the Department for Education and Employment will be held on Thursday next.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: When the Leader of the House replied to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) about the Prime Minister's promise of a free vote on the Liaison Committee report, "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive", might she not, for the sake of clarity and courtesy, have added the word "contempt"? There has been contempt for members of the Liaison Committee and contempt for the

449
House, which is owed a debate and a free vote on those measures. She should find Government time for such a debate.
Mrs. Beckett: I did.
Dr. Brian Iddon: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 181 on the price of industrial gas, which has almost doubled in recent months?
[That this House notes the near doubling in the price of industrial gas over the last 12 months and the detrimental effect this increase is having on energy intensive sectors of manufacturing industry; expresses concern about the operation of the gas supply interconnector between Bacton in East Anglia and Zeebrugge in Belgium, which links a de-regulated market in Britain with a continental market where the price of gas is still linked to the price of oil; views with alarm allegations of collusion between the gas supply companies; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ask the Office of Fair Trading to carry out a full scale investigation into the wholesale gas market.]
The price rise has been the last straw for a factory in my constituency that makes paper. It employs 170 people but, this week, it has announced its closure. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe makes a statement about that, so that hon. Members can fully understand the complex reasons for that huge hike in industrial gas prices?
Mrs. Beckett: I have great sympathy for my hon. Friend and his constituents. I know that others in industry are similarly affected. The Government are conscious of the importance of gas prices and of the impact of the recent rise, which, I understand, is primarily due to high oil prices. The Government take the view that, if anti-competitive activity is identified in this sector, they will not hesitate to refer the matter to the appropriate competition authorities. My hon. Friend might like to monitor developments with a view to making such information available to my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe if he thinks that that is appropriate.
Sir George Young: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider the rather terse reply that she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) about the Liaison Committee report? Will she reconsider what she said on Tuesday, when she made it clear that it was very unlikely that there would be a debate on the report before the end of this Parliament? Does she recognise that, if we do not take a decision in this Parliament and we want to set up the Select Committees quickly in the new Parliament, we will have to use the current system? Although she may be able to persuade the House on a free vote to retain the present system, it is not right for her to stifle both a debate and a vote on this important matter.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman has more cause than anyone to know that what I have said about a
450
free vote has not changed from the very beginning. He has asked me this question more often than most, although the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is seeking to catch up with his record. I take his point entirely that—if, as it may be, there is a general election some time in the next 18 months—it will be important for Select Committee appointments to be made speedily. I am not at all sure that a new system of making those appointments is likely to be speedier, but I certainly assure him that everyone will bear his remarks in mind.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the cuts being made by many Tory-controlled councils? In Calderdale, the Tory council proposed massive cuts to social services and education. It is attacking the weak and defenceless, yet it received a reasonable settlement. One of the worst cuts is to the Scope outreach service, which looks after elderly disabled people. The council is also scrapping free school milk, which is particularly mean, and increasing council tax by far more than the party promised in its election manifesto. It is about time that these people were exposed.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, not least because one of the moves that, in theory, everybody wants to see is towards a better balance between health and social service care, so that we can, in particular, care for the elderly in their own homes, as most of them would wish. She is right to point out that cuts in social services undermine that objective. She is also right to indicate that in the four years since the general election, the Government grant to local government has gone up by 14 per cent. in real terms, compared with a cut of 7 per cent. in the previous four years, so that stability in grant distribution and a substantial increase in investment mean that councils should be able to plan ahead for good services.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue, but my hon. Friend may find that the attractions of Westminster Hall beckon.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the opening exchanges after the statement by the Leader of the House, can she give an assurance that after three and three quarter years, we shall get a definitive statement on the Government's policy on the tube before the general election, so that we can verify whether their handling of the tube is actively intended to sacrifice Labour seats in London or whether it has some other motivation?
Mrs. Beckett: I think that most Tory Members, and perhaps even the right hon. Gentleman himself, would acknowledge that the underlying problems of London Underground are due to years of neglect and under-investment. Dialogue about the tube's future continues. As for when it can be concluded, obviously we all hope that that will be as soon as possible, but I am afraid that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a date.
Helen Jackson: The Leader of the House will be as keen as we are that Members are not kept here unnecessarily and that they do not have their time wasted. She will be aware that Hansard shows that three times this week the number of Members opposing a

451
Government motion in the No Lobby was zero. She may be interested to know that in the whole of the previous Session and up to Christmas in this Session that never happened. Does she believe that the Opposition are totally falling down on their job in that they call votes but fail to produce any of their Members in the Lobby?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which chimes in with the earlier point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Of course, although it is open to any Member—or rather any two Members, since two names are required for the tellers—to call a Division, people have always wondered whether it is wise to call attention to the fact that support for the stance being adopted is as little as two Members. Although our procedures allow for that, I share my hon. Friend's view that it is perhaps a less than constructive use of time, but the Opposition do not seem to be very good at making constructive use of their time.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office to explain how equality and law and order issues arising from the Belfast agreement are being dealt with? One person who was out on licence was readmitted to prison because of perceived involvement in activities contrary to that licence. By contrast, another, a murderer, was released and has committed that crime again in murdering Trevor Kells, but he has not been called back under licence, although I understand that some of his republican colleagues have exercised their own summary justice. Surely the law of the land should be maintained.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses. I cannot undertake to ask a Northern Ireland Minister specifically to deal with the issues that he raises in the very near future. He will know, however, that there is shortly to be a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and he may find the opportunity within the parameters of that meeting to raise these issues.
Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend, after liaising with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, try to bring forward at an early date the student nurse review, especially with regard to bursaries? A group of colleagues and I met some student nurses at the recent south-west conference of Unison, and to a person they were saying, "Can we have the review brought forward and a debate to discuss how nurses can be properly rewarded to ensure that we get the proper number of nurses on our wards?"
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that the Government have already recruited significant extra numbers of nurses, and expanded the number of training places so that more potential nurses are coming forward. I understand his concern and I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I remind my hon. Friend that we hope to take the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill on 14 February. He may have an opportunity then to air these matters.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the Leader of the House accept from me, as one who has been fairly
452
criticised by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, and therefore has some understanding of the difficult task that members of that Committee have to undertake, that by moving next Thursday's debate for what every objective observer will perceive as purely party political and partisan reasons, she has done much to undermine the integrity of the Committee? There is nothing that the right hon. Lady knows today about that debate that she did not know last Thursday. Moving the debate will give credence to those who think that it is a Committee with an in-built Labour majority that is acting on party political reasons. That is a tragedy for the Committee and a tragedy for the House.
Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not follow fully the point that I made earlier, which is that since— [Interruption.] I am mindful that it is for the Chair to determine what is in order. As the report that we would have been discussing, and which we may still have an opportunity to discuss, does not deal with the conduct of Ministers, it is difficult for me to see how that matter could possibly be in order. I do not see where the hon. Gentleman's point about partisan treatment of the Committee arises. I utterly reject his suggestion that the Government are seeking in any way to take, or have taken, action that will inadvertently affect the integrity of the Committee.
The hon. Gentleman's reference to the fact that the Committee has a Labour majority, as do all Select Committees, is somewhat unfortunate. All Select Committees reflect the pattern of the House. His reference to that was particularly unfortunate because he may have noticed that recently there has been a growing tendency in the press to refer to decisions of the Committee as being made by the Labour majority, when the Committee was unanimous. That undermines the integrity of the Committee.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I join the shadow Leader of the House in calling for an early debate on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ operations, especially as new Official Secrets Act legislation is to be brought forward? I ask my right hon. Friend to prevail upon my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary himself to reply to such a debate. That is the unanimous request of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot find time to schedule a debate in the near future. My hon. Friend will know of the considerable pressures on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's diary, inevitably often dictated by events elsewhere. However, I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Michael Jack: Last week, I asked the Leader of the House if she could find time for a debate on what was going on in the murky waters of the millennium dome. Those waters have got even muddier this week with press reports of the difficulties of Mr. Bourne, who is said to support the Government with personal donations, and is unable to find the money to buy the dome or to find some activity to go inside it. We also learn that further calls may be made on public funds to deal with expenses connected with the dome

453
We still have not had an opportunity to probe more thoroughly the role of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) in determining what went in the dome. When can we have a debate on the matter so that we may know more clearly what is going on?
Mrs. Beckett: One of the few criticisms that I have not yet heard of the dome is that it is full of water. However, the issues surrounding the dome have been aired extensively in the House on many occasions and, no doubt, will be aired again in future. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on them in the near future.
Gillian Merron: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the tragic case of Mark Thorne, a young man in my constituency who was electrocuted while working at Fatty Arbuckle's, a fast-food restaurant in the city of Lincoln? The coroner returned a verdict of unlawful killing; clearly, this was a tragic and terrible case of employer negligence. Will my right hon. Friend press the Government to introduce legislation as soon as possible to make corporate killing an offence? The family of Mark Thorne want that and I strongly support its introduction.
Mrs. Beckett: The whole House will sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituents in their tragic loss and the terrible circumstances that led to the death of that young man. It will share her view that those difficult issues ought to be investigated thoroughly.
My hon. Friend will know that the Government recently issued a consultative document on corporate killing. I believe that the consultation period has now ended and the Government are studying the responses, which we take seriously and with which we will deal carefully. I will, however, draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the relevant Ministers.
Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Leader of the House agree that every school and local authority in England eagerly awaits the School Teachers Review Body's decision and that of the Government on how they will fund school teachers' pay awards this year? Is it not bizarre that last night there was agreement on the local government settlement, without the teachers' pay review award being included? Today, there was to be a statement at 1 o'clock, announcing the outcome of the teachers' pay review. That was suddenly pulled and it will now be made at 9.30 am tomorrow. Will the Leader of the House tell the House that there will be no statement about that on the "Today" programme tomorrow morning, and that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will come to the House at the start of business to make a statement on that incredibly important issue?
Mrs. Beckett: I would simply say to the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, of course, seek to make that announcement in the proper way. At present, I am not aware whether he hopes to make it through the medium of a written answer, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is perfectly in order. I do not recall whether any changes were made to today's
454
business; I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is correct about that. However, we are shortly to have an important statement on the steel industry and the entire House will think it proper that that statement is made today.
Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that we used to have some terrible local government financial settlements under the Conservatives. However, we did have lengthy debates on those inadequate settlements. Now we have better settlements for Derbyshire and other areas, but we do not have such lengthy debates. We had an inadequate set of debates last night, which lasted just three hours. Why cannot we have the best of both worlds—better settlements still for Derbyshire and long, full debates?
Mrs. Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point. He is quite right, and I know how strongly he and other Derbyshire Members have pressed those issues in the House over the years. I understand his regret that, last night, we had only two one-and-a-half hour debates on local government funding. He will know, I hope, that that was the result of objections from Conservative Back Benchers to the Government motion, which sought to provide more time for those debates. Whether their objections stem from the fact that they do not wish to discuss better settlements for local government is a matter for my hon. Friend to consider.
Mr. Christopher Chope: The Leader of the House keeps telling us that she cannot find time for this debate or that debate, but she could find time for all the debates if she was prepared to order the House to sit during half-term week. Is not it increasingly clear that Labour Members are trying to hide behind half-term week in order to deprive the public and the House of the chance to hold this awful Government to account?
Mrs. Beckett: The recommendation that the House should not sit during what is most schools' February half-term, if that were at all possible, was made by the all-party Modernisation Committee at a time when I was not one of its members. I believe that that recommendation, which was also proposed by the Jopling report, was unanimous. As for the suggestion that the Government are seeking to avoid the scrutiny of the House, we have provided 200 extra opportunities for debate in Westminster Hall, so that is a pretty ludicrous accusation.
Mr. Huw Edwards: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an urgent debate on the future of the steel industry, following this morning's announcement by Corus of 6,000 job losses—1,200 of which will occur in Llanwern, near my constituency—and the closure of Ebbw Vale? Does she agree that Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman of Corus, has treated the House, the Government and the unions with contempt? Should not the matter be publicly and urgently debated in the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the serious concern that is felt by all hon. Members—a concern that is likely to be expressed when we move on to the next business. I am also conscious that my hon. Friend has had the forethought to secure a Westminster Hall debate, in which

455
I believe that he hopes to air the issues. I fear that I cannot undertake to find in Government time the opportunity for a special debate in the near future. However, I have little doubt that, as matters unfold, hon. Members will continue to press for various opportunities to scrutinise the unfortunate developments that have occurred. The Government have tried to engage the company in constructive discussion, but without the success that we would have liked.
Mr. John Redwood: I was touched by the right hon. Lady's explanation of why she took the extraordinary decision to cancel Thursday's debate on standards and privileges. She said that the motion might not be wide enough to allow the House to discuss the funding of the dome, the granting of passports and all the other topical matters relating to ministerial misconduct and allegations of such misconduct. If such are her reasons, why will she not ensure an early debate on a wide motion? I am sure that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) would value the opportunity to counter the allegations of dishonesty that are currently circulating against him from Cabinet members. I am sure that the many Ministers who are clinging precariously to their jobs would also like the opportunity to set the record straight on their own misconduct. Surely providing such a debate would be the right thing to do, instead of sweeping the matter into the long grass and sending Parliament away for far too long to ensure that the public do not see proper scrutiny of this miserable Government.
Mrs. Beckett: Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he either does not listen to what is said, or does not follow it properly. I did not give the reasons that he described in respect of not pursuing the debate at the present time. Opposition Members are clearly desperate to discuss the Hammond inquiry before its work is finished and have argued that many other issues need addressing, so I simply pointed out that we now have the opportunity to discuss two items of Government legislation on the day to which he refers. Given Opposition Members' comments on the need to scrutinise the Government's actions, I would have thought that even he might have thought that such business was more important.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the progress of legislation to establish through ratification and into full law the International Criminal Court? Does she accept that there is unnecessary delay in the House of Lords? Will she do her best to persuade the relevant authorities there to ensure that the measures pass rapidly into Committee, so that they can come to this House and be passed into law? They can then be used to bring to justice the international criminals who can currently go free.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has for some time expressed a great interest in those matters and
456
pressed for the measure's introduction. I am not aware of any untoward delay in the House of Lords, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of relevant colleagues. I assure him that the Government are anxious to make progress on the matter.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The transport commissioner for London is today meeting the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the future of the underground, for whose long-awaited modernisation the Government promised a public-private Partnership. Will the Leader of the House at least induce the Deputy Prime Minister to provide progress reports, if that is the correct term? Will she encourage him not to wait for what she earlier called a somewhat refined stage in discussions? Knowing the Deputy Prime Minister as we do, we cannot help but expect that we might have to wait an inordinately long time for such a stage to be reached.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the modernisation of the tube has been long awaited. It is unfortunate that it waited 18 years under the Government whom he supported. However, I assure him that the Labour Government are keen for the constructive negotiations that are taking place to be successfully concluded. If that happens, we shall be only too anxious to make it known.
Ms Hazel Blears: Is my right hon. Friend aware of worrying reports today about a former Conservative immigration Minister who admitted receiving papers from the Hinduja family for a passport application and was employed by them as an adviser after leaving office? Does she agree that, for the Hammond inquiry to be full, thorough, transparent and fair, the House must have access to papers from the previous Administration that show the involvement of Conservative Ministers in the matter? That would ensure that all the issues were brought to light and that the House had confidence in the inquiry.
Mrs. Beckett: I had seen the reports to which my hon. Friend refers. The papers that Sir Anthony asks to see and their release are matters for him, not the Government. I am sure that he will wish to examine thoroughly the facts about a series of events, which, from my reading, are of long standing. However, I know that Sir Anthony is anxious to complete his inquiry speedily, and we must therefore strike a balance.
Sir Anthony has expressed a wish for Ministers to avoid making comments that appear to prejudge any aspect of the inquiry before it produces any details. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend understands if I do not comment further on her question.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

Steel Industry
1.17 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the steel industry and the announcement made today by Corus.
The House will know that since early December Corus has been conducting a review of its operations, the results of which were announced this morning. Corus has said that it intends to introduce radical restructuring measures, which will mean significant job losses in England and Wales. More than 6,000 jobs will be lost; about 3,000 will be lost in Wales and 3,000 in England.
Corus has failed to discuss its plans with the Government. Relevant information has not been disclosed; the company has resisted any meaningful dialogue and has refused to discuss in detail its plans for the industry. We have expressed our anxieties to the company about that lack of information at the highest level.
There is no doubt that Corus has been facing difficulties. Trading conditions are tough, and there has been a clear need for the company to take steps to address those problems.
The Government recognise that it is for Corus and any other company to take the commercial decisions that it believes are necessary. However, in the case that we are considering, capacity will be reduced and thousands of jobs lost as a result of a short-term response to the difficulties.
The Government acknowledge that, at a time of globalisation, many sectors of industry are undergoing major restructuring. In those circumstances, the role of Government is to provide economic stability. We are doing exactly that. Consequently, more than 1 million more people are in work now than in 1997.
Inflation remains around or below the target of 2.5 per cent. Long-term interest rates are the lowest for 35 years. We have put an end to the old cycle of boom and bust. Building on that platform of stability, the Government have been driving forward an active industrial policy to enable established industries to modernise, to adopt new processes and technologies and to support the development of new industries.
We have seen manufacturing productivity increase by about 3.5 per cent. over the past year. Exports are growing, with manufacturing export volumes up by more than 9.5 per cent. in the past year. Manufacturing output is also rising. The prospects for manufacturing are improving,-with most forecasters expecting growth to pick up over the next two years. Only this morning, the latest Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply report showed manufacturing growing at its fastest rate since March last year.
Today's announcement by Corus stands in stark contrast to other manufacturing companies that are prepared to take a long-term view. In recent weeks, Toyota and Nissan have taken positive decisions on production in the United Kingdom, when they could have gone anywhere in the world. They have decided that they have a future as manufacturers in the United Kingdom. They have committed to substantial new investment. They
458
have demonstrated confidence in their labour force and in the economic stability and favourable business environment that this Government have established.
Corus should, like Toyota and Nissan, weigh up its long-term interests and prospects and, in responding to the real challenges that it faces, put far greater weight on the new opportunities for developing into new markets. Even after today's announcement, Corus will remain a major employer, with about 22,000 employees in the United Kingdom—a demonstration of the fact that there is a future for the steel industry.
It is because there is a future for the industry that Corus should think again about the proposed closures and redundancies, and work with the trade unions, the Government and the National Assembly for Wales to identify a better way forward. We recognise that that is a commercial decision to be taken by the company and that action had to be taken to tackle the losses being suffered. However, Corus should now engage openly and work constructively with all the relevant parties, building on the strengths of the steel industry.
UK steelworkers have improved productivity dramatically in recent years. They are the most highly productive steelworkers in the whole of Europe. Between 1998 and 1999, they increased their productivity from 533 tonnes per person to 571 tonnes—well above the levels in Germany and France. We have been working with the industry to help it to improve productivity, to modernise and to adopt new technology.
The work force at Corus have shown their long-term commitment to the industry and to the company, and I share their anger at Corus's behaviour. Corus should now work with its employees and the communities affected. Should Corus refuse to change course, it must meet its obligations. It must pay the costs of the clean-up of the sites affected by today's announcement. It should then release them quickly and play its part in helping the communities affected.
The Government will not walk away from the innocent victims of this decision. We will be there alongside them. We will provide help for the individuals affected, support for local communities and backing for regeneration schemes to support the local economy and provide new jobs for people. However, it need not come to that.
Corus could adopt a different approach. If it were to do so, it would have the support of the Government. On behalf of 6,000 steelworkers, their families and the communities in which they live, I urge Corus to think again and to work with us to identify a better way forward.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of his statement.
The ending of iron and steel making at Llanwern and at Ebbw Vale and the plant closures elsewhere—not just in Wales, but in Yorkshire and Teesside—represent a devastating blow to the workers affected and their families, especially as productivity in those plants increased so enormously over the past 20 years. The 6,000 job losses announced today come on top of some 4,000 last year, and the ripple effect will be felt much more widely among suppliers and others, including, as it happens, my constituency, which provides limestone for steel making. Where will the 3,000 job losses affecting

459
so-called "other business operations" fall? In other words, outside Wales and the north of England, which other local economies and communities will be affected?
The much wider problem represented by the job losses is the manufacturing decline since 1997. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, since the general election, more than 350,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector? What is his assessment of the rate of those job losses? Are today's announcements just the symptom of a wider malaise and a deeper trend, which is getting worse, not better, in manufacturing industry?
Last week, we initiated a debate on manufacturing in which we demanded from the Secretary of State a package of practical and immediate measures to help manufacturing. Why did he refuse our proposals? We gave him specific examples of the regulatory burdens and the extra business taxes on manufacturing, which are undermining its international competitiveness. Is he aware that the United Kingdom Steel Association has specifically drawn attention to the burden of those extra regulations and the damage that it is doing to our competitiveness in overseas markets?
Is the Secretary of State aware that Corus partly blames high transport costs, which, of course, are caused directly by Government taxation policies that have made road fuel taxes the highest in Europe and undermined every manufacturing company that has to transport its products to the continent or elsewhere?
Last week, we demanded that the Government withdraw the new energy tax—the so-called climate change levy—which will come into effect in April and will do further damage to manufacturing concerns such as steel making that are high users of energy. Will the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, withdraw that new threat to manufacturing jobs? How can he justify an unnecessary and damaging extra measure that Corus must have taken into account in its decision to lay off such a number of workers?
Manufacturing is the sector that the Labour Government forgot. The Government say, and the Secretary of State has just told us, that Corus must think again. I hope that it does think again, but the Government must think again as well, and they can start by dismantling the £32 billion of extra regulatory and tax costs that the CBI has identified as an extra burden on British business over this Parliament.
Who in the Government is responsible for policy on Corus and on manufacturing and the steel industry? Is it the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Is it the Secretary of State for Wales? Is it the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly or his deputy, who is a Liberal and who apparently speaks on economic matters? Is it the Prime Minister, who met the chairman of Corus? Is it the Chancellor, who imposed those extra, damaging business taxes? Instead of a firm and clear strategy to stop the closures and reverse the trend in manufacturing decline, all we get from the Government is policy fragmentation and devolution of responsibility to others. Who is in charge of a strategy to prevent this from happening again?
We have been warning of these job losses for months. We have seen new Labour taking old Labour for granted. We have seen a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is constantly surprised at the damage that his own policies are doing. The Opposition will do all that we can to help the Government find a way out of the serious
460
situation, but only the Government can introduce a practical and immediate package of measures to restore the competitiveness of manufacturing industry in world markets. If the Secretary of State cannot do that, will he make way for those who can?
Mr. Byers: I think that there were some questions in that statement, to which I shall try to reply.
The right hon. Gentleman speaks of transport costs. When he has time to read the detail of Corus's announcement, he will see that transport costs were not a major issue. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked the questions. He should let the Minister reply.
Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman will see that, as part of the restructuring announced today, Corus will take products from Teesside down to Llanwern, so transport costs are clearly not a great issue.
The right hon. Gentleman did not mention the costs of the climate change levy to the steel industry: £8 million a year. If he had referred to the losses being incurred by Corus, he would have realised that £8 million is insignificant in that context. I do not know what contact the right hon. Gentleman has had with the chief executive of Corus, but if he had met him to talk about the company's plans and proposals—we have known since 5 December that the review was under way—he would know that the climate change levy was not a consideration. It was raised specifically with the chief executive, and it was not an issue.
The right hon. Gentleman speaks of jobs being lost. He fails to refer to the fact that, on average, every year for 18 years under the Conservative Government 150,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. That is his record.
The right hon. Gentleman does not refer to the impact of Tory policies on the steel industry. All that he needs to look at is the record of his Government. Between 1979 and 1997, 121,000 steel jobs were lost under the Conservative Government.
The right hon. Gentleman's solution is to deny workers minimum standards. When he speaks about the burden of regulation and red tape, he means the national minimum wage, which would go under the Conservatives; he means the right to paid holidays, which would go under the Conservatives; he means that the opportunities that we have provided for trade union recognition would be denied; and he means that health and safety would be put to one side.
That is the Tory prescription for manufacturing industry and for industry generally. We will not embrace that approach. All that the Tories offered was boom and bust. We offer economic stability and a far better way forward.
Mr. Paul Flynn: There was no malaise at Llanwern, which has the highest productivity, high investment and high tech—a brilliant success for Britain.
Today, we have witnessed the butchery of the steel industry. There have been many crises in the steel industry in the past 50 years. They have all been solved by common sense, agreements and deals done between

461
Government and the industry. Today, we have seen the industrial heart ripped out of the Ebbw valley. Six months ago Corus said that it intended to invest £150 million in the furnace at Llanwern. Today, that prospect was given the death sentence. That will mean that the rest of the plant is less viable.
Is it not true that by rumour, by denial of dialogue and by refusing to consider any alternative deal, Corus has callously and cynically manipulated the position, indifferent to the suffering of local people, entirely for the internal benefit of one single company? The assets and skills of Llanwern are being stripped out to benefit the company, and the contracts will be enjoyed by its Dutch arm.
Is it not right for us to censure Corus today—
Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman should censure his own Government.
Mr. Flynn: Those who claim that this is a party political matter will rightly be treated with contempt by those who have seen their futures destroyed by Corus. It should be seen as a company with an undeveloped social conscience, but a highly developed instinct for greed.
Mr. Byers: Labour Members understand the anger articulated by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents. There is a personal element in what he says: he worked at Llanwern for a number of years.
There is no doubt that the process and procedures adopted by Corus run counter to most of the ways in which British business should be operating at the beginning of the 21st century. It has not involved the work force: it has made no attempt to explain the policies or the difficulties. The review has been in progress for nearly two months, but there has been no attempt to adopt a partnership approach.
Our message to Corus is clear. We understand the difficulties that it faces, but we believe that it can overcome those difficulties if it works in partnership with the Government, trade unions and the National Assembly for Wales. The steel industry operates very much on an economic-cycle basis. It is experiencing difficulties now, but good times will come. What worries the Government is that capacity and jobs are being lost, and that when we have opportunities in future we shall not have a strong steel industry that can take advantage of those opportunities.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Most right-thinking people will probably agree that Corus has displayed a disgraceful neglect of its work force—the most productive steelworkers in Europe. Those running the company have behaved like a bunch of 19th century ironmasters. The loss of 6,000 jobs in south Wales, Yorkshire and north-east England is a tragedy for those workers and their families.
Is the Secretary of State aware that today Corus is recruiting steelworkers for its plant in Holland, but sacking workers in the United Kingdom? Does he believe that the crux of the matter is the euro and, indeed, exchange rates, which have caused every ton of steel produced in the United Kingdom to make a loss? When will the Government address that problem?
462
Does the Secretary of State agree that our employment laws are inadequate to protect British workers, compared with those on the continent? When will the Government produce legislation to give British workers the same protection as their counterparts in Europe?
Why did the Department of Trade and Industry allow British Steel to amalgamate with Corus without considering some of the problems that have, in fact, resulted? There is no doubt that many communities will be devastated—not least Ebbw Vale, on the boundary of my constituency, which has been dealt what amounts to a knock-out punch.
The number of job losses in Llanwern is enormous. What we need now is a crash programme of investment. Will the Secretary of State plead with the Treasury for extra money for the Welsh block grant, to ensure the establishment of the new industries that will be so badly needed?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman raises the important question of what would happen if Corus proceeded with the plans that it announced today. I hope that the House will be united in sending Corus the clear message that we want it to reconsider, but, as I said in my statement, if it fails to do so we shall need to work alongside the individuals and communities affected by the decision.
We need to ensure that regeneration measures and job creation programmes are supported, and we shall certainly do that. We will not walk away from the difficulties being experienced by those individuals and communities.
The hon. Gentleman raises United Kingdom employment law. Of course the European works council provisions apply to Corus as a company that operates in two European Union countries. There are signs that the European works council provisions are perhaps not working as effectively as they should, and the Government will certainly want to consider that.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, only last week, in the light of events that occurred elsewhere, I announced that we would consult the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry on our domestic information and consultation arrangements. We have already had first meetings with both organisations, and I hope that we can make progress with those discussions as quickly as possible.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Labour Members are shocked by the fury that my right hon. Friend is expressing and the way in which Corus has sidelined the Government and rejected out of hand the offers of assistance and support that have been proffered. Will he tell the House of the discussions that he has had with Corus and the attitude that the company has adopted towards him? I think that it would be instructive for the House to appreciate the manner in which the company behaves.
Will my right hon. Friend, in considering what we do next, try to impress on Corus that if it is not prepared to save the jobs, it should try to save the plant so that others can take on the responsibility of steel making. Then, if and when we join the euro and our circumstances change dramatically, we will be able to take advantage of new market conditions and new industrial opportunities which many of us see as the future for our country?
Mr. Byers: There have been numerous meetings with the company and with the chief executive since the review

463
started at the beginning of December. However, the chief executive indicated very early in those discussions that a package of measures to assist the company would not be enough to remedy its underlying problems as he saw them.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that, at the end of last week, there was an approach by those representing the work force at Llanwern about the possibility of taking over the plant and operating it themselves. As I understand it, Corus has dismissed that possibility because it does not want someone to be competing against it in the market. That was the company's reason, and I hope that it will reconsider that approach. If the work force genuinely feel that they can take over the plant and make it run profitably—we have seen at Tower colliery, in south Wales, that it can be done—I hope that Corus will give the idea proper and detailed consideration.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about which communities will lose the other 3,000 jobs?
Mr. Denis MacShane: Read the press release.
Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read the press release; I have it in my hand.
Has the company given details of those job losses? The Secretary of State says that he has had extensive talks with the company. Has Corus said that it did not want to give details on job losses to the DTI because when Vauxhall did so, they were leaked to the press and the poor people who were losing their jobs learned about it on local radio?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman keeps making that accusation about Vauxhall, which he knows is untrue. If he wants to learn the details of the Corus announcement, he should talk to Corus.
Ms Dari Taylor: It is appropriate that my right hon. Friend should know of the anger of the work force on Teesside and in my constituency at this devastating news. They believe that their livelihoods and their families are unquestionably in desperate straits. My right hon. Friend will also want to know that my constituents' anger has been increased by the fact that they heard the news on the radio. Representatives of the lion and Steel Trades Confederation were refused the opportunity to discuss with management what options existed to save jobs.
My constituents have also been told that a further 3,000 jobs are to go. It is possible that they will hear on the radio the news about where those jobs will be lost. The work force are angry and their families are exceedingly anxious. My constituents would like to know how many times the Government approached Corus to achieve a resolution. Did the Government offer the company an effective package worth some £85 million, which it refused even to contemplate?
Mr. Byers: As I said earlier, there have been numerous meetings with Corus over the past two months, but the difficulty was that Corus would not enter into a
464
meaningful dialogue or discussion about working together to overcome the difficulties being experienced by the industry.
I understand the anger that my hon. Friend's constituents must feel. It is bad enough to lose one's job, or have it threatened, but I hope that all hon. Members will agree that to learn about it from a local radio broadcast is unacceptable. We have begun the consultation on information in part to find a better way forward, to ensure that a similar event does not occur in the future.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is the Secretary of State proud of his record and that of his Department? He did not know about BMW or Corus, and he makes statements to protect the textile industry while wearing a South African suit. Is it not about time that his job went too?
Mr. Byers: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman's suit was made, but he will be pleased to know that I am wearing an English-made suit. Perhaps a Whip will find out soon where the hon. Gentleman's suit was made.
On the serious point, the reality is that the Government engaged with Corus, but that Corus did not want to enter into dialogue with the Government. On behalf of the Government and the 6,000 steelworkers who have lost their jobs, I am asking Corus today to think again and to work with us, to find a better way forward and to overcome the company's difficulties.
That is the message from the Government. I regret the fact that the Tories have not joined us in that call.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on setting out very clearly the miserable way in which Corus has dumped British workers on the scrap heap. Sir Brian Moffat now joins Sir Ian MacGregor in the history of treachery in the steel industry: both have treated British steelworkers in a miserable way, and both have been honoured with knighthoods. That is a great pity.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Corm refused to discuss aspects of the plans that it was making, and that it blocked the Government's efforts to begin the process of regeneration by refusing to give the age profiles of the workers in their plants? Will he further impress on Sir Brian Moffat that it was that work force who earned British Steel such profits that it was able to throw £700 million at shareholders to get them to agree to the merger with Corus? I wonder what those shareholders are thinking about Sir Brian's actions now. I hope that further representations will be made to Corus to try to save something from this disaster.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend knows from his constituency experience exactly what large-scale job losses mean in the steel industry. If I recall correctly, in the Tory years about 10,000 steel jobs were lost in his constituency, so he will know at first hand the difficulties that will be encountered. We will certainly continue to make representations to Corus. I hope that in the face of the anger that has been expressed today and the shock felt by the communities and the individuals affected by the decision, Corus will engage far more constructively and that it will reconsider its announcement.
Mr. Richard Allan: The Secretary of State may be aware of a particular problem that all the

465
steel areas face, including my own in south Yorkshire, which this announcement can only make worse. I refer to high levels of long-term sickness and unemployment among older workers who have left the steel industry as a result of previous redundancies, or who will leave it in future. Does he agree that if ever there were a priority for joined-up Government action, it would be to offer new opportunities to people who have had to leave the steel industry so that they are not simply left to face 10, 15 or 20 years of inactivity followed by retirement? Does he agree that many national programmes, however well intentioned, have failed to touch those groups? Will he make it a priority for his Department to do something to help?
Mr. Byers: We have been working for some time now in this area because of the needs referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that in the very near future we will be able to make proposals, perhaps as part of a package in response to today's announcement. As I said, I hope that Corus will reconsider its position, but if it does not, we will need to introduce a package of measures to provide help for those affected and, in that context, we will need to address the issue referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
Ann Clwyd: I am glad that my right hon. Friend mentioned the experience of Tower colliery in my constituency. When the previous Government and the Coal Board wanted to shut down the pit, the workers said no and set up a workers' co-operative. Will my right hon. Friend put every pressure possible on Corus to allow the men to be given the chance to run their own business? The men know better than anyone where efficiency savings can be made in the industry. Give the men in the industry a chance if the owners have failed.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I met Sir Brian Moffat this morning, we made exactly that point about providing an opportunity for workers at Llanwern, who suggested last week that they were interested in taking over the plant. We urged him to give detailed consideration to the proposal. Corus has resisted so far, but I hope that in the light of today's announcement it will now give detailed consideration to the proposition from the ISTC.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Of course, mass sackings are not consistent with the image of an economically buoyant Britain that the Government wish to spin in the run-up to an election. However, the Secretary of State has to accept that the board of Corus is acting not capriciously but because the company is making losses. That is happening because of the cheap imports of steel to this country and because a loss is made on every ton of steel made here. Until the Government are prepared to face up to why that is happening, there will continue to be a haemorrhage of jobs from the steel industry and from UK manufacturing. When will the Government show some leadership on that issue?
Mr. Byers: I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong views about the European single currency, and he may find himself isolated in the Conservative party at present.
466
He gave a coded message, which I hope his Front Benchers heard. We are aware of the issues to which he referred and we have a clear policy on them. We are keeping the option open, and I think that business understands that. Only a week ago, Nissan took its very positive decision because we kept the option open and did not rule it out for the next Parliament.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: My right hon. Friend will welcome the news that if he can have conversations with Corus over the aid package that has been put in place, workers at the Scunthorpe site will support him in all his endeavours. Scunthorpe and the north Lincolnshire area are losing objective 2 status, which is in a transitionary phase. Four hundred jobs could be lost at the Scunthorpe works on top of the 670 jobs already lost. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to look at the objective status of the north Lincolnshire area and to see what further money can be invested to assist in the regrowth of that economy and to help those people find jobs?
Mr. Byers: Our first task must be to try to get Corus to reconsider this morning's announcement, but my hon. Friend makes an important point: the more than 400 jobs that are projected to be lost at Scunthorpe are on top of the nearly 700 losses that Corus declared last year. Of course, if Corus proceeds with the proposals announced today, we will put in place a package of measures to ensure economic regeneration and job creation in the affected areas. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall carefully examine how we can do that in Scunthorpe and north Lincolnshire.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: There is no doubt that today's announcement is disastrous for the communities in Teesside, Yorkshire and Wales that will be so badly affected; it is a real body blow. While I acknowledge that Corus has hitherto behaved very badly, does the Secretary of State realise that since Labour took office, 16,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in Wales? Is it not a fact that keeping inflation down has become something of a sacred cow? Should we not be looking at fiscal rather than monetary policies to control inflation? Does he agree that the Monetary Policy Committee should consider employment as well as inflation? Will he please tell the House what kind of help was on offer to Corus?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Welsh Assembly proposed a detailed package of measures, and support would have come from the United Kingdom Government as well. It was carefully tailored to ensure that we did not come into conflict with any European Union state aid provisions. In the end, it was clear that Corus did not want to engage in those discussions. The company said that discussions would make no difference to today's announcement. I regret that, because if we had had a genuine dialogue, we could have gone through with Corus the details of the support that would have been available. We may not have avoided all the consequences of today's announcement, but we would have been able to alleviate some of the pain now being suffered in many communities.
On the Government's economic policies, short-term measures could be taken, which might be broadly supported, but which would, in the medium and long term,

467
cause lasting difficulties. Wales knows that because it went through a desperate, painful period in the early 1980s. There are difficulties at the moment, but people in Wales, especially in south Wales and at Shotton in north Wales, know that they do not want to return to the early 1990s, when not thousands but tens of thousands of jobs were lost.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the policy prescriptions that he proposes may receive plaudits today, but they will reap real problems in the medium and long term, with tens of thousands of job losses in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to help every hon. Member in this very serious matter, but I need the co-operation of the House. Questions must be brief if I am to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I tell my right hon. Friend that anyone who knows the history of Ebbw Vale and the surrounding communities, some of which I represent, will know that steel making is vital to our communities? A total closure, such as that proposed, would therefore be desperate and devastating. Even at the eleventh hour, will my right hon. Friend make an appeal to Sir Brian Moffat and Corus because they owe a responsibility not only to their shareholders and bankers, but to the people who have made the industry such a great success?
Mr. Byers: Many communities will suffer if today's announcement is implemented, but Ebbw Vale in particular will be devastated by the announcement of the whole plant's closure. That community and town has developed very much on steel, the fundamental core of its economic activity. If Corus proceeds with the closure of Ebbw Vale, the Government and the Welsh Assembly will work alongside the community and the individuals affected to help them through a painful and difficult time. Better than that, however, we urge Corus to think again, to reconsider its proposals and to find a way in which Ebbw Vale can retain steel-making capacity. As my hon. Friend suggests, I urge Corus to reconsider the decision that it has taken today.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Did the Government not know that this disaster was impending? Last October, in evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the Secretary of State's Department analysed the problems faced by the steel industry and came up with an extremely complacent response. If the Government had got down to solving the problem then, developing the package of support that the Secretary of State tells us that they have offered—late in the day—to Cores, might not the disaster have been averted? Was not one contributory factor the high cost of energy in this country in comparison with that of our European competitors?
Mr. Byers: The reality is that when Corus had two joint chief executives, I discussed with them the possibility of support and assistance for the industry. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those joint chief executives were dismissed in early December, which led
468
to the review that we are dealing with—the consequences of which were announced today. We have been engaged with the company but, as I said in my statement and in reply to hon. Members, the company simply did not want to have a dialogue about how we could work in partnership to identify a better way forward.
Mr. MacShane: When Nissan and Boeing are investing in the UK, when there are 1.1 million new jobs here and 4.7 million new jobs in the euro zone and when Europe and Britain are growing, it is crazy to take so much steel capacity out of our economy. Sir Brian Moffat will ask a sacrifice of many men and women. May I suggest that he adds his own name to that list of sacrifice by resigning? A new leadership at Corus—because we must look forward—should work with the Government, the unions and even some Opposition Members, who understand the needs of manufacturing, to build a policy that gets us fully into Europe. The pound-euro imbalance has been the main cause of those running losses. We need a policy whereby we use more steel in the UK. The Tory anti-manufacturing policies that Corus so brilliantly represents are at the root of the problem.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point when he draws the attention of the House to the significant announcements made in recent weeks that core manufacturers have decided to invest in the United Kingdom. He was right to point out that Boeing made an announcement yesterday; there were also announcements from Nissan seven days ago and from Toyota at the beginning of January. If Corus takes the opportunity to reflect on today's announcement and on those decisions, it will recognise that manufacturing in the United Kingdom has a strong base. We have sectors of great growth—for example, in aerospace—for which steel will be required in the future. Corus will still employ 22,000 people after today's decision, showing that there is a long-term, viable future for the steel industry in the UK. The Government want to work with Corus to identify a common agenda, so that the company can meet its responsibilities and we can give hope to the individuals and communities affected.
Mr. Frank Roy: I would like to be able to say that the last remnants of the Scottish steel industry at the Dalyell and Clydebridge plants have avoided the cuts because of the lobbying carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and myself, but it would not be true. Frankly, the management of Corus have shown me that they do not give a damn for local politicians or, indeed, for the work force. As someone who has spent most of his life in a steelworks, I point out that tomorrow morning, 6,000 men will wake up with real fear for the first time in their lives—fear that the skills that they have honed working in blast furnaces, coke ovens, strip mills, boss plants and continuous casting plants will no longer be of any use to them. Will the Secretary of State ensure that, if those men lose their jobs, retraining will be given as quickly as possible?

469
Will the Secretary of State also ensure that he does not look across the Floor for lessons from Tory Members? The Tory party tried to smash steel trade unions into the ground in the 1980s; they sold off British Steel—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point based on his experience of the steel industry. If Corus does not withdraw these proposals, we will want to work with the individuals affected to ensure that their skills can be used to good effect in new jobs that give them good prospects for the future.
Mr. Stuart Bell: One of the few worthwhile things that the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said was that a ripple effect would follow today's announcement by Corus. More jobs might be lost if it continues with its present line.
May I underline the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor)? BBC Radio Cleveland announced the closure of the coil plate mill on Teesside, and we have made representations for a month about that plant without receiving any significant response.
Will my right hon. Friend impress on Corus the importance of the pension rights of the people who will be transferred? I understand that those rights will be frozen until people reach the age of 65, and that fact is causing additional anxiety. My final plea is to call on the House to be unanimous in calling on Corus to think, think and think again.
Mr. Byers: I hope that that will be the case, but I regret the fact that the Conservative Opposition did not join us in asking Corus to reconsider its approach.
We shall certainly raise my hon. Friend's specific point about pension rights with the company, because the issue is of great concern to the people who might be affected. I also share his concern about the way in which the work force on Teesside learned of their future. To hear the news on a local radio station must have rubbed salt into their wounds.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: Corus's behaviour makes it a founder member of those who represent the unacceptable face of global capitalism. A steel mill in Sheerness in my constituency is owned by ASW Holdings of Cardiff. Workers there and at Corus have raised the issue of pension funds. One of the attractions of takeovers arises when the smaller company has a much richer pension fund. The pension funds of the two companies are merged, the trusts are changed and the owners of the new pension fund raid it. That has happened at Corus, and it could happen at ASW. Will my right hon. Friend examine the way in which pension funds are operated in the steel industry?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have already considered in some detail the way in which the new company, Corus, which emerged from British Steel, has used the pension fund. So far, it appears
470
that it has operated perfectly lawfully, although I know that many Labour Members think that its conduct has been unacceptable. Perhaps we should re-examine the rules that apply to pension funds.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, just over 12 months ago, Corus invested in a French steel plant that cost £80 million? A further £22 million was invested in that plant to produce rail lines that could easily have been produced at one of the plants in the United Kingdom that is now suffering from redundancies. That is unacceptable.
Mr. Byers: The House will understand that companies take commercial decisions on what might be a good long-term investment. We are saying to Corus that it needs to take a long-term approach to the steel industry in the United Kingdom. If we had had the levels of investment that my hon. Friend mentioned, some of the difficulties being experienced today might have been overcome.
The Government can impress on Corus the damaging effects of its decision. We stand ready and willing to work with it to identify a practical way forward that will overcome the problems that Corus is facing—clearly, there are problems—and to do so in a way that will secure the long-term future of the industry in the United Kingdom and the 6,000 jobs that are at risk as a result of today's announcement.
Mr. Huw Edwards: Today's news will be devastating to my constituents who work at Llanwern and an insult to those who worked there and paid the price in early retirement and redundancy to help to contribute to making the plant more profitable. Sir Brian Moffat met a group of Welsh Labour Members on Monday evening and assured us that he had made no decision about any plant. If that were the case on Monday, what happened during the past two days? Have all the decisions been taken in just two days? If they have, does that not show how short term they are? If he was not telling the truth, does it not show his deceit and the contempt with which he has treated the Government, the House and the work force?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituents, and I fully understand his concern. It is clear that over several years the work force at Corus have demonstrated a lasting commitment to the industry and done everything asked of them. They have improved productivity and have been prepared to take early retirement, where appropriate, to secure the future of the industry and their colleagues. It is about time that Corus demonstrated a similar commitment to its work force, and it can do so by reconsidering the decisions and announcement that it made earlier today.

Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Asylum System
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  2.11 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government's failure to deal with the total chaos in the asylum system, which is detrimental to the interests of genuine refugees and the people of the United Kingdom; notes the failure of the Government's measures introduced under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; further notes that the number of asylum applications made in 2000 reached the record level of 76,040, and that the proportion of unfounded claims increased to 78 per cent of all applications; notes with concern the continuing backlog of asylum applications and undetermined applications for British citizenship; and calls on the Government to take action to put in place measures which would both deter unwarranted claims and assist genuine refugees.
  Before I embark on my speech, it may help the House if I say that as we have had an important statement, to which it was quite proper to allocate a large amount of time, there is less than two hours for this debate, so I ask for the indulgence of the House because I shall not take interventions from hon. Members on either side of the Chamber.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Shame!
  Miss Widdecombe: It is intended to help as many Members as possible to speak in the debate.
  From April 2000,
  "the new system will be in place, with new rules on benefit and new holding centres being opened up, so that claims can be processed quickly and we shall be able to get the numbers back down again."— [Official Report, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1035.]
  Those are striking words, as are the following:
  "We are getting on with restoring the asylum and immigration system to proper integrity, so as to ensure that it deals firmly, fairly and swiftly with asylum and immigration applications."— [Official Report, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1067.]
  Those were the promises made earlier this year by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary respectively.
  The reality has been totally different. This country's asylum system is in utter chaos. That chaos not only continues to devalue the promises made by the Government in the House, but most of all is detrimental to genuine refugees. The Home Secretary is once again faced with a crisis of his own making—something with which he is all too familiar. Last year, we saw the implementation of his so-called flagship legislation, which he assured us would reduce the number of asylum claims. However, Home Office figures released at the end of last month show that the number of those seeking asylum in this country is the highest ever, with 76,040 applications for asylum received last year, compared with 32,000 at the end of 1997.
  472
  The Government might claim that the number of applications has fallen this month, but that is a fall from a record number in November, when we saw the highest ever number of monthly applications. The number of applications in the last quarter of last year was the highest in the year and is an increase on the figure for the last quarter of 1999.
  We left office with the number of asylum seekers falling. Our tough measures led to applications falling by 40 per cent., but under this Government we have seen huge increases in the number of applications every year. Those figures demonstrate once and for all the abject failure of this Government's asylum policy. They claimed that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 would cut the number of unfounded applications and tackle the abuse of the system.
  Despite the promises made by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, and despite the claims made by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), that the Government's policies were beginning to work, there has been a month-on-month increase for seven of the eight months since April 2000, when the policies came into effect.
  The Prime Minister stated in the House that:
  "the key factor is that the measures that were introduced in April will make a difference."—[Official Report, 10 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 837.]
  He also promised:
  "The new system will be fairer and faster and will deter the bogus asylum seeker."—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 386.]
  The Government's measures have indeed made a difference: they have increased the total number of applications in every year since 1997, and since the measures that were supposed to tackle the problem came into force, there has been a further increase in the percentage of asylum seekers whose claims are judged to be invalid.
  Since April 2000, things have got worse. The Government have failed in their aim of reducing the number of unfounded claims on our asylum system. Whereas the previous Government saw falls in the number of applications, this Government have propelled the country to the top of the league table in Europe for the number of asylum applications. Other European countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, have taken measures that have led to a fall in the number of applications. Under this Government, all we have had is year-on-year increases. Those figures show that our asylum system under Labour may be spun as successful but is in fact a total failure. It is not fairer; it is not faster; it is not firmer.
  Claims have not been considered fairly. The huge backlog of unprocessed claims continues. The dispersal and support system is in a complete mess and is failing local authorities and those whom it is supposed to be helping. The immigration and nationality directorate is beset by bureaucratic blunders. The Home Secretary's flagship policy is now an expensive farce.
  Rather than there being a fairer policy, which we were promised, case files are routinely lost and Home Office lawyers are left without vital information. The Minister of State admitted to the House that the immigration and nationality directorate has lost an incredible 15,855 files. According to the Home Office, vital files have gone

  473
  missing with increasing frequency. However, it is so desperate to get itself out of this mess of its own making that instead of allowing adjournments in cases where files have been lost, it has pushed ahead with asylum appeals when lawyers have not had the files to challenge applicants' stories. What is fair or firm about asylum tribunals not being presented with all the available evidence, or about initial refusals of unfounded applications being overturned because the material to challenge the case is not available?
  The backlog of asylum applications rose from 51,000 in 1997 to 66,000 in 2000. In between, in 1999, the number rose to a horrific 101,000. In March, the Minister of State said:
  "Speeding up the asylum process is a major objective in our reform of the asylum system. People who come to the United Kingdom may be fleeing terrible persecution and it is important that their claims are dealt with swiftly. So that rather than being stuck in an administrative limbo they are able to get on with rebuilding their lives."
  I am sure that the whole House shares that sentiment. However, asylum seekers are still faced with enormous delays before decisions are made.
  The Home Office is so desperate to get out of the morass of backlogs and delays that it has created since 1997 that it has had to resort to using an amnesty. In a 1998 White Paper, Labour stated:
  "We reject the concept of amnesty".
  The Government might claim that the backlog has been reduced, but is it fair that thousands of asylum seekers have been allowed to remain in this country without a full consideration of their case or, in many instances, after their claim has been refused? More than 21,000 asylum seekers have benefited from the amnesty. Is that a fair way of dealing with the problem? As well as the Government's inaction in taking measures to discourage the number of unfounded asylum claims, they have done little to remove those whose claims have been found to be bogus. Why is it that the number of removals and voluntary departures of failed asylum seekers was only 7,610 for the first 10 months of last year, against a total number of refusals for that year of 76,850?
  Yesterday, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which is Labour dominated, in a report which we may all pay tribute to and respect, accused the Government of being dilatory in removing rejected asylum seekers. It reported that during the first 10 months of last year, 58,885 asylum claims were rejected, but only 7,610 claimants were expelled in the same period. A recent report on Channel 4 news referred to at least 18,000 people who were officially listed as having been refused asylum last year, but who were for various reasons allowed to stay.
  What is the point of an asylum system that, having rejected applications as unfounded, does not remove the applicants from the country? It is no wonder that thousands of asylum claims are being made in order to get round immigration controls. It is well known that it will be months before a case is decided and that there is little chance of the Government getting round to deporting asylum seekers, even after their claims have been rejected.
  Another part of the Home Secretary's flagship policy was the dispersal and new support arrangements that were introduced as part of the Immigration and Asylum Act
  474
  1999. We were told that the introduction of the voucher system would cut abuse. Instead, the voucher system and dispersal schemes have been beset by problems and have failed to do what the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister claimed, which was to reduce the number of claims and deter abuse while providing support for genuine asylum seekers.
  In June 2000, the Minister of State said:
  "The arrangements for dispersing asylum seekers are working well."— [Official Report, 26 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 652.]
  However, in the same month the Audit Commission, on the implementation of the dispersal scheme under the 1999 Act, concluded that there were significant problems with the Government's—
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Audit Commission report was on the interim arrangements—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Lady must know that that is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Miss Widdecombe: We are used to bogus points of order from a Government who have no intention even of getting on top of bogus asylum claims. I shall tell them what they do not want to hear.
  The Audit Commission's report stated that there were inadequate support services outside London— [Interruption.] Yes, it did. It added that that presented a major barrier to successful dispersal. Large groups of asylum seekers have been sent to distant parts of the country where appropriate social, language and legal support has not been available.
  The Government's actions have caused suffering for genuine refugees. The dispersal system is being implemented cruelly. Applicants are dispersed by a chaotic system that sends them to areas often without appropriate support. They are often exploited by unscrupulous landlords. Is that fairer? It might be faster, but it is certainly not fairer.
  The Guardian—no friend to the Opposition—reported on asylum barons in May 2000. They were growing rich on providing substandard accommodation for the Government's dispersal programme. [Interruption.] Apparently, substandard accommodation for the dispersal programme is of amusement to Labour Members. When they talk about genuine refugees in future, we shall remember that they laughed about a report that some people were growing rich at the expense of others.
  The report by Shelter, which was published yesterday, again reported that the Government's actions were still leading to taxpayers' money being used to house asylum seekers in substandard property. Is that a fair or kind way for the Government to fulfil their responsibilities?
  The dispersal scheme has been a disaster. The Government set targets for the dispersal of 65,000 asylum seekers, but the number dispersed has been a fraction of that. Meanwhile, local authorities are picking up the bill for the Government's failure. Kent county council has reported a backlog of more than 1,000 people waiting for dispersal. That same council says that spending on asylum has increased from about £250,000 in the year 1996–97 to

  475
  a forecast £50 million in 2000–01. The council had to deal with only 50 asylum seekers in the last six months that the Conservative Government were in office, whereas it is now dealing with 10,000.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): That is the previous Government's fault.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has the gall to call out from a sedentary position that that is our fault. We left a manageable situation, with applications falling. The Government have imposed on local authorities and on genuine asylum seekers a miserable failure of a system for which they alone are responsible.
  Another news report in October last year was that the relationship between local authorities and the Home Office was at breaking point because of the lack of co-operation between the two. The Government are trying to palm off their responsibilities on to local communities.
  In addition, the Government's voucher scheme for asylum seekers has ended in disaster. Refugee Action— [Interruption.] Perhaps Refugee Action is also a source of amusement for Labour Members. It was forced to close its office in Liverpool at the end of last year because workers there had been inundated with asylum seekers whose accommodation was unsafe and who had not received vouchers for essential items such as clothing and food. The charity said that it could not cope with the demand and it refused to compensate for what it called "Home Office inefficacies". The Government should be ashamed that they have put a charity that is devoted to helping refugees in that position. Instead of apologising, they continue in their intransigence, claiming that a system which everybody can see has failed is successful.
  Once people have been cleared for citizenship, they face another backlog—possibly with the exception of those who make large donations to the Labour party. The number of undetermined citizenship applications has risen under the Government from 54,970 in 1997 to 73,000 at the end of last year. The current waiting time for applications for naturalisation is almost 20 months—that is, unless one is bailing out the dome, when the waiting time is reduced to six months.
  Is that not evidence of the Government's record? We have a serious crisis in our asylum and immigration system. Thousands of people are stuck in backlogs, but the Government do nothing except sit and laugh. The thousands have to grin and bear the Government's empty promises. I visited Croydon 18 months ago and spoke to the queues of desperate people who had been waiting for months. They had been obeying the law and making due applications for visas and renewals of their leave to remain, or requests for citizenship. Every one of them was doing what he or she should be doing. Many of them were on their fourth or fifth visit, and they were being told, "No progress." What can the Government say? They can say only that since then the situation has become much worse.
  Our policy, as announced last year by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, would be to provide secure reception centres, which would reduce the incentive for unfounded applications. As the former head of the Immigration Service Union commented:
  "In my study of immigration controls, it was apparent that those countries who maintained a policy of detention had a far smaller proportion of bogus, as against genuine, refugees."
  476
  Guy Goodwin-Gill, professor of international refugee law at Oxford university, said that if all new asylum seekers—
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I think that I made my intentions— [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady made it clear at the commencement of her speech that she had no intention of giving way.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand why Labour Members do not want to hear such things, but they are going to hear them.
  Professor Goodwin-Gill— [Interruption.] The House is going to hear what the professor said, because it is important. He is professor of international refugee law at Oxford university, and he said that if all new asylum seekers were held in secure reception centres while their claims were processed, the system would be speeded up. Furthermore, he said:
  "I have no doubt in my own mind that those who come without reference to refugee status would be deterred".
  Our policy of secure detention would mean that Britain would no longer put down a welcome mat for those who abuse our asylum system with unfounded claims, and it would aid genuine refugees. Instead of the Government's disastrous dispersal policy, reception centres would provide legal, linguistic and medical support for those seeking asylum. That policy, along with our national removals agency, would make sure that those whose claims were judged to be unfounded would be removed.
  It is often said that that policy would be highly expensive. The Government are providing a reception centre which, when fully up and running, will cater for a fifth of all applicants. It cost £6 million. Are we really to believe the Home Secretary's extravagant claims that, as one fifth can be dealt with for £6 million, somehow the remaining four fifths will cost between £2 billion and £3 billion? That costing is nonsense, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He looked at the possibility of universal reception centres himself, and knows that they would work. He is simply not taking the single step that other countries have taken, which has proved to be successful.
  Our policy will really produce a fairer, faster and firmer asylum policy. We shall know where those whom we are going to reject are and we shall be able to remove them. We shall be able to provide those whom we are going to accept with a proper resettlement package, which will mean that they go out with the necessary support. That is a hit-and-miss business with local authorities at the moment. We left a 40 per cent. fall in applications because we took measures that had a deterrent effect. We shall repeat that success when, in a few months time, we take over the asylum system. It will be a good day, not just for the British taxpayer, but for the man genuinely fleeing persecution.
  2.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "reaffirms the obligations of the United Kingdom under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to provide asylum for those fleeing from a well-founded fear of persecution; approves the Government's strategy for reform of the asylum system and welcomes the practical improvements which have already been delivered, including substantial additional investment to provide the Immigration and Nationality Directorate with the staff and other resources essential to operate an efficient and humane asylum system; congratulates the Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff on their recent achievements including taking 110,000 initial asylum decisions in 2000; welcomes the effect which the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and other measures have had in reducing unfounded asylum claims; welcomes the successful introduction of a coherent, national system of support for asylum seekers to replace the chaotic arrangements created by the previous Government which imposed an intolerable burden on local authorities in London and the South-East; notes that the civil penalty, a measure which was opposed by the Official Opposition, has successfully encouraged hauliers and ferry operators to introduce additional security measures to tackle clandestine and illegal entry to the United Kingdom; welcomes the Government's expansion of detention capacity to support substantial increases in the number of asylum seekers with unfounded claims who are removed from the UK; and supports the Government's commitment to working closely with other countries to deal more effectively with asylum pressures affecting the whole of Europe."
  I always welcome the opportunity for a serious debate on asylum policy, to discuss how we might make the system a little more effective. I was looking forward to that, but as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) finished her extraordinary speech, the image that was conjured up was of a fairy godmother, dressed as Widow Twankey, waving a magic wand, and suggesting that with one bound, it would be possible to solve the asylum problems that have affected every single European country.
  Instead of serious, constructive proposals, we heard the usual mixture of the unworkable and the unthinkable from a party which, while mouthing its supposed commitment to the rights of the genuine refugee, adopts an approach with an altogether more sinister motive. That approach is designed for one purpose only: not to deal with the issue, but to exploit it in the hope that fear will encourage some voters to support the Conservative party. That approach has nothing to do with principle or even workable policy; it has everything to do with prejudice.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No. When the Opposition first announced their choice of debate for today, they put it on record—I ask my hon. Friends to weigh these words carefully—that it was to be about the Government's failure to run an efficient and humane asylum system. I checked the motion last night when it went down to the Table Office, and noticed that the word "humanity" had disappeared. So the Conservative party's commitment to humanity on this issue lasted exactly seven days. In the intervening period, one can imagine the scene in the shadow Cabinet. That loyal body of people in the shadow Cabinet, who spend most of their time dropping the proposals of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald like hot
  478
  bricks, might have said, "Do you really think it's a good idea for us to mention humanity? Do you think that will really appeal to our core voters?"
  For the Conservative party to talk of humanity on this issue takes us into high Orwellian regions of double-speak. I shall take two examples, one from the Conservative party's past and one from the future that it promises. Five years ago, when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was dealing with immigration matters, the Conservative Government passed into law provisions with the sole aim of ensuring that asylum claimants who, for whatever reason, applied inside the United Kingdom, were denied any means of support at all. Under the plans and legislation of the right hon. Lady, there was to be no food, no shelter and no housing whatever. Those provisions were included in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. There was to be no support whatever. But for the incompetence of the Conservative party, that is exactly what would have happened. Because the right hon. Lady failed to draft the legislation properly, the courts held that the responsibility of providing for all those asylum seekers would land on local authorities.
  Today, the right hon. Lady said that, at the end of 1996, Kent had a responsibility for only 50 asylum seekers, but that it is now responsible for 10,000.
  Miss Widdecombe: The Government let them in.
  Mr. Straw: That is because, under the right hon. Lady's legislation, it was intended, first, that asylum seekers should have no support. Then, under the legislation, the responsibility for dealing with thousands of asylum seekers fell indiscriminately on local authorities in London and the south-east. That was the result of the right hon. Lady's policy, and the dispersal policy is there to put that right. If the right hon. Lady has any complaints about those 10,000 asylum seekers, the person who has to answer for those complaints is none other than herself.
  The right hon. Lady was fortunate to have an excuse for not taking interventions in an extraordinary speech that was riddled with even more inaccuracies than usual. Towards the end, she presented her policy to lock up all asylum indefinitely seekers in what are called secure reception centres. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has said that
  "the next Conservative Government will detain all new applicants for asylum, whether port applicants or in-country applicants, in reception centres."
  That claim applies to everybody, rather than only to those whose claims appear to be unfounded or to young single men. It applies to elderly people, and to women and children, regardless of their circumstances.
  Leaving aside the fact that it would take years, if not decades, to build the number of centres that the right hon. Lady would need to implement that proposal, I point out that its cost would run into billions of pounds. It is extraordinary to suggest that she can base her plans on Oakington, which is a processing centre, and to argue on the basis of its costs that indefinite detention would be a matter of millions of pounds. At least 50 centres would be needed, many of them in the green belt and in Conservative constituencies, in Kent and elsewhere.
  I attempted to intervene on the right hon. Lady to remind her that we are trying to build additional detention capacity in Aldington, which is just outside Ashford. We

  479
  have looked around the country for sites that will enable us to increase detention capacity to 2,500 places. That increase is necessary because of the inadequate detention capacity that was left by the previous Government. We searched the country for sites and found Aldington—but what is the result? The Conservative party, which supports the expansion of detention centres nationally, opposes it locally. The Member of Parliament for the area is a Conservative and opposes the centre. The Conservative council opposes it so much that it has even invoked the Human Rights Act 1998 to argue against it.
  We know that local Tories are opposed to the centre, but what of the right hon. Lady? She knows the area and may know the 14 other sites that were considered. After 18 months of careful work by officials, we decided that Aldington was the best available site. Given her prominence in Kent and her policy of establishing more detention centres, about which we have just heard, should she not have been able to form a view on this one centre? However, when she was asked directly whether she was for or against Aldington, she ducked and dived pathetically:
  "I have not looked at the merits and demerits of the Aldington site".
  Whether it is my policy or hers, the simple fact is that, if she wants 50 extra detention centres, she must start with one centre. Aldington is the first one, so I offer her the opportunity to tell us whether she supports it.
  Miss Widdecombe: First, if one detention centre can cope with one fifth of all applicants, why will it take 50 to deal with all of them? That is nonsense arithmetic. Secondly, I shall consider the merits and demerits of every site, including Aldington.
  Mr. Straw: That is why I said earlier that the Tories do not have any serious policies to deal with the problem. I assume that the right hon. Lady has more influence with Kent Tories than I do. One word from her to tell them she would certainly establish a centre in Aldington, since 50 centres are needed, would change the current circumstances. The simple truth is that she wills the end, but not the means. It is utterly disreputable of her to call for detention space in general, but then to oppose it or sit on her hands in respect of particular details.
  I say to the right hon. Lady that there is a huge difference between processing centres such as Oakington—
  Miss Widdecombe: Why 50?
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady asks why there should be 50 centres. That is the case because, on any basis, she would have to hold 30,000 applicants if she wanted any chance of success. I am happy to share those figures with her. Furthermore, to understand the sheer incredibility of what the right hon. Lady proposes, we must try to accept not only that she is going to build a network of centres throughout the country and find the necessary money, but that she will magic into existence safe, stable Governments in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Somalia, to allow unfounded applicants to be immediately sent back once their claims have been rejected.
  Even the most cursory scrutiny of that fantasy policy exposes its deceit. There is not the slightest chance that such a policy could ever be implemented. It is completely
  480
  and utterly unworkable. I know that, as does anybody who knows anything about the issue, and the right hon. Lady knows it too. Of course, however, that is not the point for the Opposition. It is not a question of whether their proposals are workable, but of whether they appeal to people's base prejudices. The truth about asylum is that it does not lend itself to her glib pronouncements. It is a hugely complex matter, for which a solution cannot be provided overnight. Instead, it requires concerted and long-term efforts, both in the United Kingdom and with our European partners.
  As the Select Committee on Home Affairs recognised in its report on border controls, which was published yesterday, action is necessary at a European level to deal with the asylum issues that affect all European countries.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Why here?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman keeps asking why the problem has not affected other European countries. The answer is that it does affect them. In the three months from July to September last year, UK asylum applications increased by 6 per cent. on the previous three months. Sweden saw an increase of 48 per cent., Belgium 52 per cent., Germany and Austria 24 per cent., Denmark 23 per cent. and the Netherlands 16 per cent.
  One of the reasons why we happen to have more asylum applicants in absolute terms—this is another point that the right hon. Lady may not have noticed—is that we have a bigger population. If she wants to refer to league tables, let me tell her about the league table on asylum applications per thousand of population. We are not first, second or third in that table, but eighth, which is in the middle of the asylum league. Belgium has more than two and a half times our rate of asylum applications. In Ireland, the rate is almost twice ours, and in the Netherlands it is getting on for 60 per cent. The rates in Switzerland, Austria and Denmark are all greater than ours. They have significantly higher proportions of applicants per head of population than this country. This is a European problem that can be resolved successfully only by European action.
  Mr. Marsha Singh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Dublin convention is one of the obstacles to the quick removal from this country of asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected? Will he tell the House which Government signed that convention?
  Mr. Straw: The Dublin convention was and is one of the major problems in removing applicants from this country. [Interruption.] As it happens, I was not dealing with immigration and asylum when the matter arose in 1990. The Opposition approach the matter as if we were responsible for a measure that they introduced. The convention was signed in 1990. Notwithstanding the fact that the previous Government, including the right hon. Lady, knew exactly what it would achieve—or not achieve—they did nothing to try to reverse it or to limit its operation. When the Labour Government came to power in May 1997, we knew that the convention would inevitably take effect in October of that year. Worst of all, in addition to establishing the convention, the previous Government were willing to tear up the gentlemen's

  481
  agreement with Belgium and France that had previously allowed this country to send back most asylum applicants to those countries.
  Mr. Fabricant: Get rid of it, then.
  Mr. Straw: We would like to get rid of the Dublin convention, and quickly. The problem is that it is currently the only EU agreement that enables us to return applicants, so disowning it altogether would leave us with no agreements whatever with other European countries. I dearly wish that we could return to gentlemen's agreements; indeed, that is exactly what we are working on. However, if ever there was a single factor that helped to cause the increase in the number of asylum applicants who enter this country, and the greater difficulty in removing them, it was the Dublin convention, for which the right hon. Lady was responsible.
  Mr. David Winnick: How many more genuine asylum seekers would have come to this country without the military campaign to liberate Kosovo? Many Conservative Members, including many who are in the Chamber, strenuously opposed that campaign.
  Mr. Straw: Thousands more would have come to this country, just as Germany had to bear the brunt of almost 500,000 applicants a year in the early 1990s because of the chaos in Bosnia.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) draws attention to another point. Fundamental pressures for asylum arise not from the circumstances in the receiving state but from disruption, civil strife and worse in countries hundreds of miles away.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald referred to the drop in figures in 1996. I have corresponded with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary. Numbers declined early in 1996; they fell throughout Europe. However, by the end of 1996, they were rising, and they continued to rise in 1997. The right hon. Lady cannot escape the fact that the increase throughout Europe was due to growing civil strife.
  Mr. Fabricant: They came to us first.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Asylum seekers could not have come to us first. Instead of fanning his prejudices, he should examine the figures and concentrate on the fact that, notwithstanding recent increases in this and other countries, we were in the middle of the European table last year, and we remain in that position this year.
  The right hon. Lady suggests that there was a dramatic change in asylum and immigration policy in May 1997.
  Miss Widdecombe: You came to office.
  Mr. Straw: Yes, not least because people recognised that our immigration policy would be fairer, firmer and faster. However, the legislative and administrative
  482
  structures remained exactly as the previous Government had left them until the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 came into force last year.
  The biggest difference between our two Administrations was investment. When the right hon. Lady was immigration Minister, she did not provide for an increase in resources to reduce the record delay in processing asylum applications. Instead, she agreed formal plans with the Treasury for a reduction of 1,200 people—almost half the staff—in the immigration and nationality directorate. When numbers rose from late 1996, as the previous Government knew they would, they adopted the most irresponsible policy of all: a scorched earth policy. They tried to ensure that we were unable to cope with the increase by degrading the system and staff at Croydon. At the end of 1997, there were fewer than 100 skilled case workers left. It is no wonder we faced so many problems.
  Our approach was to recognise the administrative and legal chaos that the right hon. Lady had left, and the financial problems that existed. We proposed a root and branch reform, in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It was the most comprehensive reform of the system ever introduced.
  Miss Widdecombe: It was a total failure.
  Mr. Straw: It was not described in that way at the time. Indeed, it received substantial scrutiny in a Special Standing Committee, which was notable for two or three reasons. First, the then Opposition spokesman put on record his support for the dispersal policy because he recognised that it made more sense than secure reception centres. He realised, because he has more sense than the right hon. Lady, that they could not be afforded or introduced for many years.
  Secondly, the proceedings were notable because Conservative members of the Committee opposed only one measure. It could not be described as soft; indeed, the Conservative spokesman in the other place, Lord Cope, described it as tougher than any measure that the Conservatives had devised. The right hon. Lady did not mention that policy in her opening speech; it has proved the most effective in a range of effective measures. It is the civil penalty.
  The civil penalty has made a significant difference to enforcement. It has resulted in a decline in the number of clandestines who come through docks such as Dover. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) nodding. It has contributed to reducing the number of unfounded applications from places such as eastern Europe, to which it is much easier to return applicants than, for example, Iran and Afghanistan.
  Applications from eastern Europe have fallen by 50 per cent. as a direct result of our measures. Our policies are working, but neither the right hon. Lady nor anyone else could have anticipated the huge increase in civil strife, disorder and violence in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Sri Lanka, which account for the bulk of applications not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout Europe.
  The right hon. Lady implies that a policy of locking up asylum seekers—some of whose claims are unfounded—from the countries that I mentioned will enable us to get them back quickly to the countries from which they have

  483
  come. That is incredible and wrong. Despite the best efforts, not only of the United Kingdom but of other European countries, it is difficult, whatever the system, to get rejected asylum applicants back to the countries from which they came. We work hard at the problem, but those people are often here for many months, sometimes years, after their applications have been refused.
  That problem affects every country in Europe. In Germany, the Minister for the Interior, Otto Schilly, told me only three months ago that 500,000 rejected asylum applicants are on welfare. They cannot be returned to their country of origin despite the rejection of their applications.
  What are the right hon. Lady's proposals for speeding up the removal of rejected applicants to Afghanistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq and China?
  Miss Widdecombe: Deter them from coming here in the first place.
  Mr. Straw: Two replies today have revealed the bankruptcy of the right hon. Lady's policies. This is another example of the magic wand. Her policy is a zero policy. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady's answer was important. She claims that she would deter all applicants. Despite having detention centres in which to lock up applicants for ever, there will be no applicants, genuine or otherwise.
  Almost all asylum applicants from Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia or Sri Lanka, even if their applications turn out to be unfounded, are fleeing from what they regard as disruptive circumstances. They are not living in happy circumstances. Why is it that people with similar economic circumstances in, say, India do not flee to this country, while people from those other countries do? The result of the right hon. Lady's policy would be to lock out every asylum applicant.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
  Earlier today, the right hon. Lady admitted, when she said that some reception and detention centres would be needed, that some people coming in would have their claims rejected. I put the question to her again. How would she return rejected asylum applicants, in a better and quicker way than we or other European countries are doing, to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Sri Lanka?
  Miss Widdecombe: One could be forgiven for thinking that no asylum seekers were ever returned to those countries, yet the Home Secretary told the House only a few months ago that the Afghan hijackers and all involved in their case would go back to Afghanistan as soon as possible. They are still here, although the Home Secretary said that it would be very easy to deal with them.
  The right hon. Gentleman is failing to distinguish between the genuine and the ill founded cases. We will welcome the genuine cases, but we will deter the ill
  484
  founded ones by sending out a simple message: "If you come to Britain without a well founded claim, you will be detained. You will be dealt with speedily, and you will be sent back." If that is the message going out, it will be a deterrent.
  Mr. Straw: In a more charitable moment, I might have thought the right hon. Lady had not thought this through. She is an intelligent woman who is capable of a perfectly intelligent contribution to a debate on some issues. Yet on this crucial issue, she implies that with one sweep she would be free, having produced a solution that she would never be able to produce in government.
  The right hon. Lady's answer exposed another interesting point. She assumed that the world was divided, almost literally, into black and white: that there were applicants whose cases were genuine and well founded, and those whose cases were not genuine and, therefore—although she did not use the word on this occasion—abusive. There are a number of applicants—I have seen some in my constituency—whose fear, subjectively, is perfectly genuine, but who turn out to be unable to meet the objective test of the 1951 convention. The right hon. Lady would still have the problem of having to return those applicants to their country of origin. She has proposed no policy for doing so, despite being given every opportunity.
  As for the right hon. Lady's suggestion, to which she keeps returning, that all one needs is reception centres and detention centres—even on her own analysis, that would take years to achieve. It would not work, in any event; it has not worked in other countries. She would still have the problem that our and every other European country has had—dealing with the realities of the world. They are: that it is straightforward to return people to some countries, in which case we are doing so, but that with other countries, although we are doing our best and will continue to strengthen our work on removals, it is much more difficult.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, and for his recent correspondence with me on this subject, although I am disappointed at the outcome.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what effect he believes the treaty of Nice, and enlargement, will have on migration pressures? When the Home Affairs Committee was told by the Home Office that it was reasonable to assume that the internal frontiers between the new member states and the Schengen states would remain in place for many years to come, what basis was there for that assumption?
  Mr. Straw: The admission of the new states to the EU will, almost by definition, have the effect of reducing unfounded claims from the applicant countries—for example, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. [Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Lady will allow me to continue. This is an important question and I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman.
  One of the tests that the Interior Ministers have determined should be set for the applicant countries is that their justice and home affairs systems should have integrity, so that there could not, for example, be the kind of abuse alleged to have been perpetrated in the past against the Roma gypsies in the Czech Republic. In a sense, that is a plus.

  485
  My answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question relates to the Schengen countries. The Schengen countries that currently maintain a border with eastern Europe are all absolutely clear that they have to maintain border controls—for example, at the eastern perimeter of Germany, Austria and Italy—for many years to come.
  Although we are not formally a member of the Schengen area, we take part in Schengen. One of the reasons that I want to do so is to stiffen the resolve of my fellow Interior Ministers. Although the central and eastern European countries have improved their human rights record, countries further to the east may not have done, and their borders may be leaky. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but the EU is putting in place measures to deal with those issues.
  I mentioned the civil penalty earlier. That has made a huge difference to dealing with clandestines. I notice that the right hon. Lady made no reference to it. I also notice that, notwithstanding the effectiveness of the civil penalty, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, has said on a number of occasions that he would withdraw the penalty and abandon it altogether. If the Conservative party goes into the next election with that pledge, as well as the fantastical pledges that we have heard today, it would expose even more the bankruptcy of their policies.
  Mr. Wardle: We are going to win the election.
  Mr. Straw: No, you are not.
  Mr. James Clappison rose—
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser rose—
  Mr. Straw: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Prosser: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if it were not for the civil penalties, the recent huge overhaul of security—not only in the trucking companies but in the port of Calais, and particularly in the P&O Stena company—would never have taken place? That operation has been lauded as highly successful and effective.
  Mr. Straw: There is no question but that my hon. Friend is right. He has experienced the chaos that was produced by the previous arrangements under the Conservatives, and the pressure that it produced across Kent. He also knows the effectiveness of the civil penalty. There is no doubt that the imposition of the civil penalty has strengthened security at Dover and is now adding greatly to the strengthening of security where we really intended it to: at dispatching ports such as Calais. The port of Calais has strengthened its security, as have major carriers such as P&O Stena.
  On the asylum support system, the right hon. Lady came up with a lot of quotations that were wholly tendentious because they referred to the Conservatives' asylum system, not to the new one that we have put in place. So far as the Shelter report is concerned, Chris Holmes, the director of Shelter, wrote to me to stress that
  486
  a study that it had carried out was done before the establishment of the national asylum support service, and that
  the specifications of the NASS system represent an improvement on the situation to date.
  The Audit Commission report also referred to the previous system, not the new one.
  What the Conservatives did—I now think that they did it deliberately—not only left chaos in the administration and the legislation, but collapsed the resources available to the immigration and nationality directorate, even though numbers were rising. We have increased— [Interruption.] Well, it was either deliberate or utterly incompetent. On this occasion, I happen to think that it was deliberate. We have increased the resources in the IND dramatically. We have doubled the number of IND staff. As a result, we have reduced the time taken to process applications. The backlog has come down, too, from 100,000 early last year to 66,000, and falling fast.
  I have said before, and I am happy to say it in the House, that the asylum issue presents me with more acute ethical issues of principle than any other aspect of my work as Home Secretary. I wish, therefore, that we could engage in a serious debate about how we can make our system more humane and effective. Such a contribution was made from the Opposition side when the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle asked a question based on his experience as an immigration Minister.
  We attempted to secure such a debate, not least with our decision to commit the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to a Special Standing Committee. That is what makes the recent pronouncements of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald so absurd. If the Conservatives were serious about the alternatives to our reforms, why did they do virtually nothing to amend that legislation? Indeed, aside from the civil penalty, all they did— [Interruption.] Aside from the civil penalty, which they opposed, the only other thing they did— [Interruption.] Well, the right hon. Lady is twittering, as usual. I have got used to it, fortunately. I took interventions, but, unsurprisingly, she was ready to evade them. She does not want to be questioned on her policy.
  Aside from the civil penalty, all the Conservative party was willing to do at that stage was not to wind up cash support, but to propose a £500 million increase in it. By contrast with such disreputable, ill thought out and ill judged proposals, the Government are engaged in the long-term process of reform. Those reforms and the investment that we are putting in place have laid the foundations for a fairer, faster and firmer asylum system. I invite the House to reject the Opposition motion and support the Government amendment.
  3.12 pm
  Jackie Ballard: I cannot say that the debate so far has been either constructive or educative, and even to call these proceedings a debate may not accord with the "Oxford English Dictionary" definition because I do not believe that a lot of listening has been done on either side. However, the debate is timely as it comes the day after the publication of the Home Affairs Committee report and in the week during which hon. Members will have received the Shelter report on housing asylum seekers in the private rented sector. The right hon.

  487
  Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred to the report only in passing, not in detail.
  Miss Widdecombe: I had no time.
  Jackie Ballard: We choose our priorities for the little time available.
  I notice that the Chairman of the Committee is no longer in his place, but the report makes 22 detailed and serious recommendations that are worthy of serious consideration. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches would support many of them, particularly better co-ordination between the different services and better use of technology. The report refers to push and pull factors, and I shall discuss first some pull factors.
  If people in other countries know of a backlog of applications in the United Kingdom, how long it takes to process applications and the inadequacy of the system to monitor the departure of failed asylum seekers, that may act as a pull factor that draws them to the United Kingdom. So may a faulty perception of what they will receive under the benefits system. Many think that they would get many times the amount that they would really receive and do not realise that people are given vouchers, not cash. Knowledge of the language, cultural and historical links and family links are also pull factors. However, no matter how bad the country of origin of an asylum seeker, it must be difficult to leave behind one's homeland and home, so asylum seekers naturally seek somewhere with which they are familiar in terms of people, place or language.
  The standard of accommodation for asylum seekers cannot be a pull factor. The Home Secretary said that the Shelter report was undertaken between January and March last year, before the system changed, but it says that asylum seekers largely live in houses in multiple occupation. I would be pleased to hear his assurance that those details have changed measurably.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Surely the hon. Lady accepts that, however substandard or undesirable we may consider such conditions to be, many of those seeking refuge in this country would consider them to be a zillion miles better than the equivalent accommodation in the countries from which they are fleeing. Therefore, that is one pull factor that she should not ignore.
  Jackie Ballard: Asylum seekers largely live in HMOs, and 17 per cent. of those were found to be unfit for human habitation. Such conditions may or may not be better than those which some people have left. Many people are persecuted for their political views or for membership of certain organisations and they may have lived in houses that are much better than my house or that of the hon. Gentleman. The fact that some people come from worse conditions does not justify their living in inhuman conditions when they reach this country.
  Furthermore, 86 per cent. of those HMOs were unfit for the number of occupants that they held and more than 80 per cent. were exposed to an unacceptable fire risk. I readily accept that many people who are indigenous to this country live in substandard HMOs, but the one does not justify the other.
  488
  I do not know how many Members of the House have the time or the inclination to watch soap operas, but I happened to watch "EastEnders" on Sunday, immediately after the Home Secretary's appearance on another channel. One character was trying to persuade another to buy a house and turn it into bedsits. The person being persuaded said, "Look at the state of the house; it is disgraceful. No one would live in it." The person doing the persuading said, "Yes, but we can pack it full of asylum seekers and students. People who are desperate will live anywhere."
  Soap operas often reflect real life and I suspect that the authors of that scene were reflecting the attitudes of a number of landlords across the country, and perhaps of people who have listened to the Conservatives on the subject of asylum seekers. The Shelter report concludes by saying that there is a need for an urgent review of housing and greater support from the NASS system, especially in relation to homes subcontracted from private landlords. I hope that the Home Secretary will take note of that.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is the hon. Lady aware that asylum seekers in Liverpool, particularly in the Inn on the Park, the Landmark and Sunnyside, live in deplorable physical conditions and under a regime that provokes£indeed, organises£intimidation and causes great concern? Can she shed any light on why the Liberal Democrat city council has not used its powers under environmental health laws to take action?
  Jackie Ballard: Clearly, I do not know the details of what is happening in Liverpool. The hon. Lady, as a representative of Liverpool, will know those details. If she wants to speak to me afterwards, I shall be happy to ask my colleagues on Liverpool city council about that.
  The demeaning and ineffective voucher system cannot be a pull factor and I hope that the Minister of State will tell the House when the results of the voucher system review will be made public. She will know that there is a lot of anxiety among her Back Benchers about that. Perhaps she will also tell us how many submissions were received and how many of those opposed the system.
  We believe that the asylum dispersal system needs urgent review. According to the Refugee Council, it has led to a massive increase in the number of applications not being considered at all. When the Conservatives cite their statistics, they do not take that into account. There was a huge increase last year in the number of applications rejected on the grounds of non-compliance. Many asylum seekers have difficulty in completing the statement of evidence forms. That difficulty is compounded by postal delays, and problems in finding a legal representative and in access to translation services.
  We must treat people who come to this country humanely and fairly. I hope that no hon. Member would disagree with that statement. However, the Conservatives speak as though the most important issue was the number of people coming to the UK seeking asylum. They imagine that asylum seekers can be deterred from coming to the UK by an even tougher regime than we already have. How can asylum seekers be deterred from coming from countries such as Somalia and Afghanistan? The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald did not have an answer to that.

  489
  I shall spend a little time considering the push factors, which get less airing in debates about asylum. In his evidence to the Select Committee, the Home Secretary said£I paraphrase£that the primary determinant of the number of people seeking asylum was not the attitude or competence of the UK Government, but pressures in other parts of the world.
  There are an estimated 30 million displaced people across the world. EU countries make up 6 per cent. of the world's population and last year took only 4 per cent. of the world's refugees. We had more than 70,000 applications in the UK last year, but as the Home Secretary says, pro rata that puts us only 10th in the league of European countries. We host a small fraction of the world's refugees.
  The poorer countries in the southern hemisphere receive the most refugees. We cannot expect the developing world to absorb all the problems of refugees. The UK contribution pales into insignificance compared with much poorer countries, such as Pakistan and even Iran, which have taken, respectively, 1 million and almost 2 million refugees from Afghanistan.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Jackie Ballard: No. Time is short and others want to speak.
  As the Select Committee said, we should focus on conflict resolution and on an EU-wide effective development aid policy, if we seriously want to deter asylum seekers by reducing the number of people who need to flee from conflict and poverty. We need to establish in this country an open and clear immigration policy. I welcome the Minister's recent remarks on the positive contributions of immigrants, and on the need to attract skilled workers to our shortage areas.
  People, particularly Conservative people, speak about economic migration as though it was somehow immoral or sinful for people to seek to better themselves. [Interruption.] I should have thought that Conservatives would applaud economic migrants, rather than criticising them. We need also to establish nationally and internationally the legal methods of claiming asylum.
  In conclusion, I shall ask the Minister a specific question, which I hope she will have time to answer. What advice would she give to a woman persecuted by the Taliban in Afghanistan, who speaks English and wants to come to the UK as a refugee? How does she do that legally? The Minister's answer to that woman will be the true test of the fairness of the Government's policies on asylum.
  3.23 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I might be the only Back-Bench Member who speaks in the debate, so I might be the only hon. Member restricted to 10 minutes.
  I respectfully ask those on both Front Benches, particularly the Opposition Front Bench, to get together quickly, to see whether the debate can extended by at least an hour. That would take an hour out of the debate on agriculture, in which not enough hon. Members have
  490
  applied to speak, as I understand it. That would enable us to deal with the serious matter of asylum at slightly greater length.
  As there will be only one or two Back-Bench speeches, I wonder why the two Front-Bench spokesmen need 20 minutes to reply. I realise that my remarks are of great importance to them, but—
  Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We considered seriously whether we could extend the debate, but as I am sure the House will appreciate, there is an equally important debate to follow. The reason why time has been so short is that a whole hour was taken up by, admittedly, a very important statement. As a Front-Bench Member, I regret that. I tried to gallop through, but those on the Government Benches were not entirely appreciative of that, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will recall.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I know that Mr. Speaker has imposed a time limit of 10 minutes. In the brief time that is left, perhaps hon. Members will impose an even shorter time limit on themselves.
  Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Injury time for that intervention, please.
  We have a responsibility in the House, as does anyone in public life, to be very careful about the language that we use when describing asylum seekers and the problems faced by them. As the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) mentioned, the topic even gets into soap operas. Hon. Members should think about the language that they use, and the racist abuse that is meted out against asylum seekers on the streets of our big cities every night of the week. I think of the stabbing of Cumali Sinangali that took place over the Christmas weekend, and going back some years, I think of a Kurdish man, Shiho Iyuguven, whose family I got to know well, who took his life because of the way in which he had been treated in this country, and the family's fear.
  We should remember that most asylum seekers have come to Britain to seek a place of refuge and a place of safety because of the abuse of their human rights in the society from which they came. The abusive language used towards asylum seekers encourages racist attacks, xenophobic attitudes, and very bad attitudes, right down to the school playground, in respect of asylum seekers' children. We should remember that and be extremely careful.
  If the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has any doubts about the reasons why people seek asylum, I urge her to take a few hours to read the Human Rights Watch report 2000. The opening pages are dedicated to a series of maps showing countries where there are major abuses of human rights, lesser abuses of human rights and very few abuses. The right hon. Lady will see that in the majority of countries of the world, people suffer major abuses of human rights.
  Nobody willingly, lightly or easily goes into exile and seeks asylum from his own society. Many people have sought and received asylum in the area in which I live. I know them well and I talk to them. It brings tears to my eyes when I hear the abuse that they have been through in prison systems in various parts of the world, and their

  491
  wish to make a serious contribution to this society. Newspapers such as the Daily Mail routinely run headlines condemning asylum seekers for whatever reason, and that is parroted by the Conservative party.
  I hold the principles laid down in the Geneva conventions and the UN convention on human rights to be extremely important. They lay down the right of asylum for people seeking to flee from persecution and personal danger. We should be careful that the way in which we deal with asylum seekers in Britain does not, to some extent, perpetuate that abuse of human rights.
  I refer anyone who is concerned about that to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights report dated 8 August last year, which contained the concluding observations of the committee on the elimination of racial discrimination. I shall quote briefly from the report. It states:
  "The Committee expresses concern that the dispersal system"—
  that is, in western Europe and Britain—
  "may hamper the adequate access of asylum seekers to expert legal and other necessary services, i.e. health and education. It recommends that the State party implement a strategy ensuring that asylum seekers have access to essential services, and to ensure that their basic rights are protected."
  That is a serious statement from the UN, and we would do well to remember the importance of it.
  I am sorry to have to mention that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is keen to ensure that all asylum seekers are imprisoned as soon as they arrive in this country, so that their applications can be processed.
  According to the latest information that I have, there are 1,195 asylum seekers held in various establishments around the country. I do not believe that it is necessary to hold those people in detention. I do not believe that it is right to put them in prisons. We should beware of abusing human rights, as those people have not committed any crime; they have merely applied for asylum in this country. The immigration service has an overwhelming power to detain people.
  Many asylum seekers are facing poverty. Under the Social Security Act 1986, income support was reduced to 90 per cent. for people seeking asylum. The Government of the day offered no explanation. That has been followed up by the voucher system and the small amount of cash that goes with it, with the result that many asylum seekers and their children are living in desperate poverty.
  Many of those people's asylum applications will ultimately be granted. Their children will grow up in this country and will become citizens of this country; they will live here for evermore. What right have we to punish the children of asylum seekers? What right have we to make them live on less than what we know to be the poverty level? Teachers in local primary schools tell me what life is like for asylum-seeking children who do not even get enough to eat.
  The Shelter report on the housing of asylum seekers is a welcome document. I have not time to go through all of it, but I shall give the headline facts. Nearly a fifth of all dwellings examined by Shelter were unfit for human habitation; 19 per cent. of occupied dwellings were infested with cockroaches, fleas and bedbugs; nearly half the bedsits were unfit for human habitation; and 83 per cent. of houses in multiple occupation that were visited were exposed to unacceptable fire risks.
  492
  Those landlords are making millions out of the asylum system and the misery that goes with it, as they are through the housing benefit system. It is time we got a grip. It is time we imposed rent control on these people, and imposed tough regulation on the conditions in which they make their tenants live. It is outrageous that profits should be made from such conditions in this day and age.
  As for the voucher system, it is divisive, inefficient, expensive and entirely ineffective. The other week, a man who had been a prominent professional member of his community told me, with tears in his eyes, that he had been forced to flee his country because of the way he had been treated there. He told me how, having been burnt out of his house at 3 am, he had eventually made his way to this country. Once a week he must walk a long way to a supermarket with his vouchers, because he has not the cash to pay for a bus ticket and he cannot get change. In any event, he cannot get change when he uses the voucher in the supermarket.
  I hope the Minister will tell us that the report of the examination of the system will appear soon. I hope she will also say that we will return to a system of cash benefits. That system is more efficient: it often means that children are fed more, and are given more appropriate food.
  Finally, let me say something about the economic contribution made by asylum seekers here. Two weeks ago, along with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and a number of others, I attended a meeting of the Tamil community in the House. I knew many of those people: I had known them when they were seeking asylum here in the mid-1980s. The contribution that they have made to this country—the professional work they have done, the way in which they have brought up their families and all the efforts they have made—is a credit to them and their community. Why does the Conservative party consistently denigrate people who seek asylum, and seek to make a contribution to our society?
  Many have written much about asylum. I am sorry to say, however, that when the history of the late 20th and early 21st centuries is written, many others will say, "Yes, you rightly remember the victims of the Holocaust and all the horrors that went with it, but what about the people who are now routinely abused and deprived of their human rights? What about those who are forced to flee and to seek a place of safety elsewhere? What about those who are badly treated by racist groups all over Europe, as a matter of routine?"
  Can we please have a sense of humanity, and understand just what the abuse of human rights is like for so many people in so many places around the world? Can we put the emphasis on a foreign policy initiative, an economic initiative, to give people better rights and a better standard of living, rather than the constant condemnation of those who merely seek what we all want for ourselves—a decent home, a decent job, enough to eat, and some hope for our children?
  3.34 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Let me say at the outset that I have genuine sympathy for real asylum seekers. I have been to Kosovo and Bosnia, and I helped to organise a conference in Beirut while bombing was going on there. I have no doubt—and figures show this again and again—that a proportion, albeit a minority, of the many people who make asylum claims in this country are genuine cases.

  493
  It is, however, difficult to exaggerate the way in which the current tide of refugees claiming asylum status is affecting the country, and will affect the country if the torrent of people with unfounded claims continues. In my east Kent constituency, we are already beginning to run out of options for planning decisions. We have no brownfield sites left; I know of three housing estates that are, at this moment, being built on flood plains. It is absurd to see new houses being built with, in one instance, up to 6 in of water lapping around the doors. Our infrastructure in southern England is overloaded: 100,000 people in a single year will mean 1.5 million over the 15-year planning cycle. Those are not racist considerations; they are the considerations of a country—Britain as a whole—that now has a higher population density than China.
  Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brazier: I will not, because of the shortage of time.
  Much of Scotland consists of highland country that is not easily built over. England on its own is now nearly as crowded as India, and southern England is particularly crowded. There is a duty—which, to be fair, the Government have recognised—to try to prevent the flow of unfounded asylum applications.
  Time considerations force me to confine myself to four concrete points about the workings of the asylum system. First, I firmly believe that we should reintroduce the white list. In the time available, the Library has been able to give me only the figures for the first year after its introduction, but it appears that in that period the number of applicants from democratic countries on the list, where there is little risk of human rights abuse, fell from 7,000 to 5,500 in 1997, although the tide of applications from non-white-list countries was still rising sharply. Surely it makes sense to reintroduce the list.
  Let me give an example of a country that I think should be on the white list, if the list still existed. By November 1999, the horrendous exodus of genuine refugees that followed the commencement of bombing in Kosovo had, in terms of numbers, already been reversed; with substantial reconstruction under way, people were returning to their homes. Yet last year people claiming to come from the former Yugoslavia formed the third highest category of applicants for asylum in this country. That cannot be right when we have invested so much time and treasure in trying to make the area secure, especially as there is plenty of evidence that a large proportion of the applicants were Albanians pretending to be Kosovars. I refer to entrants in 2000, not 1999.
  My second point relates to the point of entry. The Minister emphasised the imposition of civil penalties on lorries. I think that it is right to accept those penalties now, and I do not believe that there will be another vote on the matter; but if it works to have civil penalties that involve a certain amount of self-regulation, in the long term it must be worth the extra resources to extend spot checks to every lorry. Such a system would pay for itself many times over.
  494
  Thirdly, I think that we need a proper mechanism for return. The Select Committee report makes a constructive point that, curiously, has not featured in the debate so far. It points out that there are plenty of relatively stable but very poor third world countries that, in many instances, neighbour the countries we are debating. Surely it must be possible, as part of our overseas development programme—which, rightly, is a large programme by international standards—to offer grants to some of those countries to take some asylum applicants who could comfortably be housed there. The report touches on the point only fairly lightly, although I have dealt with it in more detail, and it proposes consideration of various options.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I remind my hon. Friend that, at paragraph 157 of our report, the Select Committee states:
  "In particular we ask whether people fleeing persecution in their own country should be found refuge in nearby safe countries rather than in countries far away."
  Is not my hon. Friend also making that point?
  Mr. Brazier: Precisely; and there is no reason at all why we should not use aid funds to support that.
  My fourth and final point is about a court ruling that has not figured at all in the debate. Our international undertakings on asylum, which I take very seriously, must in most circumstances deal with persecution by Governments. If we allow those undertakings to be extended to cases in which people claim that they are persecuted by their neighbours or by criminals—the courts have chosen to do so in various rulings in the past 12 months—we will simply be opening the floodgates. Are we going to say that people living in high-crime areas in the United Kingdom should be able to claim asylum in other parts of the country? We have to take a tough line, and it is reasonable that we do so.
  The United Kingdom has a long and honourable record on asylum. It is right that we should have such a record. However, the tensions that are building up in southern England in constituencies such as mine are unacceptable and are working against the interests of racial harmony. [Interruption.] The best way of ensuring racial harmony and decent treatment for the minority of genuine applicants is to tackle abuse by using the measures that I have suggested.
  Mr. David Lidington rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), may I enjoin the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) to silence? We do not want a running commentary from a sedentary position.
  3.42 pm
  Mr. Lidington: Like many hon. Members, I regret the lack of time available to debate this subject. One way of dealing with that might be for the Government's business managers to make time available for a debate on the report published yesterday by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

  495
  On a first, quick read through, I have been very impressed by the quality of the argument and some of the proposals from the Committee. I tell the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that, having been Chairman of a Select Committee that managed to produce a unanimous report on asylum subscribed to by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), his future as the Government's special diplomatic envoy must be assured.
  One of the matters that the Select Committee and other hon. Members have acknowledged is that external pressures for migration across continents are continuous and are not likely to diminish in future years. They arise partly from the political instability in many countries, especially in the developing world; partly from the natural desire of people who are not entitled to refugee status to move to a place where they can seek a better life for themselves and their families; partly from the availability of relatively cheap international travel compared with previous decades; and partly, as the Home Secretary has acknowledged many times, from the activity of organised criminals—racketeers who trade in human beings.
  The Select Committee pointed out that, as well as those external pressures, there are "pull" factors. Paragraph 14 of the Committee's report states:
  "It is probable that the UK's interpretation of international law and the delay in reaching asylum decisions in recent years have also made the United Kingdom an attractive destination."
  The Opposition selected this subject for debate again today because, although we acknowledge the immense difficulties for any Government of any colour in handling the issue, there has been the most remarkable and conspicuous gap between everything that the current Administration promised and what in practice they have been able to deliver.
  Something is wrong when, last month, almost one in six asylum applications were from European countries, excluding Turkey from the definition. Something is wrong when, last year, the United Kingdom recorded not only the largest number of asylum applications in our history, but the largest number of applicants of any country in Europe, and—according to figures published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—significantly more than Germany in every month of 2000. On the United Nations method of counting, the figures for the United Kingdom were 97,900, compared with 78,800 for Germany and 43,900 for the Netherlands.
  Delay is undoubtedly one of the reasons for that. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister of State repeats the Government's pledge that by 1 April 2001 the backlog of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision will have been reduced to what the Government term "frictional levels". I hope that they succeed, but the record so far gives me considerable cause for doubt.
  It is not only Conservative supporters who have been pointing out the relationship between chaos in the administration and decision-making process, and the incentive that it gives people to try their luck in the United Kingdom rather than elsewhere. That issue was addressed directly by Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, of the university
  496
  of Oxford, to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred. Professor Goodwin-Gill, who has worked with the UNHCR and has no political axe to grind on the subject, told the Select Committee:
  "I think one has to recognise that the 70,000 persons we had last year"—
  in 1999—
  "is a function of inefficiency on the part of the present decision-making procedure. There is no doubt that an ineffective and inefficient procedure will act as a magnet."
  That is a common-sense view, endorsed by someone who has devoted a considerable part of his career to dealing with the problem in detail.
  Something is wrong when, in the first 10 months of 2000, only 8,000 failed asylum seekers were removed from the United Kingdom. In those 10 months, approximately 63,000 new applications were made. Something is wrong when just under 2,000 asylum refusals have been issued against people held at Oakington reception centre, but—according to the Government's evidence to the Select Committee—only 254 of them have been removed or have left voluntarily after those decisions had been taken. It is a matter not only of effectiveness, important though that is, but of humanity.
  I should like to deal with a point that the Home Secretary made—that a system that embodies delay, inefficiency and ineffectiveness is unfair to the genuine refugee who has to wait in the queue with everyone else. In practice, a dispersal system that was introduced for perfectly good motives, and that I certainly hoped would work effectively, is causing tremendous difficulties for all types of asylum seekers.
  Evidence from the Immigration Advisory Service describes applicants having to travel by night bus from London to another city, then having to wait after a sleepless night for three or five hours before a detailed interview that will be the basis of a decision on their application. I have no idea whether those cases are well founded or not, but that is not a sensible way of organising our asylum policy. That is why a system under which people are housed in secure reception centres with board and lodging and legal advice, and interpretation and translation facilities available, would be not only a deterrent to unfounded asylum claims, but in practice a much more efficient and humane way of dealing with asylum seekers who claim on British soil than the current, shambolic arrangements.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation in the borough of Hillingdon? It has the biggest port of entry into the United Kingdom, through which a quarter of the total number of people seeking asylum in the UK come. The number of asylum seekers recorded in the final quarter of last year was larger than in previous quarters, which shows that the dispersal policy is simply not working. Our local authority cannot cope.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes the point about Hillingdon well, and I could support it by saying that Kent is talking about having a backlog of 1,000 asylum seekers in temporary bed-and-breakfast hotels. Moreover, Northamptonshire county council has stated that

  497
  "the volume of asylum seekers coming to Northamptonshire shows no signs of reducing, despite NASS statements to the contrary following the roll-out of the national dispersal arrangements."
  Before I conclude, I want to make one further point of detail, to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. It has to do with the Government's much-vaunted figures on the number of initial decisions. What is striking about the figures for 2000 is the number of refusals for what is termed "non-compliance". In practice, that term refers to an applicant's failure to fill in the form correctly.
  As I understand it, an applicant has 10 working days to complete and submit a 19-page statement of evidence form, which must be completed in English. Dispersal and the general shambles affecting the administration of the system mean that access to interpreters, translators and legal advisers may be interrupted or even rendered impossible. In 1999, 1,085 claims were rejected on grounds of non-compliance, but the total rose to 26,635 in 2000.
  My fear is that perhaps the statistics are being pumped up and made to look good—to look as though many people were having their cases considered and determined and refused—but that in practice the refusal is purely technical. If that is so, there has been no gain, as it means that the substantive consideration of a case has to be dealt with further down the line by the adjudicator at the appeal hearing. That would not be a sensible way to run the system, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) rightly reminded the House of the importance of the central principles of the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. It is the one point on which I agree with him. Our asylum system has degenerated into a shambolic state, which reduces our ability to deliver the promises that we signed up to when we acceded to that convention. It also undermines public support for the principle that we should give succour to people who are genuinely fleeing persecution, which the hon. Gentleman was right to argue that we should seek to uphold.
  The policies of the present Administration are neither fast, nor firm, nor fair. It is time that we had fresh policies, and a new start.
  3.53 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I shall begin by picking up some themes developed earlier in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He was right to say that asylum poses some of the most acutely difficult ethical problems that he has had to deal with. I am sure that many other hon. Members could say the same. The polarised nature of the debate in our country does us no good at all.
  It is appropriate to refer to the 1951 convention in this debate, given last weekend's commemoration of the holocaust. The convention came into being because, after the horrific events of the holocaust and the second world war, people said, "Never, ever again will we turn our backs on those fleeing persecution." I salute the people who drew up the 1951 convention, which we mark and commemorate this year. Our guiding principle must be that we should not turn our backs.
  498
  However, the asylum debate is difficult, and it stirs strong emotions. I feel very emotional, and very strongly, about it. That is because the people who framed the 1951 convention and the principles on which it was founded could not have imagined the situation that exists today. Today, we are faced with smuggling, trafficking in human beings and the exploitation of mass travel. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred to that.
  The traffic in human beings is a despicable activity. Women are taken for prostitution and children are taken to be used in criminal activity. People make billions of pounds a year from the traffic in human beings.
  Ms Sally Keeble: Is my hon. Friend aware that Northampton is a major destination for the traffic in human beings, and in particular for people from the former Republic of Yugoslavia? Will she agree to look at the situation, and ensure that the national asylum support service reinstates registration for asylum seekers in Northampton? Registration is due to end tomorrow, but the service is essential if we are to deal with the 15 to 20 people who come into Northampton every week.
  Mrs. Roche: I know that my hon. Friend has made representations about that matter before. We have spoken about it, and I shall certainly look at the matter again and take very seriously what she has to say.
  For those people who make well founded cases under the convention, we must have a proper process of refugee integration. I am delighted that we now have a national strategy. I chair the working group on that, and it had its first meeting yesterday. However, we must also recognise the difficulties associated with return—difficulties that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) could not resolve. When one turns down a person's application, one must decide how to remove that person.
  I cannot say that my aim, when I came into politics, was to remove people from the United Kingdom. It certainly was not my aim, but removal must happen when a person who has made an unfounded application reaches the end of the process. It can be very difficult. For some countries in eastern Europe, there is no problem at all but, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, we are now dealing with some of the most difficult countries in the world. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said about the need for moderation in this area. However, I must tell him that that is why we need increased detention space at the end of the process.
  I turn now to some of the other points made in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), who, speaking on asylum for the first time from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, made a very good speech. She was right to refer to the Shelter report. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald would not allow me to intervene to point out that the report was compiled before the Government's system came into operation. Of course people have to be housed properly, and we need high standards to ensure that the housing is available.

  499
  The hon. Member for Taunton asked me a very important question about cases involving Afghanistan. The problem that she raised highlights how right the Home Secretary was to talk, in his Lisbon speech, about the need to view the 1951 convention in the modern context.
  I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said about his constituency, which borders my own. In both our constituencies, many people from all over the world are seeking asylum. It is important that we look after people properly while their claims are being processed, and that is our aim.
  I very much welcomed the speech by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), and what he had to say about his support for the civil penalty. I thought that his remarks about returns and the need to see the problem in the context of international development were very well made. I understand completely what the hon. Gentleman said; he demonstrated his understanding of this complex procedure.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She heard the quote that I gave from the Select Committee's recommendations about dealing with the victims of persecution in the region where they suffer persecution, a point that the Home Secretary mentioned. Do the Government propose to take that recommendation forward, as it would unquestionably help to alleviate some of the pressure on the United Kingdom?
  Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The whole debate, which is being addressed by the European Union, and by the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in its worldwide consultation on the convention, has been taken forward as a result of the Home Secretary's speech in Lisbon. In the developed world, we spend a fantastic sum of money on considering and processing applications for asylum. In the developing world, which has the majority of asylum seekers and refugees, we spend comparatively little. Of course there is an imbalance, but many other factors apply.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury spoke about dispersal. The national asylum support service replaces the shambolic arrangements previously in place, under which many boroughs in London and the south-east could not cope. We think that the system is working reasonably well. That does not mean to say that there are no teething difficulties, as there are with any new organisation. However, what Shelter has to say about standards shows that NASS officials should be congratulated on their very hard work.
  As far as the backlog is concerned, the hon. Gentleman talked about non-compliance refusals—but before we put standards in place, there were none. Under the previous Administration, files were simply left to gather dust on the shelves of the immigration and nationality directorate. There was no processing whatsoever. That is why we have made 110,000 decisions in the past year—the largest number of decisions that the Home Office has ever taken.
  The House will probably debate no more important moral issue than how we treat asylum seekers and deal with the problem of refugees. We must ensure not only that we get the statistics right, but that we place the issue in an international context. We are determined to deal with the problem and are putting measures in place to do so.
  500
  I commend the Government's amendment to the House.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 304.

  Division No. 97]

  [4.3

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Leigh, Edward

  Amess, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Lidington, David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Loughton, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Luff, Peter

  Beggs, Roy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bercow, John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Body, Sir Richard

  Madel, Sir David

  Boswell, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Maples, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Brady, Graham

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Brazier, Julian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Page, Richard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Paice, James

  Pickles, Eric

  Chope, Christopher

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Prior, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Collins, Tim

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Cran James

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Day, Stephen

  Ruffley, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Duncan, Alan

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Evans, Nigel

  Shepherd, Richard

  Faber, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Flight, Howard

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fowler, Fit Hon Sir Norman

  Spring, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gale, Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Garnier, Edward

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gibb, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Gill, Christopher

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gray, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Green, Damian

  Townend, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tredinnick, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Viggers, Peter

  Hayes, John

  Walter, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Wardle, Charles

  Horam, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Whittingdale, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Yeo, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Mr. John Randall and

  Lansley, Andrew

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  501

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Davidson, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bailey, Adrian

  Denham, John

  Baker, Norman

  Dobbin, Jim

  Ballard, Jackie

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Banks, Tony

  Doran, Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Dowd, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Drew, David

  Battle, John

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Edwards, Huw

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Efford, Clive

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Fisher, Mark

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Best, Harold

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Flint, Caroline

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Flynn, Paul

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Galloway, George

  Breed, Colin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Gerrard, Neil

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burden, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burnett, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burstow, Paul

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hanson, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Chidgey, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Healey, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frorne)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate

  Coleman, lain

  Hood, Jimmy

  Colman, Tony

  Hope, Phil

  Connarty, Michael

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cotter, Brian

  Hutton, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cummings, John

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  502

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Plaskitt, James

  Joyce, Eric

  Pond, Chris

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pope, Greg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rammell, Bill

  Lammy, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Laxton, Bob

  Rendel, David

  Lepper, David

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Levitt, Tom

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Livsey, Richard

  Rogers, Allan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lock, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Love, Andrew

  Roy, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Salter, Martin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McFall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Singh, Marsha

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Mallaber, Judy

  Soley, Clive

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Meale, Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Merron, Gillian

  Stringer, Graham

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moore, Michael

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Timms, Stephen

  Morley, Elliot

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mountford, Kali

  Todd, Mark

  Mudie, George

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mullin, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Truswell, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Tyler, Paul

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Tynan, Bill

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Olner, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Öpik, Lembit

  Webb, Steve

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  White, Brian

  503

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wray, James

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wilson, Brian

  Wyatt, Derek

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Woolas, Phil

  Mr. Clive Betts

  Question accordingly negatived
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31(Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 152.

  Division No. 98]

  [4.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cummings, John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Allen, Graham

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Darvill, Keith

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davidson, Ian

  Banks, Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Denham, John

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Doran, Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Dowd, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Drew, David

  Best, Harold

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Borrow, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flint, Caroline

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Caton, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cawsey, Ian

  Galloway, George

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clapham, Michael

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clwyd, Ann

  Grogan, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coleman, lain

  Hanson, David

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hendrick, Mark

  Corston, Jean

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cousins, Jim

  Heppell, John

  Cox, Tom

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cranston, Ross

  Hinchliffe, David

  504

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoey, Kate

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hope, Phil

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Jenkins, Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Purchase, Ken

  Joyce, Eric

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rammell, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kidney, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rogers, Allan

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lammy, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rowlands, Ted

  Laxton, Bob

  Roy, Frank

  Lepper, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Salter, Martin

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lock, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Love, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCabe, Steve

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Singh, Marsha

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Skinner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  McNulty, Tony

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  MacShane, Denis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McWalter, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stringer, Graham

  Martlew, Eric

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Meale, Alan

  Merron, Gillian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Timms, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mitchell, Austin

  Todd, Mark

  Moffatt, Laura

  Touhig, Don

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Truswell, Paul

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Morley, Elliot

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

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

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Tynan, Bill

  Mountford, Kali

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Mudie, George

  Ward, Ms Claire

  505

  Wareing, Robert N

  Woolas, Phil

  White, Brian

  Worthington, Tony

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wray, James

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wilson, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Amess, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hayes, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Baker, Norman

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Baldry, Tony

  Horam, John

  Ballard, Jackie

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Body, Sir Richard

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Boswell, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brady, Graham

  Leigh, Edward

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Brazier, Julian

  Lidington, David

  Breed, Colin

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Loughton, Tim

  Burnett, John

  Luff, Peter

  Burns, Simon

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Burstow, Paul

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chidgey, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Chope, Christopher

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clappison, James

  Maples, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Collins, Tim

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cotter, Brian

  Moore, Michael

  Cran, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Day, Stephen

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paice, James

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Evans, Nigel

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Faber, David

  Prior, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Flight, Howard

  Rendel, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robathan, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gale, Roger

  Ruffley, David

  Gamier, Edward

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gibb, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gidley, Sandra

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gill, Christopher

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

  Gray, James

  Soames, Nicholas

  Green, Damian

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  506

  Steen, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Swayne, Desmond

  Walter, Robert

  Syms, Robert

  Wardle, Charles

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Webb, Steve

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wilkinson, John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Yeo, Tim

  Townend, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tredinnick, David

  Trend, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. John Randall and

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House reaffirms the obligations of the United Kingdom under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to provide asylum for those fleeing from a well-founded fear of persecution; approves the Government's strategy for reform of the asylum system and welcomes the practical improvements which have already been delivered, including substantial additional investment to provide the Immigration and Nationality Directorate with the staff and other resources essential to operate an efficient and humane asylum system; congratulates the Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff on their recent achievements including taking 110,000 initial asylum decisions in 2000; welcomes the effect which the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and other measures have had in reducing unfounded asylum claims; welcomes the successful introduction of a coherent, national system of support for asylum seekers to replace the chaotic arrangements created by the previous Government which imposed an intolerable burden on local authorities in London and the South-East; notes that the civil penalty, a measure which was opposed by the Official Opposition, has successfully encouraged hauliers and ferry operators to introduce additional security measures to tackle clandestine and illegal entry to the United Kingdom; welcomes the Government's expansion of detention capacity to support substantial increases in the number of asylum seekers with unfounded claims who are removed from the UK; and supports the Government's commitment to working closely with other countries to deal more effectively with asylum pressures affecting the whole of Europe.
  4.25 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate that we have just concluded was foreshortened by the very important statement made before it began. Nevertheless, in 111 minutes of debate, only 19 minutes were left for Back-Bench contributions, so that many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wanted to take part were unable to do so. I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you cannot control the length of Front-Bench speeches, but in your role as guardian of the rights of Back Benchers, might you seek to use some influence in that matter so that it does not happen again?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says, but as he will appreciate, it is not a point of order for the Chair. In recent years, it has become a convention that Oppositions split Supply days; that in itself reduces the amount of time for Back Benchers. There were obvious reasons why the statement was made today. I know that it is usual for the Government of the day to try to avoid statements on Opposition Supply days, but there was a powerful reason for that particular statement. Perhaps I should waste no more time by adding to that.

  Crisis in Agriculture
  4.27 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
  That this House expresses its profound concern about the crisis in British agriculture, demonstrated by the collapse in farm incomes and loss of jobs; notes that, since the launch of the Government's Action Plan for Farming, incomes have continued to fall and many of the promises remain unfulfilled; condemns the Government for its failure to address this crisis and for its damaging policies which have made matters even worse; and calls on the Government to end the competitive disadvantage suffered by British farmers as a result of red tape, gold-plating and over-regulation, to introduce honesty in food-labelling and to restrict the flow of sub-standard food imports.
  I welcome the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Dispatch Box for what may be his last speech in the House in a general agricultural debate. I pay tribute to the almost unfailing courtesy that he has shown during the two and a half years that he and I have debated such matters. I also pay tribute to his genuine willingness to listen to farmers and their problems, which is in happy contrast to the attitude adopted by his immediate predecessor. Sadly, most of what the right hon. Gentleman has done stopped at that point—at listening rather than acting.
  In the two and a half years since the right hon. Gentleman was appointed, he has spoken in seven major debates on agriculture—no fewer than six of which were called by the Opposition. This is the first agriculture debate in the House since July. It is six long months since we last discussed the subject—six months characterised by terrible weather and more pressure on farm incomes.
  Labour's reluctance to discuss the worst crisis in agriculture for two generations is odd for a party that keeps claiming to represent the countryside.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): On the point about debates, it is my recollection that a Conservative Opposition day debate on agriculture£because of the pressing need for such a debate£was scheduled for 13 July, but was dropped at the last minute. It was rescheduled for today. Could not the hon. Gentleman have rescheduled his debate a little sooner?
  Mr. Yeo: We actually held a debate in July. If that is the best that the Minister can offer to justify his refusal to come to the House and debate these issues in Government time, it will be regarded as pretty thin gruel by those people in the industry who are suffering the consequences of his policy.
  It is not only in Parliament that the Minister is so reluctant to discuss agriculture; last autumn, at the Labour party conference, he made a speech in which he referred to shipbuilding and coal mining, but did not once mention dairy farmers or pig farmers. That is an appalling reflection of his priorities and those of his party. It makes it clear to Britain's rural communities that Labour simply does not care whether farming survives as an important industry.
  Labour do not merely refuse to discuss the crisis; they refuse to do anything about it—or, on the rare occasions when they do, they make matters worse rather than better.
  508
  Since 1997, farm incomes have fallen by three quarters. Even the Minister admits that they are at their lowest level in real terms since the 1930s, and yesterday's figures showed that average total incomes for farmers are down to just over £5,000 a year. In each of the last two years in Britain, some 20,000 jobs in farming have been lost and every day 60 people leave the industry. The arable, dairy, pig, beef and sheep sectors have all suffered—none has escaped. When fanning struggles, the whole rural economy is damaged and the countryside environment starts to deteriorate.
  While this human, social and economic tragedy is devastating rural communities throughout Britain, the only countryside issue that Labour wants to talk about in Parliament is hunting. Labour's attack on hunting is a bone thrown by a cynical Prime Minister to the class warriors on his Back Benches to keep them occupied until the election. It is a disgraceful attempt to divert attention away from the real problems facing the countryside. The past two weeks have exposed more clearly than ever before the deceit and dishonesty at the very top of this Labour Government—deceit and dishonesty with which farmers have been living for years.
  Charlotte Atkins: The Labour Government have provided £650 million in agrimonetary compensation. How much did the previous Tory Government provide to farmers?
  Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has clearly relied on a Whips' handout. However, let us use it to nail a myth once and for all. The agrimonetary compensation regime started three months before the last election. The Government have had 10 months in the current year to decide whether to take up all the available agrimonetary compensation. They have to decide that against a background of farm incomes that are a quarter of the level they were in 1997. There is not a shred of evidence that the Minister, of all people, would have decided—in the space of only three months, when farm incomes were four times their current level—to take up any agrimonetary compensation at all. It is scandalous that farmers still do not know whether the compensation will be taken up in the current year.
  The purpose of the two packages that the Minister announced in 1999 and again last year was not to help agriculture; it was to help the Government win headlines. In September 1999, the Minister announced what he claimed was £537 million of new aid for agriculture. All but £150 million of that was already due to British farmers under the common agricultural policy and, of the rest, £89 million was temporary exemption from charges that the Labour Government had introduced and £60 million maintained the previous level of support for hill farmers. That left just £1 million of actual new money from a package worth half a billion pounds.
  In March last year, the Minister was at it again, and this time he was joined by the Prime Minister. The Downing street summit produced a new package called the "action plan for farming", which Labour claimed this time was £203 million of cash help for farmers—another claim that turned out to be bogus. Part of what Labour said was cash help for farmers turned out to be simply a promise not to raise meat hygiene inspection charges by more than the rate of inflation.

  509
  That package included £66 million in agrimonetary compensation for the weak euro, which was not extra at all. It was actually a cut of £76 million compared with what had been spent in the previous year. It included again the £60 million of help for hill farmers, again simply maintaining the existing level of support. It included £26 million to help pig farmers restructure, and not a penny of that money has been spent. The best that the Minister can do about that is a bit of vague waffle this morning about trying to carry the money forward to next year. The package also included money under the Small Business Service and the redundant building grant programme, scarcely any of which has been taken up 10 months later.
  Mr. Nick Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being a little bit mean-spirited in not giving us the credit for the increase in hill farm allowances—the £60 million year on year for three years. He said that it was money that was already there, but it was put there by the incoming Labour Government; it was not there under the previous Conservative Government. In any event, the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is clearly that more money should be spent on farming. How much more money should be spent, and how would that square with a policy of cutting taxation and reducing public expenditure?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I call for brief interventions in what is a short debate?
  Mr. Yeo: The thrust of my remarks is that twice in the past two years, against a background of an industry facing its worst crisis for two generations, the Minister has made a great public relations and presentational triumph out of announcing hundreds of millions of pounds of what he calls new money. On examination, it turns out to be merely a continuation of the previous year's expenditure, or money that never sees the light of day.
  Mr. Brownrose—
  Mr. Yeo: The Minister will have his chance to speak later.
  I want the truth about the money that the Minister is spending, instead of the claims that he is helping farmers when he is doing nothing of the sort. The two packages were stuffed full of false promises; they were cynically designed to deceive the public into thinking something was being done for an industry on its knees. They were packages presented without a care for the damage that raising hopes and then dashing them has on the morale of individual farmers struggling to earn a living for their families. In December 1999, the Select Committee on Agriculture concluded:
  "The Minister should take care not to give false hope to farmers."
  How right it was.
  The story of the past two years is the story of Labour's missing millions—money promised to farmers that turned out not to exist. The prospects for 2001 do not look much better. There has been a very small improvement in some product prices, but incomes remain tightly squeezed. Labour has still not claimed all the agrimonetary
  510
  compensation available this year. There are less than three months left to secure £200 million for the industry and, during oral questions this morning, the Minister refused to say whether he would claim it.
  Mr. James Plaskitt: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the previous Conservative Government had the opportunity to take £500 million in agrimonetary compensation but did not take it?
  Mr. Yeo: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). I have explained the answer, and I shall not waste time explaining it again. It is on the record in Hansard.However, I give the pledge today that, as long as the Conservative election victory comes before 30 April—the last day for claiming the money—we will claim every penny of it. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he expects will happen when the agrimonetary regime runs out in two years. The first act of the next Conservative Agriculture Minister will be to start talks about what will replace that regime.
  Not content with misleading farmers, Labour is up to its old trick of increasing the burdens on them. The pre-Budget report published by the Chancellor last November confirmed his continuing support for a pesticide tax. The horticulture industry is threatened with the climate change levy, which is yet another stealth tax penalising British employers, and one that the next Conservative Government will repeal. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary says that abolishing that tax means that more money will have to be found. That is interesting, because the Government pledged that the money raised by the climate change levy would be entirely recycled to other businesses. Perhaps the Minister has blown the gaff on the Government's post-election plan for the proceeds from the climate change levy.
  Horticulture faces another new burden through the proposed extension of the licensing scheme to previously unregulated trickle-in irrigation. In the arable sector, Labour supported the everything but arms proposal, which would have damaged growers of sugar, one of the few remaining profitable crops. Beef producers have been undermined by Labour's refusal to restrict imports of beef from cattle over 30 months old entering Britain following the collapse of confidence in beef in France and Germany.
  In that case, it is not only farmers who suffer, but consumers. Inch by painful inch, we extracted the truth from the Minister about the lack of protection for British consumers, such as the absence of checks at ports of entry and the inadequacy of the paperwork attaching to imports. Processed beef products containing beef from cattle over 30 months old are being imported and sold here, but we would have known none of that from the story that the Minister was telling last year.
  In Parliament last April, the Minister said:
  "The fact is that we do not allow meat products over 30 months to be imported into this country."£[Official Report,13 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 485.]
  A week later, he wrote to me and said:
  "The sale of meat and meat products from cattle over 30 months in this country is banned…It is untrue and irresponsible to imply that UK consumers are exposed to dangerous imports."

  511
  Seven months later, the Minister said:
  "This country's public protection measures, which are very powerful, include a ban on selling any beef product derived from animals that are over 30 months."—[Official Report, 16 November; Vol. 356, c. 1053.]
  Unfortunately, every one of those statements turned out to be wrong.
  Professor Harriet Kimbell, a member of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, pointed out before Christmas that the ban on over-30-months meat applied only to fresh meat, which is a crucial distinction. She said:
  "The regulations are not as we thought they were. It is highly likely that meat from cattle over 30 months old is being sold in this country."
  Finally, the Minister himself came clean in a letter to me on 10 January. He said that the Food Standards Agency had
  "explained that the Over 30 Month Rule is difficult to police on imports. It is also the case that this rule does not apply to the sale of imported processed products."
  How lucky that the Minister gave his answers in Parliament. Imagine where he might be now if he had given them to Alastair Campbell. It is the old story: the Minister is the farmer's friend as long as the farmer is foreign. Labour is always ready to crack down on British farmers, but it never acts against imports, perhaps for fear of upsetting its friends in France, who have been so incredibly helpful over the sale of safe, healthy British beef. No matter what France does, legally or illegally, to undermine Britain's farmers or to put Britain's consumers at risk, the Minister will never lift a finger against France.
  The whole countryside is now in crisis. That crisis has been made worse by Labour's neglect and hostility, by fuel taxes that uniquely damage rural communities and by cuts in the police that leave our villages unprotected. In thirteen weeks, in all probability, the British people will have their chance to save the countryside. Much will need to be done urgently by the incoming Conservative Government. In our first days in office, we shall take three steps, none of which will cost a penny of taxpayers' money.
  First, we shall lift the burden of red tape and regulation now strangling Britain's farm and food industry. We fully endorse the conclusions of Lord Haskins's better regulation task force. We shall stop the gold-plating of regulations. We shall stop enforcing European directives, such as that on integrated pollution prevention and control, sooner and in a tougher manner than other countries.
  If the Minister wants to show that he is concerned about red tape, he could start with the European charging directive in his Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001, a statutory instrument laid in the past few days. In those regulations, the words "may be" in the European law relating to extra inspection charges payable by food processors are changed to "shall be" in Britain. That typical example of gold-plating by the Government has nothing to do with the European Union. Incidentally, the people who will be affected by those regulations were given two days to comment on a draft that Ministers had taken six months to prepare.
  Our second step will be to introduce honesty in food labelling so that consumers know the country of origin and the method of production of the food that they buy.
  512
  Selling food that purports to be British when it contains not a single item grown in this country is simply a fraud on consumers. As fears have grown about the safety of imported beef, Ministers and the Food Standards Agency have suggested that consumers should decide for themselves whether to eat it. However, those Ministers have prevented consumers from being given the information on which they could base that choice.
  The third step is to restrict the import of food that is produced in ways that are not permitted in the United Kingdom. There are persistent reports that some of the poultry from the far east is reared using growth-promoting drugs that are banned throughout Europe on health grounds. It is wrong that our farmers should be placed at a competitive disadvantage and that our consumers are put at risk because of Labour's refusal to challenge these imports.
  Mr. Nick Brown: On that, at least, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he has hard evidence, will he please give it to me?
  Mr. Yeo: The Minister said earlier today that it was open to the European Union to inspect the plants in which such food is produced. It is interesting, however, that he relies on the Food Standards Agency and not the EU to tell us whether imported food is correct or not. Is he confirming that the agency has no intention of inspecting any of the plants? That will not fill consumers with much confidence about the care with which assurances are being given.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Ribble valley farmers are of a mind that, whereas we comply with all the rules and directives that we sign up to, farmers in the rest of Europe seem to be under a new and lax regime. Will my hon. Friend ensure that under the next Conservative Government, the rules and directives that countries sign up to will be properly enforced?
  Mr. Yeo: The lack of enforcement of existing rules in many European countries is one of the scandals of the EU. Instead of endlessly seeking to pass new laws and to extend its regulatory powers, the Commission should try to ensure that existing regulations are enforced in a timely and even-handed manner throughout the EU.
  Above all, farming needs a Government who will stand up for its interests, insist that the public sector buys only food that meets British standards, help the organic sector by leading the way towards a common international standard, recognise the problems facing older farmers by introducing a retirement scheme for tenants, and protect the integrity of existing farms by exercising proper controls over genetically modified crop trials, instead of doing the bidding of their friends in big business and allowing the commercial planting of GM crops before their environmental effects are understood.
  It is time to end the scandal of Labour's missing millions. Cash is promised to the farmers and then taken back by the Treasury. It is time to treat farmers as grown-ups in an industry that is fighting for survival, rather than as victims to be duped by Labour spin doctors. Farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the countryside need a Government who believe that the survival of agriculture is important to the future of Britain. Conservatives believe that, and I commend the motion to the House.
  4.48 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises the continuing difficulties faced by the agriculture sector as a result of the low level of farm incomes; endorses the Government's long term vision for agriculture as sustainable, competitive and diverse, environmentally responsible, and an integral part of vibrant rural economies; recognises the important role of the new Rural Development Programmes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in delivering this vision; welcomes the measures in the Action Plan for Farming and the Rural White Paper to give immediate financial relief to the hardest-hit sectors and to reduce the burden of regulation on farming; supports the Government's constructive engagement in Europe to reform further the Common Agricultural Policy; notes that the Conservative party's policies of banning foreign imports and taking unilateral action in areas of European Union competence are illegal and would lead to heavy penalties being levied on UK taxpayers as well as retaliatory action against UK exporters; notes that the Conservative Party have not indicated how much of the £16 billion they propose in public expenditure cuts would fall on British farmers; and calls on the Conservative Party instead to come forward with practical and constructive policies to help farmers through very difficult times."
  I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for choosing agriculture for the Opposition Supply day and for his first two sentences. After that, I thought that his speech rather fell away.
  The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to express his good wishes for my future. He commented that this may be the last time I appear at the Dispatch Box as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Unless he knows something that I do not—I think that unlikely in this context—I expect to be at the Government Dispatch Box on 15 February to discuss a matter of enormous importance to agriculture, a matter for which the Conservative party can properly take a great deal of—[Interruption.] I am not sure that credit would be quite the right word. I shall explain the Government's response to the Phillips report and the national tragedy of BSE. It is very much an agriculture issue, and I expect to be in my place to discuss it.
  I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not go so far as to say that, on my departure he expected to succeed me. I know that the farming community will be grateful for that.
  It is clear that British fanning continues to suffer from a severe and prolonged downturn; there is no quarrel between us on that. The principal causes are widely agreed on, although one would not have learned that from the speech of the hon. Member for South Suffolk. Those causes are low world commodity prices, the weakness of the euro and the continuing impact of BSE, not just on the beef sector, but right across the livestock sector. I acknowledge further recent difficulties, including the outbreak of swine fever in East Anglia, widespread flooding of agricultural land and increases in world oil prices.
  I want to set out what the Government have done to help, and explain our long-term strategy for the future.
  Mr. Tom King: May I just clear up a certain point? The Minister has often said that he will do what he can to help, although he also asks what he can do, given the restrictions. Agrimonetary compensation is one thing that can be tackled, and every Government must
  514
  examine that against the background of agricultural circumstances. The Minister has announced that the hourly wage rate in agriculture is now about £1, if a profit is being made. The position is desperate: he spoke about a downturn, and there may well not be an upturn.
  The Minister knows that the Chancellor has a substantial budget surplus. Surely now is the time when, if the Minister wishes to keep agriculture going, agrimonetary compensation should be asked for.
  Mr. Brown: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have a lot of sympathy for that. Since the Labour party came to power, we have spent £629 million on agrimonetary compensation. The right hon. Gentleman will know that when the president of the National Fanners Union and the chairman of the NFU arable sector committee came to see me last autumn and made the case for agrimonetary compensation in the arable sector, I was able to add to the mandatory payments—which I negotiated to be mandatory—part of the voluntary amount as well. I know that that was welcomed by the sector.
  That is the first time any Government have paid out voluntary agrimonetary compensation in the arable sector. We did that in recognition of the difficult times that the arable sector in the area represented by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), among others, was going through. Those things are judged on a case-by-case basis. The right hon. Gentleman was a Cabinet Minister and knows that, in government, expenditure under the regime has to be argued for against competing claims for public expenditure. I put the case for the industry when I think it justified, and I have fought for it very hard indeed in recent circumstances, as the NFU and others, including Members of Parliament with constituency interests, have made a case for it. However, I cannot make an announcement in today's debate.
  Since coming to office, the Government have provided short-term assistance worth £1.2 billion, which includes agrimonetary compensation of £289 million to arable farmers, £236 million to beef farmers, £82 million to sheep farmers and £22 million to dairy farmers. To answer the intervention of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, because of the difficulties in the dairy sector, last year we drew down every single penny that was available across the agrimonetary regime.
  We have allocated an extra £300 million to hill farmers, above the level of hill farming grants that we inherited from the previous Government—I made that point in my intervention on the hon. Member for South Suffolk. We have offset a range of regulatory charges, including those for cattle passports, specified risk material inspections and dairy hygiene inspections. We have increased payments under the over-30-months scheme by lifting the weight limit for cattle entered in the scheme. The NFU especially asked us to do that, and we have responded.
  We have dramatically increased grants available for organic conversion, processing and marketing projects, and the conversion of redundant farm buildings. We have opened a new pig industry restructuring scheme, which will provide grants to outgoers reducing capacity and ongoers seeking to make their operations more efficient. We successfully contained and eliminated the recent swine fever outbreak in East Anglia and invented from scratch the pig welfare disposal scheme to give unprecedented compensation to pig farmers affected by

  515
  movement restrictions. Those are not the pig farmers who suffered directly from the classical swine fever outbreak, but those who were affected by the movement restrictions that were necessary to control it.
  In November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the abolition of vehicle excise duty on tractors and agricultural vehicles and the halving of excise duty on lorries. He is freezing all road fuel and oil duties and, as the House knows, he will be cutting by 3p a litre duty on ultra-low sulphur diesel and petrol. Furthermore, in the light of the severe difficulties caused to farmers by recent flooding, we have proposed to allow some flexibility in CAP scheme rules so that those who suffered from flooding do not lose their subsidy payments. I am pleased to tell the House that Commissioner Franz Fischler has written to confirm that those exceptional changes can be made.
  In partnership with the Small Business Service and business links, we have launched the farm business advice service. In the service's first four months, almost 3,000 farmers have requested consultations and more than 1,300 initial consultation visits have been made. However, whatever action we take to help farmers through in the short term, a longer-term strategy is needed. I understand that the political cycle is coming to a close and that the hon. Member for South Suffolk wishes to make a robust contribution. However, his remarks did not make the Conservatives' long-term strategy clear to me. Indeed, I suspect that they did not do so for any hon. Member.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am willing to give way, but I hope that the hon. Member who intervenes will provide an answer.
  Mr. John Hayes: The sort of long-term vision and strategic perspective on agriculture that the Secretary of State describes has been continually called for by the Select Committee on Agriculture, virtually ever since the Government came to power. When I was a member of that Select Committee—the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who will also remember this, is present—it asked the previous Minister and the current Minister to provide exactly such a vision. What does the Minister envisage with regard to the number of farmers who will work in the sector, and to production levels over five or 10 years? Those are the questions that need to be answered. Will he answer them today?
  Mr. Brown: Oddly enough, I was about to give the hon. Gentleman the answer that he seeks, but I was wondering whether somebody would first spell out the Conservative party's vision.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Now that the European Commission has published a damning report on the French Government's failure to take effective measures to stop the spread of BSE, is there not an unanswerable case that the Commission should impose an embargo on French meat? If it will not take such action, does not the Minister owe it to consumers and farmer
  516
  alike to impose a ban on importing French meat? Those would be practical steps and he could take them. We would do so; will he?
  Mr. Brown: In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, that is a partial response—protectionism and a trade war.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Before the Secretary of State completes his self-congratulatory list of all the things that he claims to have done to redress problems in agriculture—problems that are at least partly of his own making—will he tell the House whether he will add in the tax income forgone by his Government? The collapse in farm profits means that the Treasury has had no profits to tax.
  Mr. Brown: The list is not intended to be self-congratulatory. Nobody has yet explained how the problems that I have outlined, including BSE, flat world commodity prices and the weakness of the euro, are my personal fault. I shall wait to hear the hon. Gentleman's thesis on that point. We should not be quarrelling over forgone tax or the need to return farm businesses to profitability and to ensure a decent return on the work and capital that are put in.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: There is one issue with which the Minister has not wholly dealt. According to the National Farmers Union, £202 million in agrimonetary compensation can be claimed by the end of April. Is he going to get that money?
  Mr. Brown: We have just had that discussion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman came in a bit late. I confirm that the figure to which he referred is approximately correct, although we will not know the final figures until later in the month.
  Mr. David Prior: The Conservatives would do two things. First, we would insist on radical reform of the common agricultural policy. Secondly, we would exclude sugar from the everything but arms talks that are currently under way.
  Mr. Brown: I knew that if I tried hard enough, we would get there. The hon. Gentleman makes two strong points. Reform of the common agricultural policy has to be at the heart of any strategy that the British Government adopt. Moreover, that should not divide us; the previous Conservative Government pursued a reform agenda. I gently point out that pursuing it by quarrelling with all the partners whose support one hopes to gain is not the best way to proceed. At least they pursued such an agenda, however.
  The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) is right. We have an essentially protectionist regime for the sugar sector. Sugar is produced in the European Union at approximately three times the world market price. We produce 40 per cent. more than we consume and we get rid of the surplus with export refunds on the international market, much to the distress of our major trading partners, who would also like to sell to those markets at real rather than supported prices. In those circumstances, it is not sensible to open the market to large amounts of the product at a lower price. It would simply cause more disruption.

  517
  The hon. Gentleman is right; reform of the sugar regime and the everything but arms initiative must be considered together. It would not be consistent to retain one policy without reforming the other.
  Mr. Evans: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Brown: No, I must make progress.
  Mr. Evans: On a small point.
  Mr. Brown: How can one resist?
  Mr. Evans: The Minister is courteous, as ever. I have asked him several times about farming in the Ribble valley, but I shall change tack a little. On Friday, I was with Mr. Eddie Topping of Barton Grange, a horticulturist in my constituency. He employs 35 people in winter and 70 people in summer. He says that the introduction of the climate change levy will have an enormous knock-on effect on horticulture in this country. We will scrap that levy. Will the Minister campaign to persuade the Chancellor to abolish the climate change levy?
  Mr. Brown: The levy is supposed to be neutral, as was pointed out earlier. If it is Opposition policy to scrap the levy, they will not be able to spend the fruits of it. Their policy must also be to adjust national insurance accordingly.
  Mr. Evans rose—
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) can tell me whether that is correct.
  Mr. Evans: Will the Minister direct his remarks to horticulture, which will be hit by the climate change levy? He knows that the introduction of that stealth tax will affect employment in the industry. What will he do about it?
  Mr. Brown: It is inevitable that the hon. Gentleman wants to stress the part of the debate that he believes will tell for the Conservative party, but he is not willing to face the consequences. That characterises Conservative policy generally. The Opposition urge me to spend more money, and they say that they will cut taxes and reduce public expenditure. I presume that they will not cut expenditure on agriculture.
  The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the horticulture sector. We were engaged in discussions with the Chancellor before the climate change levy was introduced. We secured concessionary arrangements for horticulture, and I am in continuing dialogue with those in the sector to ascertain what more can be done to achieve the Government's objectives, as well as those of the industry.
  Mr. Evans: They do not want to pay that tax.
  Mr. Brown: That is not unusual. If one asks people whether they want to pay tax, they tend to say no. Well done the Conservative party for discovering that.
  518
  However, there are consequences when people do not pay taxes. The Opposition should spend a little time considering that. I do not know whether the Conservative party still bothers to address the electorate as an audience. However, the electorate will not find the Opposition's policies plausible. On every aspect of Government spending, they call for more, while claiming that they will spend less overall and be able to cut taxation. Such an achievement would be miraculous. I await the day when someone spells out how it can be done.
  Let me discuss what needs to be done to help British agriculture in the medium term. Reform of the common agricultural policy is needed. It is an expensive instrument, which costs the British approximately £8 billion a year. Agricultural protectionism is unsustainable in the face of remorseless trends towards further trade liberalisation. There was a time, although perhaps this does not apply now, when such a remark would not have been exceptional coming from Conservative Members. Now, they look at me as though it were a terrible thing to say.
  Most importantly, as I think we can all agree, the common agricultural policy is failing to deliver its objectives of ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers and reasonably priced food for consumers. It encourages over production, leading to food surpluses and widespread degradation of the rural environment. In 1999, the Agenda 2000 reforms signalled the beginnings of a new common agricultural policy based around the instruments of the rural development regulation.
  The Government are strongly committed to what is known as the second pillar of the CAP. We have committed an extra £472 million over seven years—that is extra money—for rural development programmes across the United Kingdom, of which £300 million is extra money—the match funding for modulation—for England.
  The England rural development programme is an ambitious combination of environmental and economic development measures. It will cost £1.6 billion over seven years. That represents a 60 per cent. increase in the baseline expenditure. Spending on the countryside stewardship scheme will increase more than fourfold. Spending on organic farming will be tripled. Spending on farm woodlands will double, and we are reintroducing the processing and marketing grants scrapped under the previous Government. There will be new measures, such as a £152 million rural enterprise scheme, and new money for training and for the development of energy crops.
  The rural White Paper contains further measures to help farmers. The Government are revising planning guidance so that it will be easier for farmers to make successful applications for diversification projects. We plan to grant time-limited rate relief for farm diversification projects.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way, although there is a lot of pressure from other hon. Members to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He mentioned organic farming and the rural White Paper for England. For the first time, there is an acceptance of a target for organic farming buried in the

  519
  detail. Will the Minister consider developing that into a more ambitious target and developing the action plan needed to achieve it? Will he consider doing that early in the next Parliament?
  Mr. Brown: The figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are forecast outcomes, not targets. Indeed, the Select Committee has cautioned against setting targets. There might be consensus in the House on that, although perhaps not entirely. I understand that there are similar arrangements in place in other parts of the United Kingdom. In any event, we all envisage an expansion in the amount of farming given over to organic farming, for three good reasons: it is environmentally friendly; it is what consumers want, and it is right that the Government should try to underpin consumer choice; and it is an economically rational way forward for farmers, because of the premium that organically produced goods command in the marketplace. Those are the reasons for providing support for organic farming.
  The Government are doing more. On small abattoirs, the Food Standards Agency will be implementing the recommendations of the Maclean report on meat hygiene service charging. We are improving public services such as transport, health care and education in rural areas. We are providing more affordable housing for rural communities, and new funds to revitalise market towns.
  Work is under way across Government to make regulation less burdensome for British farmers. I agree that the Government have a duty to bear down on unnecessary red tape in farming, just as they do with other businesses. We have already pledged that there will be no gold-plating or early implementation of European regulations. The Opposition motion claims that British agriculture is disadvantaged by over-regulation. In fact, Lord Haskins' report for the better regulation taskforce found no evidence that regulation creates a competitive disadvantage for British farmers. The taskforce made a wide range of constructive recommendations, and we will soon publish a positive response to the report.
  The Government have accepted 98 of the 107 recommendations of the first three industry-led red tape working groups. Further reviews of farm inputs and veterinary medicines are under way. We continue to press ahead with animal disease reduction strategies. We are strengthening our strategy for tackling the spread of bovine TB, and increasing resources for TB testing. We have increased the compensation payments from 75 to 100 per cent. for cattle slaughtered as TB suspects. We are committed to completing the Krebs-Bourne trial. All 10 matched triplets are now in place and we hope for results by 2004, or possibly earlier.
  The 2000 spending review provides £115 million for the national plan to get as close as we can to eliminating scrapie from the national sheep flock. We are considering the BSE inquiry report and its 167 wide-ranging recommendations. I hope to present the Government's substantive interim response to the House very soon, and business managers have provisionally scheduled the debate for 15 February.
  A lot can be done to help British farmers by improving the way in which the food chain operates. That was the finding of the high level food chain working group that brought together leading figures from the farming, food processing, manufacturing, distribution and retail sectors.
  520
  At the heart of the matter is the fact that every part of the food chain has a vested interest in the long-term success of every other part. The working group found the need for more communication and co-operation throughout the food chain, from farm to fork.
  The group's work is being put to practical use in the new taskforce that has been brought together to examine the workings of the dairy supply chain. No matter how hard pressed dairy producers are, what the Government can do to help is limited. The real answer to the producer problems in the sector is to be found in the marketplace and in the supply chain.
  Sir Robert Smith rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a moment.
  I warmly welcome the National Farmers Union's new British farm standard tractor mark, which allows shoppers clearly to identify foods produced to British farm assurance standards.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brown: Of course, and then I shall give way to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith).
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is it true that there are instances of France or other countries sending produce to this country marked with a red tractor, carrying wording that implies that the produce reaches the same standard without making it clear that it is not British? People want to buy British food, but we need an efficient system that enables them to identify it.
  Mr. Brown: My understanding of the position is that the answer to my hon. Friend's question must be no. Although it would be possible for any supplier to this country to join the quality assurance mark scheme, it would not be proper for a non-member to use that mark and claim the quality assurance. The red tractor is a British quality assurance mark, not a point of origin mark. If people want to make a point of origin claim, it is perfectly lawful to do so. Suppliers from Germany, France, the United Kingdom and different parts of the United Kingdom can make a point of origin claim provided that it is truthful. They must comply with the trading standards legislation. Enforcement is a matter for the trading standards authorities, just as the lead agency on labelling is now the Food Standards Agency.
  Mr. Christopher Gill rose—
  Mr. Brown: I had promised to give way to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, but with the courtesy that is so common among Liberal Democrats, he allows me to take this intervention.
  Mr. Gill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he really think that it would be wrong to insist on mandatory country of origin labelling? Such labelling would allow the question asked by the hon. Member for

  521
  Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to be answered truthfully, and consumers could see exactly which country produce came from.
  Mr. Brown: I believe that consumers have a right to know the origin of product as well a right to a factual description of product. Indeed, on the beef labelling scheme, European Union law is moving in that direction. I shall say more about that, but first I give way to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.
  Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for giving way. He talks about the medium term, and mentioned marketplaces a while back. For farmers in countries outside the eurozone, what replacement for agrimonetary compensation does he think will develop to deal with the marketplace in the European Union?
  Mr. Brown: The development of the agrimonetary regime and the enlargement of the EU are both big questions, but the hon. Gentleman should focus on the fact that as more and more member states join a single currency—indeed, it is a condition of membership for the candidate countries that they will come into the single currency arrangements—the case for agrimonetary compensation, which is, after all, designed to compensate for currency movements, rather recedes. I would not have thought that the agrimonetary regime was among the many concerns that the candidate countries have, but I stand to be corrected.
  Sir Robert Smith: The United Kingdom is outside the eurozone, and British farmers are concerned about what will happen to them in future as a result of currency fluctuations in the single market.
  Mr. Brown: The point that I am trying to make to the hon. Gentleman is that we are not the only country concerned about that, but we are increasingly becoming the only country for which it is a substantial issue of interest. I cannot stand up today and announce a successor regime.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, the payments are made in tranches over three-year periods— half the total money in the first year, a third in the second year, and a sixth in the third year. When the regime comes to an end, will there be successor arrangements? I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there will. I am pointing the hon. Gentleman to substantial factors in the international arrangements for the European Union that rather suggest the opposite.
  I do not want to make a definitive statement now, as I am not in a position to do so. However, as I have said before, it would be wrong for British agriculture constantly to look to the supply side of the common agricultural policy, including the agrimonetary arrangements, for its future. The direction, I think, is very different.
  We have clamped down on misleading country of origin labelling. It is illegal now to sell imported food as British just because it has been repacked or processed in the UK. As I said in reply to the intervention from my
  522
  hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), trading standards officers have the power to undertake prosecutions.
  Following the report of the Competition Commission, the Office of Fair Trading is working on a statutory code of practice for the major retailers, governing their relationships with suppliers. That will complement the voluntary code developed by the Institute of Grocery Distribution. I strongly encourage the industry to take that up. In part, that answers the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who has moved to the Front Bench. It is good to see him there.
  Mr. James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he clarify his remark that it is now illegal to describe as British in origin a product that underwent only its last process in Britain. Which legislation has made that illegal? I understood that the right hon. Gentleman had only issued guidance to trading standards officers. Guidelines do not have the force of law.
  Mr. Brown: Guidelines are exactly that: they guide trading standards officers in their enforcement activities. Of course, the law is ultimately interpreted by the courts, not by politicians. Every experienced parliamentarian is familiar with that.
  I did everything that I could with the regime, before it transferred, with the Food Standards Agency, to the Department of Health. If Conservative Members had really cared they had 18 years to tighten up the regime.
  I shall spell out the policies that we are putting in place to help farming through very difficult times. We are providing direct financial support, practical help to individual farm businesses and a long-term vision for the future.
  The House will search in vain to find such measures in the Opposition's motion. Let us consider what the Opposition propose. They call for "honesty in food-labelling". That implies that we do not have that at present, and that for the 18 years they were in government, we did. As I understand it, they mean compulsory country of origin labelling of food. That is an occupied field in the European Union.
  The Opposition know full well that by acting unilaterally on food labelling, we would be in breach of the rules of the European single market. We are lobbying the Commission for improvements in Community food labelling laws. In particular, we strongly support proposals for country of origin labelling of beef throughout the single market as a first step in that direction. In the meantime, however, as I said a moment ago, there is nothing to stop British producers labelling their produce as British. The NFU's tractor mark clearly identifies a wide range of high-quality foods produced to British farm assurance standards, and, as I have said, it is illegal to suggest that food is British if it is not.
  The Opposition motion calls for a restriction in the flow of food imports. Although food standards are now a matter for the Food Standards Agency, in which health Ministers lead, I assure the House that the Government will not hesitate to ban imports that present a risk to human or animal health; but as most Opposition Members know, banning imports for other reasons is illegal under

  523
  European law. Those who do not know that are welcome to consult the Government's legal advice, which I placed in the House of Commons Library more than a year ago.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I am being very generous—I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman is characteristically generous.
  In my earlier intervention, I said that I was not calling for a trade war. I was saying that action should be taken when there was evidence from the European Commission that the French Government had not taken sufficient steps to prevent the spread of BSE. No one is asking the Secretary of State to start a trade war; we merely ask him to accept that there is overwhelming evidence—from the European Commission itself—that the import of French beef is not safe. If the right hon. Gentleman will not act even when it is a question of public safety, why on earth does he think that anyone should take him seriously when he dismisses the evidence and accuses us of starting a trade war?
  Mr. Brown: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take more interest in current affairs. He will have noted that the House has passed legislation setting up the Food Standards Agency, that the responsibilities that he urges me to carry out are now matters for the Secretary of State for Health, and that Government collectively are now professionally advised by the agency—
  The hon. Gentleman would like to ban French imports for chauvinist and protectionist reasons, and to present the outcome as though it were a food safety measure. If there were a food safety reason, we would be told by Sir John Krebs, the head of the agency, and the Secretary of State for Health would produce legislation to protect the public. What the hon. Gentleman cannot do is wish into existence a food safety reason to disguise what are, in fact, anti-European and ideological reasons. That is not a rational way to proceed.
  Mr. Yeo: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to mislead the House unwittingly. He tried to suggest that the Conservative party was advocating an illegal action in terms of a ban on imports on grounds other than health. He will be aware, however, that under the treaties imports can be prohibited or restricted on grounds of public morality. On 22 June last year, he gave me the following written answer;
  "'Public morality' is not susceptible to an absolute definition: it inevitably involves subjective judgment … The European Court of Justice has held that in principle it is for each member state to determine in accordance with its own scale of values the requirements of public morality in its territory."—[Official Report, 22 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 300–01W.]
  Mr. Brown: Because I quite like the hon. Gentleman—although it does not always show—I shall rescue him from the folly towards which he is slowly drifting, in terms of protectionist sentiments.
  The fact is that this law has been much invoked and much tested by the courts. I am thinking of, for instance, a case with which I suspect some former Conservative Ministers sitting behind the hon. Gentleman will be very
  524
  familiar—the one relating to veal calves; but Conservative Governments have got themselves into trouble before by going down the protectionist route. I remember Lord Walker, then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, banning the importing of turkeys from France—
  Mr. Yeo: And very popular it was too.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman gives the game away. It may well have been popular—
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ( Mr. Elliot Morley): Not least with turkeys.
  Mr. Brown: Indeed, but it was also found to be illegal, and the court case cost the British taxpayer a substantial sum.
  Let me also remind the House of the Factortame dispute, which had similar protectionist origins. If Conservative Members find no other argument persuasive, however, let me cite self-interest. As a nation, we export some £10 billion worth of food and drink per year, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are involved in those important British industries. More than half of that is exported to the European Union. What is the sense in putting all that in jeopardy? The case for protectionism is always very specific. The case for free trade is general, but it is overwhelming.
  There was a time when Conservative Members stood for trade, markets and freedom to buy and sell things without restraint—but not now. The response from the hon. Member for South Suffolk is very English and very protectionist. If things carry on as they are, he will be promising to reintroduce the Navigation Acts and there will be a fight in the Conservative party over the corn laws. That is the direction in which Conservative Members are going—back to the future with a vengeance.
  I do not ask Conservative Members to take my advice; perhaps they can take the advice of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon ( Mr. Curry). He told the House that he could not
  "imagine a single action more calculated to extinguish the last flicker of life in hill farming in north Yorkshire than encouraging a trade war that puts at risk 136 million worth of live lamb exports to France".—[Official Report, 28 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 1146.]
  In opening the debate, the hon. Member for South Suffolk gave the House no indication of how much of the £16 billion Tory cuts guarantee would fall on farming.
  Mr. Yeo: I had a feeling that the Minister would try to get on to this point. I make it absolutely clear that not a single penny will be found from the agriculture budget to fund the substantial and popular Tory tax cuts.
  Mr. Brown: I knew that I was right to say that I actually quite like the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for that. Would he like to intervene again and explain where the money is coming from? More fair-minded than that one cannot get. Then perhaps he could help me on this: which Opposition Front-Bench spokesman can explain to me where the cuts would fall?
  Mr. Yeo: The shadow Chancellor will explain that, because that is his job. The Minister has been notable in

  525
  refusing to answer questions on the pesticide tax and the climate change levy because they are Treasury matters. I tell him fair and square that we will not cut the agriculture budget by a single penny to fund our tax cuts. We will, if we have to chance to do so before 30 April, claim the agrimonetary compensation in full. The Minister, however, refuses to say anything about that.
  Mr. Brown: I know that the hon. Gentleman is only shadowing a ministerial job, but I do not think that he will get very far just by blaming the shadow Chancellor. What if the shadow Chancellor were ever to become the real Chancellor? Still, I am grateful.
  The hon. Gentleman says that he is planning to keep to our spending plans. I thank him for that; no cuts in agriculture spending; our spending plans are the right ones; Conservative Members would do what we do—but the electorate may be tempted just to let us get on and do it. If he stuck to our plans, how would he finance the new raft of policies set out in "Fair Deal for Farming", the Conservative party's policy document? If it is his intention—this is implicit in his remark—to finance it by taking money from policies that we are spending money on and spending that on other policies that he wants, will he say which policies those will be—or will there be more money for agriculture? The hon. Gentleman has no response; farmers will be interested in that.
  Paice: This is an Opposition debate.
  Mr. Brown: Yes. However, the hon. Member for South Suffolk was speaking confidently of winning the general election. Although I am not sure that much of the public think that that is a real possibility, if he does think that, surely he should say what he will spend money on.
  Mr. Gill rose—
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me.
  Mr. Gill: The Minister is obviously running out of material. May I ask him a question that relates to tax? Who will pay for the continental purchase for slaughter and destruction scheme? Will it be the taxpayers of the countries in which the cattle are slaughtered or the European taxpayer—which of course would include the British taxpayer? Would that not be in stark contrast to what the British taxpayer had to do on our own BSE initiatives?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The purchase-for-destruction scheme puts enormous pressure on the budget for the common agricultural policy, which has a ceiling. He is also right about Ministers having to discuss a range of ways in which to move forward. That includes national contributions, which I would not rule out. Clearly, much depends on how much pressure is put on the scheme. If that pressure is as substantial as some of the estimates now being discussed in the public domain suggest, the implication is that the costs will go well beyond the budget ceiling for the regime that has to deal with it. The hon. Gentleman is right: this is a very big question indeed.
  526
  We have had the political knockabout, and I regret that there has been no real response from Opposition Front-Bench Members.
  Mr. Yeo: The Minister has taken a long time.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that I have taken a long time, but in debates such as this there is a straight choice to be made when it comes to interventions. I am always generous in that regard, as I know that hon. Members like to intervene on the Minister, but the quid pro quo is that interventions take time out of the debate. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways: he cannot complain about the time and then also want to intervene.
  I accept that there are difficulties facing agriculture, and that it is right to debate the way forward. I have made it clear that we are listening. I have set out what we have worked hard to provide in the short term, and I have addressed the longer-term considerations. We have an action plan, and we are delivering on that vision.
  I call upon the House to support the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself, and to reject the motion.
  5.31 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am extremely grateful to be called to contribute to the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on the way in which he introduced it.
  I am glad that the Minister, at the end of his speech, finally found it in himself to agree that agriculture was in crisis. A survey compiled by a firm of accountants based in Norwich and published in the Eastern Daily Press last September showed that farm incomes in Norfolk have fallen by 50 per cent. over the past four years. That is before losses due to fuel tax and swine fever are taken into account.
  The Government's own figures, reproduced by the National Farmers Union, show that total income from farming fell by 29 per cent. in real terms in the year 2000, compared with 1999. In other words, in one year there has been a fall of more than 70 per cent., and farm incomes are at their lowest for three generations. Bank borrowings now amount to some £10 billion, and investment levels are at their lowest since 1970.
  In England and Wales, more people have left the land over the past two years than in living memory. It behoves the Minister to admit that he is presiding over a crisis. He has repeated today that he is sympathetic and concerned. That, of course, is what we get from Ministers.
  The Minister has said—correctly—that some funds are being invested in agriculture and in rural areas. It is true that some of the schemes are useful and that some can help. However, I wonder whether the Minister has any idea of the time, effort and frustration involved in applying for the multiplicity of schemes that he is putting in place, and on which he is relying to be able to say that he is responding to the crisis. Does he realise that the difficulty involved in applying for the aid that he says he is spreading about, and the amount of regulation that he is loading on the industry, are combining to cause the industry to sink slowly from view?
  I wrote to the Minister nearly a month ago about the plight of my constituent, Mr. James Nelstrop of Roudham. I have not, of course received a reply—I do not expect one from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food any more so the matter is absolutely academic.

  527
  Last May, Mr. Nelstrop submitted an application under the stewardship scheme. He took considerable trouble preparing the application, and engaged in full discussion with MAFF and regional officials. He was given to understand that the work was in order. However, at the last minute MAFF told him that he was ineligible, as his farm was eight miles from an airfield.
  In fact, Mr. Nelstrop had not moved his farm, and the airfield was where it had been for 50 years. It was merely that after he had spent nearly £10,000 to do the work required to prepare the application, his farm's location became evident to the Ministry.
  Mr. Nelstrop has written to me about the other efforts that he has made. He says that immediately post-Budget, in March, he applied to the regional development office for details of the redundant farm buildings scheme—one of the schemes mentioned by the Minister. Mr. Nelstrop says that after making several telephone calls, he received the forms in late July. Having compiled a draft application, he was informed that the money available had to be spent by the end of January 2001 but that the application could not be considered until formal planning permission had been received. The earliest planning decision had to be taken by 21 September last year, the earliest scheme application decision by 21 October last year. Clearly it was impossible for this farmer to carry out the work in the three months of the worst weather period, including Christmas and the new year, because it would take six months to do. The scheme was abandoned, at an additional cost to his business of £500.
  Mr. Nelstrop then decided to use a new Government scheme to help fund restoration and conversion of redundant buildings. He had three meetings with the Forest Heath development officer and was advised that he should consider conversion to small offices. Following discussions with MAFF in Cambridge, he decided to proceed. He applied to the Forest Heath district council for change of use and has now been told that it is Suffolk county council's policy to oppose rural development on the basis that it is not sustainable, owing to lack of public transport.
  What I have recounted is the cumulative experience of one farmer who is trying to make a living and trying to use the schemes that the Minister is congratulating himself on putting in place. Mr. Nelstrop adds:
  "Small businesses do not have the resources to deal with this legislation, filling in the forms, reading, remembering and implementing all the rules (even if you know where to look for the ones that may apply to your business). Add to this the time, costs and risks in applying for Government assistance programs, less and less of our time is available for the core business. Eventually this will lead to the demise of small businesses and the basis of our economy/society as we have come to know it."
  Mr. Hayes: Is it not also the case that those most vulnerable and hard hit—such as tenant armers—those in very isolated areas, and smaller farmers find it harder to take advantage of these schemes? Diversification, in particular, does not mean a lot to someone who farms poor land, lives in an isolated community or is a tenant farmer.
  Mrs. Shephard: That is one of the points that I want to get home to the Minister this afternoon. I want him to understand that before he congratulates himself on these schemes, he should do an audit on the amount of
  528
  paperwork, frustration and abortive effort that he and his schemes mean for the agriculture industry. He seems to believe that they are the solution to the problems in the industry, but he needs first to understand and remove the reefs and hurdles he has put in place because, believe me, they are making everything much worse.
  Of course, along with the Minister and most people in the Chamber, I support greater diversity in British agriculture and the production of non-food crops. However, I question the kind of thinking that means that my constituents can tell me that there are plenty of funds available for camomile co-operatives, for example, while at the same time I hear of redundancies at the Wissington sugar factory.
  It must also be evident to the Minister that there is a certain irony in the Government's trumpeting of special funds to help the economy of Great Yarmouth, while they also pursue policies that could result in the closure of the Cantley sugar factory a few miles from Yarmouth, and which will also deal a hammer blow to trade in the Great Yarmouth docks. There again, perhaps not—after all, a Minister who, in the week in which he and his colleagues vote to ban hunting, can announce the appointment of a Minister for the horse may not possess a highly developed sense of irony.
  The Government say that they sympathise with the current crisis in agriculture, but they have provided little effective help. Although there have been a lot of words and efforts, they have sometimes made things worse. The technical aspects of the outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia were dealt with very professionally by MAFF officials, and I took the trouble to write to the Minister to tell him so. However, my constituents continue to be nerve-racked, not only because many of them have lost thousands of pounds—some of them hundreds of thousands of pounds—but because, six months on from the original outbreak, they still face uncertainty about the eventual compensation.
  On sugar beet, do the Government support the everything but arms initiative, which would threaten 23,000 jobs in the British economy, or do they support the on-going EU review of the sugar regime? As the Minister has said, they are not compatible either they must be made compatible, or the Minister must say which side he is on. We have not heard much from any Minister on that matter.
  Mr. Nick Brown: My policy is not very different from the one that the right hon. Lady pursued when she was a Minister.
  Mrs. Shephard: The policy that I pursued, which was for an on-going review of the sugar regime, was not threatened by the everything but arms initiative, supported by other branches of the Government of which I was a member. That is the right hon. Gentleman's position.
  Mr. Brown: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady does not understand why she pursued that policy as a Minister; but the truth is that, yes, the regime was threatened by market access, regardless of whether that came under a regime specifically tailored to the poorest countries in the world, or whether it came more generally. That is

  529
  precisely the reason why she used to argue that the existing sugar regime was not sustainable, and why I argue that now.
  Mrs. Shephard: The Minister should use a great deal more force in that case, and perhaps a little more knowledge. Ten days ago the European Commission reported on its website that it had decided to adopt a new timetable for duty and tariffs on imports of cane sugar to start from 2006. I think I am right to say that the original plan for the EBA proposals was that they should begin on 1 January 2001. That news was reported widely in the farming press and welcomed, but Ministers said nothing, so we could be forgiven for thinking that they either had not noticed or did not know.
  Last week, therefore, I tabled questions to the Minister and to the Minister for Trade to ask for clarification. After four days, they gave holding replies, so I assume that they did not know that the Commission had changed its mind. If they did know, why did they give holding replies? Why did they refer me to the position before Christmas in their definitive answers?
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Lady could always turn up during oral questions to ask about those matters.
  Mrs. Shephard: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman gave any indication of that position during oral questions this morning. Perhaps the Minister of State will give an answer in winding-up the debate. Although she usually answers by saying that she will place a letter in the Library, I shall ask her the questions that she should answer in summing up today. Has the Commission changed its policy? Is the starting date now 2006? Was the farming press right to welcome the change? Did she and her colleagues know about it? If so, why was I not given the correct answer to my question?
  The simple conclusion, even from this exchange, is that Ministers have so little understanding of the real issues affecting agriculture, and so little appreciation that agriculture is the cornerstone of the rural economy, that they think the schemes and plans that they put about are helping, whereas they are in fact stifling with regulations the industry's ability to produce the crops that the market needs. It is time for a change in rural Britain, and we will have one.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to take part in this debate. I begin by responding to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). It is somewhat cheap to concentrate only on what is apparently a national crisis, although I shall make some points about its British dimension. After my recent visit to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland with the Select Committee on Agriculture, it is evident to me that every agricultural system in the developed world is undergoing problems at present.
  In the Irish Republic, a huge changeover from full-time to part-time farming is under way, with all the repercussions that one might imagine. We cannot and must not identify the crisis as purely a British problem—although there are problems for which not only the Labour
  530
  Government but the previous Conservative Government have responsibility. There is a British dimension; we have additional difficulties that are only too well known—BSE, bovine tuberculosis and the recent floods all add to a legacy of problems that the Government have to do their best to sort out.
  I am glad that the problems of the CAP have been mentioned. My political perspective means that I have never been a great fan of the CAP—let alone many aspects of the EU—but at least we are moving in the right direction. The problem is that there have been wild fluctuations in policy: from our own deficiency payment system, to price support systems and sectoral support payments, right up to the type of initiatives that many of us want for agriculture, not only in this country but throughout the western world—support for countryside management and rural development regulations that would ensure that agriculture was genuinely environment-friendly.
  Mr. Hayes: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an assiduous interest in these matters. Agenda 2000 was heralded as the great opportunity to reform the CAP exactly as he describes, yet once it was implemented, it was widely regarded as a damp squib. Surely the changes that he describes may take a generation or more—by which time, there will be precious few farmers left in Britain.
  Mr. Drew: I have some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's argument. Agenda 2000 was a missed opportunity—less in this country than for other EU Governments. They must rue the day they did not make radical and more dramatic changes. We must continue to push them to ensure that they do so in the future.
  At present, the most important matter is how to provide support to those farmers who so desperately need it. In the initial exchanges between Front-Bench speakers, we were reminded that for every pound raised in compensatory payments, 69p has to come from our Treasury. Looking back, one sees that it was no great success—to save our budget then could cost us much more money in future. However, we know that and we must build it into our calculations.
  None of that would be necessary if we did not have to engage in all the fiddles and fudges of the exchange rate. I blame the CAP in particular; that was bound to lead to disaster. No country can rely indefinitely on a depreciating currency to finance its farmers. The currency began to appreciate under the previous Conservative Government and that continued under Labour, but unfortunately there are repercussions, on top of many other problems.
  I hope that we shall debate BSE in a fortnight, so I shall not discuss it at length now. However, we must never underestimate the extent of the problems caused by BSE. They do not affect only farmers in the livestock sector; there is an integrity in agriculture—all the sectors work together. Phillips exposed the problems caused by BSE—not only health problems but income difficulties that farmers continue to face. We must keep revisiting them.
  Although I have some comments on regulation, we must get it into our head that, after all the problems and all that we have learned, merely to remove regulation is not the way to rebuild confidence in our food chain. It

  531
  would do just the opposite. Although it is schadenfreude to talk about what other countries are going through—we heard the earlier exchanges about those horrible French and those horrible Germans—at least we can give them a few lessons. However, we must never let the idea that we welcome their plight enter our consciousness. British beef farmers will also suffer because there will again be a lack of confidence in beef, and in other meat.
  We must consider regulation and take up the arguments of Lord Haskins and the work of the three working parties that were set up by the Government to examine red tape. We must understand that it is possible to gold-plate some sectors, but we can do that only if we take a measured approach and are careful how we reduce the number of regulations. We must also ensure that regulations are enforced in the most appropriate manner.
  It concerns me when people talk about investigation as though it can automatically be carried out by people who have the time to do it. However, we put enormous pressure on trading standards officers, environmental health officers and the Meat Hygiene Service. We must support them in whatever way we can, and that often means finding more resources, and not fewer, as those who advocate less regulation sometimes argue.
  I know that other Members wish to speak, so it would be wrong if I spoke for my whole 10 minutes. However, it is important to develop a partnership so that those involved with the different elements of the food chain can understand and work more effectively with each other. This debate comes at an important time for my constituency, because Dairy Crest has announced a rationalisation of the dairy processing sector. I declare an interest: my dairy was the biggest winner. Severnside has become the so-called super-dairy, but I do not claim that my lobbying prowess had anything to do with that. I am sad for the dairies that lost out.
  However, it has long been argued that there is a need for rationalisation in the sector, and we must accept that. Farmers have always told me that although the price that they receive for milk is not high enough, they want to be in a sector that is more efficient. Such developments are taking place in the processing sector, and it would be nice to see them happening in retailing, so that retailers pay the going price, even though most of us believe that it is too low. If consumers pay a fair price, that will help to keep dairy and other farmers in production.
  I have been saddened by the shake-out in the processing industry, so we need to examine how we can bring people together. For the past week or so, farmers from Farmers for Action have been demonstrating outside the Severnside plant, and I gather that there will be a big demonstration tonight. Although I understand their frustration, that is not the way to build bridges.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I do not know the particular circumstances of what the hon. Gentleman described as his dairy. However, I know that fanners throughout the country are angry. I declare an interest in that I come from a farming family. I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman said about shake-outs, but does he not realise that farmers are angry because of the inaction and incompetence of the Government whom he supports?
  Mr. Drew: I wish I had not taken that intervention because it is so far from the truth as to be unreal.
  If we are to have an effective national food chain in this country, the different sectors must come together. There is no more obvious example than the dairy industry, where there has been a poisonous atmosphere in the recent past. That has to be overcome, but the situation is not helped by farmers demonstrating, trying to shut down a dairy and intimidating people who, in the main, are paid much less than many of them, even in these difficult circumstances. I condemn that, as I hope the Opposition will. It is important that we find a way forward, and that will not be achieved by demonstrations and intimidation.
  We understand the way in which the Government's policy is proceeding. There are matters on which I have something in common with the Opposition. There is a case for considering early retirement. I understand the arguments about dead weight and how it will be financed, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister considered that carefully. If we are to help those who are, unfortunately, to leave the industry, whether temporarily or permanently, or to work part-time, we must give them the means to make that move successfully.
  There is a need for retraining, and I am pleased to hear about the Small Business Service and rural development regulations. We have to encourage more diversification. The environmental side of farming must be paid for by the Government, and the tourists who want to visit our wonderful countryside should contribute to its management.
  Much is being done to help agriculture, and the industry has not been and will not be isolated, but is being viewed as part of the wider rural economy. That agenda has a cost. I am pleased that the Opposition have now agreed to ring-fence support for agriculture, along with health, education, defence and law and order. If they were given the opportunity, I should like to see them manage the Budget, given that they are also talking about tax cuts.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: My hon. Friend made an interesting point confirming that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said that the Opposition would ring-fence the agriculture budget. Has he heard any confirmation of that from the shadow Chancellor?
  Mr. Drew: No, but I am sure that in the days to come many Labour Members will be quizzing the hon. Member for South Suffolk about the spending commitment that he will have to meet.
  There is much for the Government to be proud of, despite the current crisis. However, it was said earlier that farmers must not be given false hope. We have to provide them with a realistic way forward, and that will involve structural changes. The argument concerns how we fund those changes and ensure that agriculture can survive not only these immediate problems but long into the future.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before I call the next Member to speak, I say to the House that although there is not a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate, many Members are seeking to catch my eye, and it would be helpful if contributions were as brief as possible.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I am pleased that we have another opportunity to discuss agriculture, and I congratulate the official Opposition on providing that opportunity.
  There is no doubt that we are still in the depths of a major crisis. Anyone who doubts that has only to look at the recently released estimates of farm income. Whatever slight improvement there may have been in the pig and poultry sectors, and possibly even in hill farming, one has only to look at the base from which they are improving to realise that they are still in the depths of a recession.
  In other sectors, the problems are still getting worse. The net farm income in the dairy sector is only 20 per cent., in real terms, of what it was a decade ago. In cereals, the figure is only 25 per cent. Even more telling are the figures for cash income, which relate to farmers who work their own farm and do not pay a wage bill. Dairy farmers have experienced a 15 per cent. drop in their cash income since last year, and cereal farmers have suffered a 25 per cent. drop.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the worst changes took place pre-BSE? The BSE disaster was not the cause of the present problem, although it has obviously aggravated the situation. Farm incomes have fallen by two thirds from 1995 onwards, pre-BSE.
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a long-term decline in farming. It is almost impossible now to gain a living wage by working a small or medium-sized farm, without dipping into capital. The average income per farmer is £8,500, which is the lowest ever in real terms since records began. If we consider the comparators, only Sweden—I suspect that the figures for Sweden are not entirely accurate—and Portugal have lower average farm incomes than those in the United Kingdom. That is bad for the owner farmer, but at least he has capital employed in his farm. It is even worse for the tenant farmer, who does not have the satisfaction of knowing that he has assets on which he can call. We still wait for a retirement scheme that would allow many such farmers, especially those in late middle age, to retire with dignity.
  Institutional landlords could play a part in ensuring that agricultural rents are a genuine reflection of agricultural profitability. I am not convinced that some institutional landlords, even those with a clear social intent such as the Church of England, have got their minds round what is required. It is not only agriculture directly that is involved—many other industries depend upon it.
  The Government's responses, certainly during the period in office of the current Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have been largely well intentioned. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the assiduity with which he has listened to what many of us have had to say in the Chamber, as well as, more importantly, to what many outside the House who are directly involved in agriculture have had to say.
  Good intentions are not enough. Often schemes have been announced that have taken time to come to fruition. Often they have not delivered what was claimed for them. Some of the schemes to which the Minister referred are not in place and are not delivering. There is
  534
  incompleteness about the Government's response. The good intentions of the Ministry are not necessarily matched by other areas of government.
  We do not have joined-up government. We do not always have the co-operation of the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the other Departments that play a part. That is why we still have rather malign chuntering about the pesticides tax, which would be disastrous for cereal farmers were it to be introduced and implemented now. We still have the DTI taking what I think is a perverse view of Milk Marque. We still have the Treasury causing obstructions to carry-forwards, which are needed if the Minister is to do the job that he wants to do.
  Mr. Livsey: My hon. Friend has referred to the Department of Trade and Industry, which today announced, sadly, the loss of 6,000 jobs in the steel industry. Is he aware that in Wales, between 1998 and 2000, 6,000 farmers left the land?
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His intervention underlines the depth and scale of the problem that we face. Individual farmers do not show up in the statistics in the same way as a major plant closure. However, they are no less important because of that, and we should pay the same attention to them.
  There is still uncertainty about the Government's intentions. There was a debate in serial fashion this afternoon on the future of agrimonetary compensation. I hope that the Minister will make an early announcement that he does intend to draw down on that. There may be a temptation to wait until three or four days before an election to make the point. I hope that he will not do that, and that there will be an earlier announcement.
  I also hope that the Minister will give serious consideration—it is a point that I have raised repeatedly in debates on agriculture—to what will succeed the agrimonetary compensation mechanism. It is not good enough merely to hope that something will turn up. That is not doing our best for farmers. We are currently outside the eurozone. We are the only country that will be in such a position because of the weakness of the Swedish kronor and the fact that the Danish kroner is pegged to the euro. Our position is therefore unique, and we must persuade other EU countries that we need a mechanism to cope with it.
  I should like to deal briefly with agricultural sectors. The dairy sector is close to my own heart, and is important in my Somerset constituency. I shall re-examine the scale of the milk problem. Output value is down by £273 million—10 per cent. of its value. That is the real problem: its beginning and end are the price that the farmer can get for the milk that he sells. Until we get that right, any amount of marketing and promotion will not cure the problem.
  Mr. Hayesrose—
  Mr. Heath: If I give way to the hon. Gentleman, that will take time from other Members. However, I shall happily do so.
  Mr. Hayes: I shall be brief.

  535
  Is that issue not indicative of a wider problem—the distortion of the food chain? The relationship between producer, retailer and consumer is distorted. Supermarkets play an important part because they carry a lot of responsibility for that distortion. That is the heart of the problem, which has not been addressed by the Government.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right: that is precisely the point that I was about to make. However, the problem is not a new invention by the Government. The supermarkets were given much too free a rein under the previous Government, which they took, as any commercial business would. However, there is a gross distortion in the market. As the Minister knows, I was bitterly disappointed at the outcome of the Competition Commission report on supermarkets. It did not ask the right questions, so it came up with the wrong answers.
  We need to re-examine seriously the dairy supply chain. On 16 November, in answer to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, the Minister spoke about the need to establish a group to consider the current problems. The Minister also gave a heavy hint that a report would be commissioned to study in depth the milk supply chain. That cannot come soon enough, as it would enable us to take the required remedial action.
  The state of the beef market in Europe is extremely serious, not just for beef producers in Europe but for beef producers in this country. We underestimate that at our peril. I do not believe that even the European Commission, in its recent assessment of the situation, has estimated properly the difficulties that we may be about to experience. It assessed the reduction in domestic markets, but they will reduce much more than is currently estimated.
  There is undue optimism about the ability of European Union countries, including the United Kingdom, to find export markets outside the EU. Exactly the same barriers that Britain experienced in the past will be put up against all EU beef. That will have a hugely distorting and possibly catastrophic effect on the beef regime under EU rules. I shall give the Minister a warning. He will be tempted to try to achieve consensus on public health, veterinary health and public safety in the Council of Ministers. However, he must not be tempted to allow our farmers and our taxpayers to pay twice for that problem, as could happen.
  I also hope that the Minister will not accept measures to restore confidence that are entirely unjustified in this country. One matter currently on the table is the fishmeal ban. The Minister will know that there is not a problem here with possible cross-contamination between fishmeal and meat and bonemeal. A fishmeal ban would have a disastrous effect. I have a letter from Countrywide Farmers, based in Melksham near my constituency, which estimates that a ban
  would cost the feed industry £20 million, plus an annual £10 million
  because of transport costs. Those are substantial additional costs for our farmers and food producers.
  Hon. Members have mentioned regulation, which is still an important issue for many of our farmers. I hear what is said about our pledge not to introduce gold-plating, but I take seriously the point made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) about the
  536
  introduction of new regulations. Over-regulation stifles our farming industry, but we still do it. The 26 January edition of Farmers Weekly contains a report on the annual Lloyds TSB Scotland agricultural survey. It tells us of the estimate that farmers
  "are spending the equivalent of more than five working weeks a year filling in government-generated forms."
  That still happens after the so-called war on red tape. We must deal with the matter. We need to introduce rights of appeal, simplify appeal mechanisms and establish an agricultural ombudsman who can challenge the decisions of MAFF inspectors. We also need to consider the effects of the new meat inspection regime.
  We must also consider some of the simpler issues. I have received a letter from Mr. Paul Cary of Dangerfield farm in Buckland Dinham. Mr Cary, who is one of my constituents, speaks about the red tape associated with the slaughter premium scheme. I shall not take up time by dealing with that issue now, but I believe that it needs to be addressed and I shall write to the Minister about it.
  I should like to mention the environmental schemes with which the Government have rightly pressed ahead. Countryside stewardship schemes and protection for environmentally sensitive areas should be promoted. Such schemes are in many ways the future of the common agricultural policy, and I hope that we will provide more support for those who maintain our countryside through them. However, I have serious concerns about the way in which they often operate. They must be redesigned and their scope should be increased. They need funding that is guaranteed year on year. If people enter such schemes, they must know that some bright spark in MAFF will not put a red line through the initial proposals at some later stage. The schemes must also reflect the realities of life. It is no good introducing a scheme that suddenly pays less, perhaps because the average farm income has fallen and the original investment decision was based on an assumption of income. We need to ensure that the arrangements are brought into line in order to guarantee farmers a future. We must also ensure that all such schemes have the correct design and focus.
  Again, I do not want to take up too much time, but I should like briefly to refer the Minister to a study by the Environment Agency. I have enormous respect for much of the agency's work, but I am concerned about its impact statement on agriculture and the environment. If he turns to the pages on the environmental external costs of agriculture, he will see statements that, in my opinion, cannot be substantiated and do not reflect the true costs of agriculture. There is a problem with such information: if the agriculture industry can see that it is not real and that it does not reflect genuine circumstances, people will turn away in droves and we will not achieve our objectives. I invite the Minister to consider the statement and to reflect on whether its accounting is correct.
  I considered the motion carefully and I believe that much of the analysis that it contains is correct. Indeed, I think that Opposition Members have identified in the motion many of the Government's failures. The problem is, however, that almost every single one of those failures could be applied to the Conservatives' term in office. It would better if they recognised that that was the case, as our memory is not as short as they would like it to be. We remember that farm incomes were in steep decline before 1997. We remember who presided over BSE and

  537
  its aftermath and who created a completely artificial beef war that poisoned our relations with the rest of Europe. We also remember who failed to start effective CAP reform, did not utilise agrimonetary compensation and produced a rebate formula at Fontainebleau that hobbled our negotiations year after year. Incidentally, we also remember which party introduced legislation to prevent local authorities from buying British when buying British was best.
  Mr. Paice: Are the Liberal Democrats against the Fontainebleau agreement and the rebate that was gained for this country? The Prime Minister applauded that rebate only yesterday and claimed its maintenance as one of his achievements.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman comes late to the debate; I have made the point many times. The Fontainebleau rebate is a poor mechanism because of the problems it has created for our farmers and other primary producers. We should have had proper equivalence in the European Union between the amount that Britain spent and the amount that we received. We need an alternative mechanism, which is better designed than the Fontainebleau agreement and achieves the same objectives without crippling our farmers. We should be negotiating for that in Europe.
  We have considered the motion and the Government's amendment, and we believe that successive Governments have failed farming and the rural areas in this country. Farmers and those who live in the country deserve better.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who speaks with great authority, which I remember from his service on the Committee that considered the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. He presented a powerful reminder of the previous Government's legacy: BSE, long-term decline in incomes and Conservative Members' general anti-European instincts, which are relevant to a debate about farming.
  There is no doubt that farm income has declined at least in the past five years. The weakness of the euro partly reflects the strength of the economy and the Government's good management of it. When the economy does well, agriculture tends to do badly. The reverse is also true: when agriculture does better, the economy tends to be weaker. I wish that the two cycles could coincide.
  There has been a decline in the consumption of meat, and in world commodity prices, which seem to be improving now. The difficulties in Russia and Asia have also had an impact on the world economy. The Russian market is especially important for British farming. The effects of BSE and the loss of the export market have taken their toll. The Government regained the export market and removed the ban that was imposed by the European Union and other countries.
  The Government have introduced regulations to improve consumer confidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud ( Mr. Drew) made some powerful points about the need not to overstate the significance of red tape. Many of the regulations have been introduced to ensure consumer safety.
  538
  The Government have increased the regulatory framework for labelling. A farmer that I met recently drew my attention to the fact that when he went to his local supermarket, the new labelling rules had not been followed. I hope that the Government and the Food Standards Agency can consider that.
  The Government's review of meat hygiene charges will be welcomed in the small abattoir in Raglan in the middle of my constituency. There is anxiety in my constituency about the delay in the payment of subsidies such as the suckler cow premium and the beef annual premium. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made the valid point that many farmers are penalised when they do not submit their applications in time, but that they suffer greatly from delays in their payments. There should be an appeals system. I know one farmer who lost £6,000 through making an inadvertent mistake. The Inland Revenue does not treat people like that, and neither should MAFF and the Rural Affairs Department of the Welsh Assembly.
  Britain has higher welfare standards than other European countries and countries outside Europe. There is a thriving poultry industry in my constituency and it has suffered from the import of poultry that are fed on inferior foodstuffs, which would not be allowed in this country.
  The farming community has also felt the effect of additional costs. I have sympathy for the farmers in my constituency who have been affected by rising fuel costs. Many small farmers are also small hauliers, and at a time of falling incomes, rising fuel costs were hitting them hard, especially the cost of red diesel. It is encouraging that the world oil price has gone down, and that has now reduced the cost of red diesel. The Government have also frozen fuel duties.
  I am surprised by the Conservatives' motion. They have committed themselves to a saving in expenditure of at least £8 billion. They have said that they would protect the Government's commitments on education, the national health service and, apparently, policing. I wonder whether we have heard a genuine announcement tonight that they would protect the Government's future expenditure plans on agriculture. They have given no commitment that they would protect the industry budget. The biggest contribution that the Government give to industry is in agriculture, and it would be significant if the Conservatives would make a commitment on that. I suspect that they will not.
  Mr. Yeo: If I did not make it clear before, when I intervened on the Minister, let me make it clear again that the Conservative party will honour the MAFF budget, as it has been set out, in full. The question that I asked earlier was whether the Labour Government would honour their own MAFF budget.
  Mr. Edwards: I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will honour the budget that the Government have planned for the next few years. However, I have doubts as to whether a Conservative Government would do so, especially when we consider that, under the previous Conservative Government, not one penny piece of agrimonetary compensation was paid. The present Government have paid over £500,000. Surely the Conservatives would want to save in an area on which they never spent a penny when they were in government.

  539
  Under the Conservatives' proposals, what would go? What would be cut? Would it be support for sheep farmers, or the sheep annual premium? Would it be support for beef farmers, or the beef annual premium? Would it be the suckler cow premium, or agrimonetary compensation, as I have suggested?
  Would agri-environmental schemes be cut under the Conservatives' proposals? To their credit, the Government have invested a considerable amount of extra money in such schemes. In Wales, we have the tir gofal scheme in the lowlands, and hill farmers have access to tir mynydd. Those are important contributions to farm income that would be under threat unless the commitments that we have, supposedly, heard tonight were fulfilled and confirmed by the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition. Would organic conversion support be maintained under the Conservatives? It has been substantially increased by the present Government.
  A week ago, I attended the annual general meeting of the Monmouthshire National Farmers Union. I was pleased that the Deputy First Minister of the Welsh Assembly, Mr. Mike German, was there. The meeting was addressed by Ben Gill, the president of the NFU, and by Anthony Price, the union's chairman, who is retiring. I pay tribute to the work that Mr. Price has done, and wish every success to Glyn Williams, the new chairman.
  Ben Gill had a powerful message about the difficulties facing the industry. There was no doubt about those difficulties, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has heard such messages a number of times. Mr. Gill also said that farmers need to fight back, and to work together. To their credit, Monmouthshire farmers have been working in co-operation. They were influential in establishing the farmers ferry and farmers fresh schemes. I have also visited the abattoir in Kenilworth, where a thriving meat export market is being developed because of the co-operative initiatives achieved by the farmers of Monmouthshire and elsewhere.
  In Monmouthshire, the farmers make an enormous contribution to the environment and to producing safe food. We have had some good news stories there. Two days ago, I attended the launch of CCET, the new rural training initiative. One of the key bodies involved with the scheme will be Coleg Gwent. At the heart of Coleg Gwent, which is in my constituency, is the former Usk agricultural college. I would be the first to admit that the further education sector has been very slow to respond to the educational and training needs of the established farming community. It used to train young people coming into farming, but their numbers have declined in recent years. In the past six months, an important new initiative has been produced to support those farmers who are established in the business, those who want to retrain to develop IT skills, and farmers' wives who want to retrain. The college makes an important contribution.
  The farming community also makes a valuable contribution—to maintaining the beautiful countryside of Monmouthshire and to providing high quality food. I appreciate the difficulties that it faces and I want to work with farmers to ensure a more secure future for farming in Monmouthshire and the rest of Wales.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. David Prior: I must declare an interest. I was born and brought up on a farm and my family is still directly involved with farming.
  540
  Although the current recession is a disaster for British farmers and a particular disaster for small and medium-sized family farms and livestock farmers, it affects all farms, whatever their cropping or activity and whatever their size. Farm incomes have fallen by 90 per cent. in the past two years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) pointed out, bank borrowings have risen to more than £10 billion and 47,500 farmers and farm workers have left the industry over the past two years.
  Those figures mask the suffering of thousands of farmers who have seen generations of effort, hard work and dedication turn to ashes. The National Farmers Union estimates that up to 40 per cent. of farmers receive or are entitled to the working families tax credit, so let us be in no doubt about the extent of the crisis. Many people—some on the Government Benches and some elsewhere—shrug their shoulders at that. They argue, "Why does it matter? What is so special about agriculture? Why cannot it go the same way as the textile industry or other commodity-based manufacturing industries that have had to close capacity and cut back?" Those are serious and important questions. They need an answer, which I shall attempt to give.
  Most obviously, we need to feed ourselves—if not completely, then at least substantially. There might be a short-term glut of food and short-term price collapses, but who can say that that will always be the case? Natural disasters might cause massive crop failures. Who can predict with certainty the impact of climate change on the world's ability to feed itself? What are the chances of a man-made disaster? Who knows the full consequences, good or bad, of genetic modification? Will the third world, as it becomes richer, demand more food than the world can produce? There might be trade wars or more conventional war. Who knows? Surely there is still a strong argument—which, after all, has been accepted since the second world war—that we should produce a significant proportion of our own food. It would be foolhardy to do otherwise.
  The argument does not stop there. The British countryside—or at least more than 75 per cent. of it—has been shaped over hundreds of years by the British farmer. Our birds, insects, trees, flowers, hedges and animals are here because of British farming, not in spite of it. A crisis for farming is a crisis for our wildlife and our unique countryside. The two are inseparable.
  A third aspect is alluded to in the rural White Paper, which says:
  "Farming communities have created the fabric of our rural life over centuries — Rural life and the rural environment as we know it would not exist without farming".
  Although farms no longer employ as many people as they used to, they still directly employ 600,000 people full-time and part-time. That is a great deal more than the steel or car industries. Farming also touches the lives of a great many more. That connection is partly material, because the livelihoods of many depend on our farms, and partly cultural. If we lose our farming roots, future generations will cease to understand what the countryside is all about. It is a place of work as well as a place to enjoy. The latter cannot exist without the former.

  541
  The countryside march on 18 March will, I hope, show how important the countryside still is in the hearts of those of us who still live there. Its cry, "Liberty and livelihood", touches a deep chord within us.
  Mr. Edwards: It is a hunters' march.
  Mr. Prior: Some Labour Members are not touched by that cry.
  I believe that agriculture is special and different from other industries and that Governments have a vital role to play to ensure its future.
  It is time—it is past the time—for agriculture to be returned from Europe to our national Governments. The failure of the Government to reform the CAP or to take more control over it is a failure of resolve and vision—and a failure that threatens the enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of eastern Europe.
  I unashamedly advocate an interventionist role for Government. Farming is not an industry that can be tossed on to the waters of global free trade. The Opposition have other objectives: we want family farms to survive, we want to encourage mixed farming, we want to encourage less intensive methods of farming, such as LEAF—linking environment and farming—and organic farming, and we want to make our own rules on set-aside.
  There will never be free and fair world trade in farm products. Animal welfare standards will vary, some countries will have different environmental priorities, land prices will vary hugely and food hygiene rules will differ. We can talk about a level playing field until the cows come home, but if we are honest with ourselves, we all know that it will never happen.
  We can improve matters, of course, with honest labelling and the like, but different countries will have different priorities, and rightly so, because farming, as I have argued, is about more than trade alone. A country the size of the UK will always have a different approach to farming from that of a country the size of the USA, Brazil, Australia or even France.
  Until the Government accept that farming is different, that it is special and that it involves far more than the price of a commodity, they will never have the vision or commitment to provide a future for the countryside.
  6.31 pm
  Mrs. Helen Brinton: No hon. Member would deny that the situation facing our farmers and the entire rural economy is extremely serious. We recognise that a number of fundamental issues have contributed to that situation, as we heard in earlier contributions—the strength of the pound, food scares and the renegotiation of the complex and troublesome CAP.
  Over the past four years, the Labour Government have shown a firm commitment to agriculture and to ensuring that our food is safe. The development of our Food Standards Agency is a leading example in Europe, in which we should all take pride. On many different fronts, the Government continue to tackle the underlying problems that affect British agriculture.
  542
  Over the longer term, that will help the industry to develop in a sustainable way—"sustainable" is the key word—in a regenerated, enlivened rural economy. It is essential that we do not rush towards the quick fix or the short-term solution that does not address the issues over the long term.
  The rural White Paper was an example of joined-up government. It outlined a radical package of measures to tackle the issues that matter to people who live in the countryside, such as jobs, hospitals, schools, post offices and transport. Those measures will ensure that quality public services and a stable thriving economy are brought to everyone in rural areas, including people engaged in agriculture.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said, the White Paper makes it clear that
  "farming remains central to the vitality of rural areas".
  He went on to say that since 1997 Labour has provided an extra £1 billion to help the farming industry, and that £1.6 billion will back up the comprehensive measures to be taken under the English rural development programme.
  I welcome the modulation of the CAP, with the resulting increased funding for the development of agri-environmental schemes. I hope that we will hear more about those later. They will ease the way for many farmers to develop their business through the adoption of stewardship or organic farming, which is moving towards the top of the political agenda.
  Under the Conservative Government, research and development funding for organic farming was just over £1 million a year. The Labour Government have increased that to more than £2 million, which means that we are second only to Denmark among EU countries.
  In 1997–98, expenditure on countryside stewardship was £19 million a year. Labour has already increased that to £35 million. Under the rural development programme, expenditure will rise each year, reaching £126 million by 2006–07.
  The Government have supported the adoption of integrated farm management. I was glad to hear comments on that from Members on both sides of the House. IFM integrates care for the environment with the production of safe, wholesome food at affordable prices. It is an approach to farming that will combine beneficial natural processes and traditional practices such as crop rotation with modern technology and selective targeted use of agrochemicals. The result is the ability to minimise pollution and avoid unnecessary use of chemicals and energy, while maintaining our profit margins.
  IFM is supported partly through the DETR-funded scheme linking the environment and farming—appropriately known as LEAF. I visited a LEAF farm near my Peterborough constituency only last autumn, and was extremely impressed both by the personal commitment of the farmer concerned, David Felce, and by the potential of IFM to support a sustainable agriculture in the current economic conditions. In fact, I shall host an event here in March to help to increase awareness.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has also visited a LEAF farm, and that there is a strong possibility that MAFF will give LEAF additional support. LEAF has contributed to the production of sustainable development indicators at farm level, and I am glad to say that that too

  543
  has been favourably received by MAFF. I understand that LEAF' s contribution has also been recognised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  This Government recognise that agricultural problems cannot and should not be solved by a quick fix. It is a question of assessing the options that are workable for and available to farmers. There are taskforces whose purpose is to simplify the burden of law, without simply carrying out a "slash red tape" exercise—we have heard about that today as well—that might have undesirable knock-on effects, including endangering public safety.
  Work is in progress to develop farm assurance schemes, and to help farmers to get nearer the marketplace. I understand that that includes diversification and the establishment of farmers markets and co-operatives. There is an assessment of the advisory services offered to farmers with the aim of reducing the industry's costs, and ensuring collaboration and better feed-through of information throughout. There are training schemes, free business advice, benchmarking and online information. Farm buildings now house computers as well as more traditional supplies and implements, as I have seen for myself.
  In short, this Labour Government are developing a range of solutions for the agriculture industry, as well as tackling the social and economic problems of the rural economy, which will obviously benefit farmers too. Only by adopting a long-term comprehensive strategy will we ensure the sustainable development of a thriving, lively agriculture sector, which is what I believe we all want.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I begin by reminding the House of the interest that I have declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
  Our short debate has covered a lot of ground. No doubt the Minister of State will shortly rise with a pained expression, and declare that she cannot answer all the points that have been raised, but—as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—we need answers to many of the points made by Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will dispose of any pre-prepared speech and seek genuinely to deal with them.
  A number of Labour Members were obviously at pains to criticise my party, but went on to recite exactly the points about problems in agriculture that we have made. We welcome what the Minister has done to alleviate at least some of the problems caused by flooding: the derogation with regard to the integrated administration and control system—or IACS—rules was very sensible, although I would not have expected the Minister to do otherwise.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said, the Minister's account of his achievements sounded remarkably self-satisfied and smug. It could lead people to believe that things were getting better when, as we know, they are not.
  The Minister accused Conservative Members of being against free trade and for protectionism. As all Opposition Members know, that is absolute rot. Conservative Members believe in free trade and the market because of political conviction—not because of political convenience, which is what attracts Labour Members to
  544
  such opinions. Nevertheless, we have to accept that totally unfettered free trade would cause standards to fall to the lowest common denominator. No hon. Member wants that in food standards, in welfare standards or in anything else. There must be a standards threshold to ensure that there is fair trade.
  The Minister said a little about BSE and tried yet again to lay it at our door, and I know that BSE will be the subject of another debate. I noticed, however, that he failed to mention that today, Commissioner Byrne said that the rest of Europe should follow Britain's example of how to control a disease. Those controls were put in place by the previous, Conservative Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) made a very thoughtful speech in which he emphasised the importance of agriculture and explained why, for all types of reasons, it is different from other industries. He could also have mentioned the fact that 500,000 jobs in food processing would go abroad if the raw materials were sourced abroad.
  Various hon. Members have spoken about agrimoney and compensation. It is essential that the Minister claim the available £202 million or thereabouts not only for its own sake, but because if he does not, we would be denied the opportunity in subsequent phases to claim another £170 million. However, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, the Minister gave us no indication of what will follow the current agrimonetary scheme, which expires on 1 January 2002. I think that the Opposition are justified in asking the Government to tell us their plans to negotiate a replacement—or does the Minister believe that Britain will have joined the euro by the end of this year?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk mentioned the sugar industry. Two major threats hang over that industry, but in both cases, the Minister has gone against the interests of British industry. Although he seemed to try a different line today, I remind him of an answer that he gave only a little while ago in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). He said:
  "The hon. Gentleman overstates the danger … The quantities involved are relatively small and there are safeguards in the proposal."—[Official Report, 21 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 550.]
  The Commission, however, has published its own impact assessment showing that, if the everything but arms proposals had proceeded as originally planned, they would have cost the common agricultural policy 1 billion euros and reduced the sugar quota within the European Union by 1 million tonnes, which is about the same as the United Kingdom's entire production. Anyone who thinks that that is overstatement is deluding himself.
  Now, as we have heard, the Commission has shelved the proposals, including those on sugar, for the next six years. It is doing that because once the French Government lost the presidency, they started to stand up for their own sugar industry. I wonder whether the Minister feels good that the British industry has been saved not by him but by the French Government.
  The Minister espouses reform of the regime, but he wants even bigger cuts than those demanded by the Commission. Indeed, he has previously quoted some of my right hon. Friends in support of his claim. However, when those calls for reductions were made, all arable

  545
  crops were making reasonable, and in some cases substantial, margins. Now, no other mainstream arable crop is making a margin at all.
  By how much would the Minister expect the price of a packet of biscuits or a soft drink to fall if the sugar price were cut by 20 or 30 per cent? Can he tell us? The answer is almost certainly that the price would not be reduced by a penny. Neither has he commented on whether he believes in area-based compensation for sugar price reductions, as has been provided for other arable crops.
  The Minister also referred to the TB crisis in our cattle industry, which is serious and getting worse. The Krebs inquiry said that trials should be running in three months, but three years down the line, not all the trials are up and running.
  Mr. Nick Brown: They are.
  Mr. Paice: The Minister says that they are. They are not: proactive culling has not taken place at three of the 10 sites. If the Minister does not know what is going on in a programme for which he is responsible, he should be ashamed of himself. The husbandry panel published proposals last May, but the Minister did not respond until two weeks ago. Even then, he failed to act on some of the recommendations. Farmers know the truth—that none of these Ministers wants to make the tough decisions that may flow from the completed trials. The Minister has also failed to address the issue of cattle movement out of the hot spots and into clean areas.
  We have also heard about the sum of £26 million for the pig industry restructuring scheme. The Minister said that he was trying to ensure that the amount was rolled over, and he has our support in that.
  Mr. Brown: That will not help.
  Mr. Paice: The Minister says that that will not help, but he forgets that he has only two or three months to secure the rollover. However, if he fails to convince the Chancellor to roll over that money, will he assure the House that he will use it to help the pig industry by advancing the amount that will be raised from the levy for the pig welfare scheme? The industry has asked him to do that, but so far he has rejected the request. If there is no rollover, that money would be available to the Minister, and it is reasonable to expect him to use it for that purpose.
  Finally, what has the Minister done about the cause of the outbreak of swine fever? His own officials attribute it to illegally imported pigmeat. What has he done to control any further such imports?
  Much of the debate has been about regulation and the opportunities for diversification. Of course agriculture must change, but change should not mean extinction—yet that is what faces thousands of farmers today.
  We have set out on many occasions our principles for reform of the common agricultural policy. It ill behoves the Minister to accuse the Opposition of not having ideas, given that the Prime Minister went to Berlin when the Agenda 2000 proposals were being agreed, and managed to make the resolution even worse for Britain than the settlement that the Minister had achieved.
  546
  For farming to survive tomorrow, we do not need to concentrate on preaching about new directions. Farming is being priced and regulated out of existence. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk gave an excellent example of that from her constituency. Lord Haskins made 21 recommendations, on top of the 98 that the Minister had already accepted. What was the Minister's reaction to Lord Haskins? He created three more taskforces.
  Never has long grass been so abused as by this Minister. Since he has been in office, 20 separate working groups, taskforces and reviews have been set up. Lord Haskins' report was published on 16 November. Why did the Minister not tell his civil servants the day after to get on and fulfil its recommendations at once? In the time between publication of the report and the announcement of the taskforces, another 4,000 people lost their jobs in the farming industry.
  The action plan was an example of cynical manipulation of the facts. The Minister produced one budget for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that contained swingeing cuts, and then reinstated that money in the expectation that he would be acclaimed as a hero—and he did not do that with the hill livestock allowance alone. For example, in the action plan, the Minister sought to abolish the 30-month wait limit, but who introduced the limit in the first place? Labour. He sought to hold the increase in meat hygiene charges to the level of inflation, but who wanted to raise them by more than inflation? Labour. He sought to defer the annual charge for sheep dip disposal. Who set the charge? Labour. He deferred the introduction of integrated pollution prevention and control for pig farmers. Who introduced it? Labour.
  The harsh fact is that, by his actions, the Minister has betrayed consumers and conned farmers. He came into office with his bonhomie and apparent concern, yet has presided over a worsening crisis, to which his main response has been to set up working groups, taskforces and reviews. While he has dithered and delayed, farmers and farm workers have been losing their jobs and their businesses faster than ever before, at a rate of 60 a week—week in, week out—for the past two years. During his speech, at least two more jobs were lost. The sooner it is his job that is lost, the better.
  6.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): This debate has been characterised by a number of thoughtful contributions, focusing on the present difficulties in agriculture and on ideas for securing the future of the industry. I welcome much of what has been said, although once again, the speeches of Opposition Front-Bench Members have proved the exception in what has overall been a worthwhile debate.
  At least the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) began his speech by recognising the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had listened to the concerns of farmers around the country. However, the hon. Gentleman failed to

  547
  acknowledge that my right hon. Friend has not stopped at simply listening to farmers' concerns but has taken an enormous number of measures and a great deal of action. Fortunately, that fact emerged from other contributions, including that of my right hon. Friend, during the debate.
  My right hon. Friend began his speech by pointing out the inaccuracies in the Opposition's motion. He dealt effectively with the charges of failure to act and detailed the action that we had taken in the light of the measures that are necessary in the short term, as well as the medium and longer term. He spoke of the measures that had been taken domestically, within the United Kingdom, and of the work that we have put into building up alliances for common agricultural policy reform. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) said that he would insist on CAP reform. It is a question not simply of standing up at European meetings and insisting, but of building up alliances so that concrete changes in agricultural reform are secured. That is what the Government, through their much more constructive European engagement, have done.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members referred to the action plan for farming. Excellent progress is being made in the delivery of that plan. Of the 63 measures in the plan, 49 have been implemented. Recent examples, which have been referred to by some Opposition Members as well as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, have been the ongoers and outgoers elements of the pig industry restructuring scheme and the recent announcement of aid to help to secure the future of small and medium-sized abattoirs. I commend the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) about the situation in that sector in his constituency.
  My right hon. Friend also referred to the introduction of the farm business advisory service. We are very keen that there should be a good take-up of the scheme. Indeed, I was in the south-west only yesterday, encouraging farmers in that area, particularly hill farmers, to take advantage of that service. We sent details of the scheme to all farmers in the United Kingdom to encourage those in isolated and remote areas and those who were worried about the future to access and take advantage of it. We feel strongly about that.
  My right hon. Friend and others also referred to the rural development programme and the welcome flexibility that it offers all sectors in agriculture, including, for example, horticulture, which does not get mainstream support from the common agricultural policy. Indeed, the rural development programme is a forward-looking measure, which recognises the differing roles that farmers fulfil—the important roles of food production and of countryside stewardship.
  We have achieved a lot in CAP reform, especially through the establishment of the second rural development pillar. I believe, too, that we have made real progress in securing improvements in animal welfare. We achieved a change in the treaty to ensure that animals were recognised as sentient beings, and we are moving towards a more level playing field for directives on the welfare of laying hens and, recently, on pig welfare, about which many hon. Members are deeply concerned. Indeed, our
  548
  successes in the EU have been shown by small but important measures, such as those safeguarding traditional hedgerow practices, about which hon. Members have expressed much concern in previous agriculture debates.
  I should like to turn to some of the specific questions on sugar. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) asked about recent changes proposed by the Commission. It is true that the Commission is reconsidering aspects of the everything but arms proposal, but it is also true that no formal proposal for change has yet come forward. She referred to speculation in the farming press, but until the whole college of Commissioners considers the issues, we can neither react to them, nor make a public pronouncement on them. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister will meet Commissioner Lamy to find out about his current proposals, and we shall continue to strive to ensure a balance.
  The right hon. Lady said that when Conservative Ministers called for dramatic reforms in the EU sugar regime in the past, farmers were in a different financial position. Indeed, that suggestion was repeated by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I accept that farmers were in a different financial position, but several Conservative Members, including some who sit on the Front Bench, have written to me putting an argument entirely different from the one that she and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire have espoused. Several Conservative Members have told us that they want the sugar regime to be dramatically changed along the lines that she previously proposed.
  Mrs. Shephard: The Official Report will reveal that the Minister of State has attributed remarks to me that I did not make. My point is simply that the current proposals are incompatible, and I merely sought to find out whether Agriculture Ministers in this Labour Government support the British industry—but no answer has there come today.
  Ms Quin: When the right hon. Lady was a Minister, she argued strongly for price cuts that she does not support now—[Interruption.] She says that I attributed to her remarks that she did not make. If she had listened carefully, she would have heard that I also referred to the remarks —
  6.59 pm
  Mr. James Cran rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided:Ayes 145, Noes 267.

  Division No. 99]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Baker, Norman

  Allan, Richard

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bercow, John

  549

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Blunt, Crispin

  Livsey, Richard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Boswell, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Luff, Peter

  Brady, Graham

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Brand, Dr Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Brazier, Julian

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Bums, Simon

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burstow, Paul

  Maples, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Chope, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clappison, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Norman, Archie

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cotter, Brian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cran, James

  Page, Richard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Paice, James

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Prior, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Rendel, David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Robathan, Andrew

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Evans, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Flight, Howard

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gale, Roger

  Soames, Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gibb, Nick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gidley, Sandra

  Spring, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Steen, Anthony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Swayne, Desmond

  Green, Damian

  Syms, Robert

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Harvey, Nick

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Townend, John

  Hayes, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Trend, Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tyler, Paul

  Horam, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Walter, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Webb, Steve

  Keetch, Paul

  Whittingdale, John

  Key, Robert

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Wilkinson, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Yeo, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Letwin, Oliver

  Mr. John Randall and

  Lidington, David

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Allen, Graham

  Austin, John

  550

  Bailey, Adrian

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Banks, Tony

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Barnes, Harry

  Flint, Caroline

  Barron, Kevin

  Flynn, Paul

  Bayley, Hugh

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Galloway, George

  Benton, Joe

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bermingham, Gerald

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Best, Harold

  Gerrard, Neil

  Betts, Clive

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Blizzard, Bob

  Godsiff, Roger

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Borrow, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Grogan, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Browne, Desmond

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hanson, David

  Burden, Richard

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Burgon, Colin

  Healey, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hendrick, Mark

  Casale, Roger

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Caton, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clapham, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cohen, Harry

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Coleman, Iain

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Colman, Tony

  Jamieson, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cox, Tom

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Cranston, Ross

  Joyce, Eric

  Crausby, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cummings, John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kidney, David

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Darvill, Keith

  Lammy, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Laxton, Bob

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

  Lepper, David

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Denham, John

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Dobbin, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Drew, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Drown, Ms Julia

  McCabe, Steve

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Edwards, Huw

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McFall, John

  551

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rooney, Terry

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Roy, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruddock, Joan

  MacShane, Denis

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McWalter, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Martlew, Eric

  Singh, Marsha

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Spellar, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mitchell, Austin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stevenson, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

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

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Stringer, Graham

  Mountford, Kali

  Stuart Ms Gisela

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, David (NWLeics)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Timms, Stephen

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Todd, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Turner, Dennis (Wotverh'ton SE)

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Tynan, Bill

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pike, Peter L

  Wareing, Robert N

  Plaskitt, James

  Watts, David

  Pope, Greg

  White, Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Winnick, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Woolas, Phil

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Worthington, Tony

  Rammell, Bill

  Wray, James

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31(Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 114.

  Division No. 100]

  [7.13 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Alexander, Douglas

  Austin, John

  Allan, Richard

  Bailey, Adrian

  Allen. Graham

  Baker, Norman

  552

  Banks, Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Galloway, George

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bennett, Andrew F

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Benton, Joe

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Best, Harold

  Gidley, Sandra

  Betts, Clive

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Godsiff, Roger

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Borrow, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Grogan, John

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Hanson, David

  Browne, Desmond

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Harvey, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Healey, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Burstow, Paul

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Casale, Roger

  Heppell, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hill, Keith

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clwyd, Ann

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hutton, John

  Colman, Tony

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Jamieson, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jenkins, Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cotter, Brian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cox, Tom

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Cranston, Ross

  Joyce, Eric

  Crausby, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cummings, John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack(Copeland)

  Keetch, Paul

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Darvill, Keith

  Kidney, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

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

  Laxton, Bob

  Lepper, David

  Denham, John

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Livsey, Richard

  Drew, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Love, Andrew

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McCabe, Steve

  Edwards, Huw

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McFall, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  McIsaac, Shona

  Flint, Caroline

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  553

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Roy, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruddock, Joan

  MacShane, Denis

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McWalter, Tony

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Singh, Marsha

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Spellar, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mitchell, Austin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stevenson, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morley, Elliot

  Stringer, Graham

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

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mountford, Kali

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, David (NWLeics)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Todd, Mark

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Truswell, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'lon SE)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Tyler, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tynan, Bill

  Pike, Peter L

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Plaskitt, James

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pond, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pope, Greg

  Watts, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Webb, Steve

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Woolas, Phil

  Raynsford, Nick

  Worthington, Tony

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wray, James

  Rendel, David

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Rogers, Allan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Rooney, Terry

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Collins, Tim

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Beggs, Roy

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bercow, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brady, Graham

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fallon, Michael

  554

  Flight, Howard

  Norman, Archie

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Page, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Paice, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick

  Prior, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gray, James

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Green, Damian

  Ruffley, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hayes, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heald, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Horam, John

  Spring, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Steen, Anthony

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Syms, Robert

  Key, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Letwin, Oliver

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lidington, David

  Townend, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tredinnick, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Trend, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Luff, Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Walter, Robert

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Waterson, Nigel

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wlkinson, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Yeo, Tim

  Maples, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moss, Malcolm

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Mr. John Randall.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the continuing difficulties faced by the agriculture sector as a result of the low level of farm incomes; endorses the Government's long term vision for agriculture as sustainable, competitive and diverse, environmentally responsible, and an integral part of vibrant rural economies; recognises the important role of the new Rural Development Programmes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in delivering this vision; welcomes the measures in the Action Plan for Farming and the Rural White Paper to give immediate financial relief to the hardest-hit sectors and to reduce the burden of regulation on farming; supports the Government's constructive engagement in Europe to reform further the Common Agricultural Policy; notes that the Conservative party's policies of banning foreign imports and taking unilateral action in areas of European Union competence are illegal and would lead to heavy penalties being levied on UK taxpayers as well as retaliatory action against UK exporters; notes that the Conservative Party have not indicated how much of the £16 billion they propose in public expenditure cuts would fall on British farmers; and calls on the Conservative Party instead to come forward with practical and constructive policies to help farmers through very difficult times.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  That the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.—[Mr. Allen.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Mr. Allen.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  COMPANIES
  That the draft Companies (EU Political Expenditure) Exemption Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved—[Mr. Allen.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 7 February, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
    That this House takes note of European Union Document Nos. 9712/00, relating to the proposed Statute for Members of the European Parliament, and 9560/00, relating to the audit of the expenditure of the European Parliament's political groups; supports the Government's efforts to secure agreement on a Statute for Members of the European Parliament; and notes the Nice European Council's agreement on a legal basis for a Statute to regulate the funding of European political parties, as recommended by the Report of the Court of Auditors.—[Mr. Allen.]
    Question agreed to.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
  That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the
  556
  purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest. [Mr. Allen.]
  Hon. Members:Object.

  SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
  Motion made,
  That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
  Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
  '(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Allen.]
  Hon. Members:Object.

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
  That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Allen.]
  Hon. Members:Object.

PETITION

  Parrots
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Bob Laxton: I wish to present a petition bearing 2,099 names on behalf of Kathy Howell, other residents of Derby, North, and Parrot Line.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of residents of Derby North Constituency and others,
  Declares that every year thousands of parrots are caught in their natural habitats, put into boxes and shipped over to the United Kingdom for sale to the general public as pets, many of them being very old and leaving their long-term monogamous mates behind, and that the only birds which should be allowed to enter the United Kingdom are those which need help in repopulating their indigenous environments.
  The Petitioners therefore Request that the House of Commons urge The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to introduce measures which will prevent the unnecessary importation of parrots.
  And the petitioners Remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Education SSA (Worcestershire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
  7.26 pm
  Sir Michael Spicer: I hope that the Minister for School Standards will not respond like a parrot to my supplication.
  There is no rhyme or reason to the present method of disbursing education funds in this country, except history. In Worcestershire, a Conservative-led local education authority historically ran an efficient and tight budget. It did so especially in the 1970s and 1980s, in contrast with Labour-controlled authorities. The spending patterns of its budgets were subsequently set in stone through the workings of the rate support grant formula, even though circumstances have radically changed since.
  The formula is obscure and incomprehensible. It is based not on real needs or genuine costs, but on history and the perceived view that it would be unacceptable to rock the boat by changing the existing pecking order between LEAs. The dynamics of the position are that those who receive least receive relatively even less as time goes by. Thus Worcestershire is third from the bottom in a table that lists SSA per primary school pupil in 34 counties. In other words, it received the third lowest SSA increase in last November's round. That has happened not because Worcestershire's education needs are less than those of Dorset, Cambridgeshire or even neighbouring Gloucestershire or Warwickshire, but because that is the way it has been. Moreover, unless something changes, that is the way it will continue to be.
  The fig leaf that is used in an attempt to give respectability to that procedure is the concept of the area cost adjustment formula, which is meant to compensate for different costs in different areas. It is nonsense, however, for at least two reasons. First, the largest cost element in education is, overwhelmingly, teachers' salaries, which are nationally determined and are the same for all areas. Secondly, even the marginal cost differences that are built into the formula are often spurious.
  I cannot find any differences in cost or needs between, say, Wiltshire and Worcestershire, yet Wiltshire is 23rd on the county league table of secondary school recipients and Worcestershire is 31st. Nor can I find great differences between near-neighbouring Oxfordshire, which is in eighth place, and Gloucestershire, its neighbour—and, indeed, Worcestershire's—in 28th place. It is a dog's breakfast, and the Government know it.
  I presume that that is why, on 30 April 1997, immediately before the general election, the then Leader of the Opposition declared in an interview with the Cambridge Evening News:
  "We will review the area cost adjustment in time for the next financial year."
  Four years have passed, and all that has happened recently is the publication of a Green Paper on modernising local government finance. In that document, the Government appear to recognise the grossly distorted and unfair method of treatment that is built into the area cost adjustment formula and, therefore, into the disbursal of education expenditure. The Green Paper promises that the Government will present some concrete suggestions for remedying the position. However, they will not do that before 2003–04.
  558
  Meanwhile, even if we dismiss some of the cruder calculations of the additional amounts that schools in Worcestershire should receive when compared with the national average—the figures run into hundreds of thousands of pounds a year even for primary schools—under the current arrangements unless class sizes increase dramatically, budget shortfalls lie ahead. That is true even if they are unplanned. The capacity to raid repair and maintenance budgets, where they still exist, is running out.
  The skill of government is the ability to differentiate between special pleading, which is undertaken for its own sake, and a genuine grievance. There is no doubt that the latter is true for education in Worcestershire.
  All Governments have a duty to tackle such gross lack of parity in treatment. It is also sensible for them to do that. The citizens of this country will stomach an awful lot but they will never accept irrational inequality of treatment. That is shown by the hundreds of furious letters that my hon. Friends who represent Worcestershire constituencies have received on the subject in the past week or so.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Is my hon. Friend, like me, experiencing the largest ever lobby campaign on any issue in his parliamentary career? I have received more than 1,000 letters protesting against a predicament that was bad four years ago and has got much worse.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I agree and sympathise with my hon. Friend. I have received a similar number of letters. Indeed, my fax machine broke down. It has now been repaired and is spewing out more letters from unhappy constituents.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I want to put it on record that I too have received many representations. In my much shorter parliamentary career, I have never experienced anything like it. I suspect that my office has received 1,000 letters, which will of course all get a reply. That number shows the strength of feeling, of which I hope the Minister will take account.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I agree with my hon. Friend. Even the masses of letters in support of foxhunting have been greatly exceeded by those on the issue that we are considering. I was trying to calculate how long it had been since I previously received such quantities of mail. I believe that it was in 1974, when there was a mass revolt against the rate rises that were introduced by the then Labour Government.
  Mr. Michael J. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the sentiment of a letter that was sent to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), from a Conservative councillor in Bewdley?
  Mr. Stephen Groome said:
  "I am upset that both my children and yours are disadvantaged by virtue of the fact that we live in one of the poorest funded Counties."
  The letter continues:
  "The funding provided by the previous Government was derisory".
  Sir Michael Spicer: That is a good cue for my next point. It is no good the hon. Gentleman or the Minister

  559
  saying that they inherited the problem. Labour's rhetoric, to which the hon. Gentleman was doubtless party, was partly responsible for bringing the Government to power. It suggested that they would wave a magic wand over education. However, for Worcestershire, the slogan "Education, education, education" is a sick joke.
  Education services in Worcestershire are being progressively run down on the Minister's watch. The Government are going to have to do better than simply publish Green Papers that kick the problem into the long grass. That is not good enough. I hope that the Minister will not spend much of her speech saying that this problem is someone else's fault. She is in charge at the moment, and the problem has risen to a critical level during her term in office.
  Of course, it is general election time, and the Government have felt the need to be seen to be doing something to remedy the problem. Instead of setting out to change the basic formula, they have this week made a larger than average one-off payment to Worcestershire of £1.35 million. That is about £1 million short of the amount needed to allow schools to run a standstill budget compared with last year. Unless the county steps in with local taxpayers' money, schools that might have ended up with a deficit budget of, say, £50,000—as was the case in one of the secondary schools in my constituency—will now be able to cut that by half.
  As for the revenue support grant and the area cost adjustment formula—the source of the inequality of treatment between local education authorities—nothing has changed. As it is, the gap between the recipients of the largest amounts and the smallest will continue to grow, and dissatisfaction and disenchantment will well up. No amount of temporary bandaging will put that right.
  What is required from the Minister is a clear statement that the present mumbo-jumbo, masquerading as a rational formula, will be abolished and that it will be replaced by a procedure that can be clearly understood. When costs are set nationally, allocation of funds should be on a strict per pupil basis. When there are genuine differences in costs or needs between areas, they should be properly identified. I hope that the Minister will at least say that this is her intention, and that she understands the growing urgency of the matter.
  I would also like the Minister to respond to one more point. Next Wednesday, 7 February, a large delegation of governors and head teachers is coming to the House of Commons. Will she please say that she or one of her colleagues will meet a representative delegation from that group?
  7.37 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) on securing this debate. I readily accept that this is what might be called the hot political issue in Worcestershire. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), is in Worcester tonight, so she cannot be with me on the Front Bench, although I know that she would otherwise have wished to be here.
  I shall first respond to the request that the hon. Gentleman has just made about the meeting that is being held here next Wednesday. I received a letter today from
  560
  a group calling itself parent governors. I had not realised that the group would consist of head teachers and governors. I told my office that I would be delighted to call in to the Grand Committee Room some time between 3.30 and 5 pm to meet them and listen to what they have to say.
  Mr. Luff: I appreciate that this problem is not all the Minister's fault—it is also the fault of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Will she put pressure on one of her ministerial colleagues in that Department to meet the group, which will consist mainly of parent governors, but also of some head teachers? It would be only a small group, and it would be most helpful if the Minister could do that.
  Ms Morris: I cannot commit my ministerial colleagues, and I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to do so. It is sometimes difficult to secure time at such short notice. On the two days before the meeting, I shall visit schools outside London and I would not have been able to attend a meeting on those days, although I should not have intended any discourtesy. I am sure that people will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and that the invitation will be extended to my colleagues at DETR. I accept that SSAs are essentially a DETR responsibility.
  I shall start on a note of agreement with the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. I am not here to defend SSAs; I am not prepared to do so. In his closing remarks, he spoke of a system of financing that was fair, transparent and flexible and that would acknowledge the needs of local areas. That is what we want as well.
  Under this Government, the system will be changed. We are consulting on the matter at the moment. We really tried in our first year: we got everyone together from the Local Government Association, the counties and the urban areas, including London. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that not one local authority leader—Tory, Liberal Democrat or Labour—is volunteering to say that they do well out of the present SSA structure. Therein lies the problem. London appears, on paper, to be exceptionally well funded. Representatives of London bodies come to the House and talk about the difficulties that they have with asylum seekers, and with people coming here without English as their first language. All those needs must be acknowledged.
  I have said many times in Adjournment debates and outside the House that during our first year in office, when we hoped to achieve general agreement about changing the SSA system, we did not manage to achieve that agreement. We had a choice at that point: push a measure through, which we could have done with our majority and even though there was no consensus among local authorities, or wait, talk more, consider different models and try to get it right. I would sooner do the latter because getting it right is in the best interests of pupils, parents, governors and teachers. We will not be able to make a change again for a long time. The Conservative Government had experience of that. Changing the way in which education is funded year after year after year just confuses the situation.
  The change to the formula will be massive and it has to be right. If making that change takes longer than we expected, I will make no apologies for that, although I am

  561
  happy to acknowledge that I wish that we had been able to achieve agreement among local authorities in our first year in office.
  When I was in opposition, I, too, received lots of letters from people in Staffordshire and Worcestershire about exactly the same problem. People have not begun to write such letters since 1997. We had big postbags before then, and the Conservatives did not make such a pledge. They did not even consider the SSA and did nothing to resolve what is essentially a difficult situation. I do not want to spend all my 15 minutes talking about that, but it is the truth.
  The hon. Member for West Worcestershire is right that the formula is historic, but history did not begin in 1997. The formula has not served the people of this country well for many years, and that has affected his constituents and mine. Changing it is a tough job, but one that we are determined to do. I want to discuss general financing in Worcestershire.
  Mr. Michael J. Foster: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to the current position and the future, may I take her back a step? Although there is consensus across the House about the need to change the SSA formula, is she aware that in 1991–92 Conservative-controlled Hereford and Worcester county council deliberately set a budget £5.4 million under education SSA? The consequence of that over the next 10 years was that children in Worcestershire were short-changed by some £42 million.
  Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) have worked hard and lobbied on behalf of their constituents in the county to get the formula changed. Now we know what the hon. Member for West Worcestershire meant when he described the previous finance figures as representing a good, tight ship with tight budgeting and tight financing. That they were, but as a result spending was below SSA and children did not get the investment that they needed.
  That gives me the opportunity to say that, shamefully, secondary and primary funding per pupil in Worcestershire fell during the last four years of the Tory Government. There was no year on year improvement. The hon. Gentleman did not come to the House to discuss how much extra his area had received; it received less. That is why people are so cross in Worcestershire today. I understand that and feel for them. Their children are in school while education expenditure is increasing and they want a fair share of the extra money that we are allocating. They feel that they have got a rough deal, but let us be clear about the fact that the letters that they wrote before the election of a Labour Government in 1997 were about a real cut in funding, year on year on year. Under this Government, their argument is that they are not getting as big a share of a bigger cake as they would like. I have some sympathy with them on straight SSAs.
  Sir Michael Spicer: There is no example that I can recollect, certainly in my constituency, of schools saying under a Conservative Administration, "We simply cannot carry on with our present budget." Under the Minister's Administration, that is exactly what is being said. It is
  562
  absolutely outrageous. Her party came to power on the slogan, "Education, education, education", and it is hypocritical to take such a line.
  Ms Morris: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman was in the years before 1997. For many of those years, I taught in schools and I remember what happened under the Conservative Government. Year after year, there were teacher redundancies because of shortfalls in the budget. I do not think that Worcestershire's schools were different from any other schools in the country in having to cope with a reduced budget. Under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported, the amount of money per pupil fell, but it has risen under this Government. Those are not our figures. No one contests them. The hon. Gentleman must justify the history; I do not have to do so.
  Expenditure is increasing. The soreness felt by Worcestershire's schools is about their share of a bigger cake. That is why there is an urgency about changing the formula. I cannot in all honesty explain why children in Worcestershire get less money than children in Wiltshire—I think that that was the example given by the hon. Gentleman. I do not know the exact figures for those two counties, but the system is irrational. He is right about that. It is a historic system, which does not serve us well.
  The hon. Gentleman is right that we were elected on a pledge of "Education, education, education". We said that we would spend more on education than did our predecessors, and we have delivered. There is more money going into the SSA. There is an increase this year of £8.82 million, or 3.71 per cent.—not a cut, as there was under the Conservative Government.
  More money is going into Worcestershire's schools, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome, as the head teacher of Droitwich Spa high school has welcomed publicly in a letter, the £1.3 million that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made available last Monday, in acknowledgement of the fact that Worcestershire has had a difficult settlement this year. The money will go some way towards helping with that.
  Mr. Luff: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Morris: I will, but this will be the last intervention that I take, because of shortage of time.
  Mr. Luff: I have a letter from the head teacher of Droitwich Spa high school, in which she makes it clear that the extra £1.3 million is welcome. We all welcome it, but it is only a little over half the amount required to close the funding gap between what we have now and a standstill budget. Schools in Worcestershire are still facing a crisis, and the gap is growing between them and the national average for funding per pupil, as it has grown every year under the right hon. Lady's Government.
  Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right that the head teacher goes on to say that. I was going to deal with that. One of the things that has changed between the previous Government and the present one is that money goes into schools in many different ways. That does not happen just through the SSA, although the SSA is the major source of funding for schools.
  Money is allocated through direct special grant, and Worcestershire's schools will receive £6.3 million in direct grant this year. That is worth an average of £20,000

  563
  for primary schools and £60,000 for secondary schools. It has been promised that that will be uprated by 2.7 per cent. to cover inflation for each of the next two years. The hon. Gentleman called for transparency. In fairness, we must look at the different routes for funding and the amount that Worcestershire's schools end up with, compared with what they would have received had the Tories still been in power.
  I draw the House's attention to capital investment. One of the most shameful things that happened under the previous Government was the manifest under-investment in the school buildings in which our teachers teach and our pupils learn. The figures for Hereford and Worcester—the joint county before the split—show that in 1996–97, the last year for which the Conservative Government had responsibility for the budget, capital expenditure was £6.02 million. That is the figure for both counties.
  In this year, in Worcestershire alone, the corresponding figure is £26.5 million—not for the two counties, but for Worcestershire alone. There is El 1 million as part of the new deal for schools, in direct grant—no borrowing and no interest to be paid by taxpayers in Worcestershire. A further £1 million has gone to the county in order to
  564
  achieve our class size pledge. Money directly allocated to schools in terms of capital will increase over the next few years.
  I am not seeking to defend a formula that ill serves the children of Worcestershire—that would be dishonourable and dishonest. I am saying that we are trying our best, with all reasonable speed, to change that. We are the Government who have given a pledge that that will change. We are the only Government who have set in motion a consultation system under which we hope to bring about change. I would sooner achieve that through consensus among local authorities than have one local authority at another local authority's throat, as is the case at present.
  Despite that, children in Worcestershire now receive more money for their education than they ever did under the Government whom the hon. Member for West Worcestershire supported. Schools and buildings in Worcestershire are in better shape and are becoming fit for education in the 21st century, because the Government have invested in education. In that way, we have more than kept our pledge.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Space Industry
[Relevant documents: Tenth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1999–2000 HC 355 and Government Response thereto, Twelfth Special Report from the Committee HC 908, Session 1999–2000.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Clelland.]
2.30 pm
Mr Martin O'Neill: Space policy is not often discussed in the House. Indeed, I do not think that there has been a Select Committee report on the subject since that produced by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee in the late 1980s. Perhaps its report was not quite as lengthy and detailed as the one that my colleagues and I have produced.
It is strange that we do not discuss space more frequently, given the amount of public interest in space and space travel, and the excitement of science fiction, such as "Star Trek", "Doctor Who" and "Star Wars". It is rather unfortunate that the British film industry has produced Oscar-winning special effects in movies such as the Star Wars series, but the real thing seems to have evaded the interest of British Governments and the capabilities of certain sections of British industry. If both industry and Government turned their minds to the subject, they could make a bigger contribution than they have made so far.
The responsibility must lie partly with Government, because the space industry is one in which national leadership is paramount. In the UK responsibility has been vested in the British National Space Centre, whose structure and organisation are exemplars of the ad hocery that can be both a boon to and a burden on public administration.
The 1988 Lords Select Committee report described how the BNSC was formed in 1971 as an ad hoc inter-departmental working arrangement, staffed by people from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the National Environment Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council. The BNSC was reformed in 1985. Only three years later, however, the Lords Committee still had no confidence in the leadership offered not by the individuals but by the institution of the BNSC. The Committee said:
"unless we can summon up more enthusiasm for space—a quality that Ministers have criticised—we cannot rely on our partners to go on collaborating with us".
That was a clear indication that insufficient priority was being given to space. I think that the criticism was partly of the BNSC.
I want to make it clear that I am not attacking individuals. By its nature, the BNSC is a recipe for administrative and budget-winning disaster. It is
138WH
answerable to a number of Departments but has only a small part of each Department's vote. It is likely to be the tail-end Charlie in any fund allocation exercise.
The BNSC is staffed by seconded civil servants. The number of people from industry who come in is insufficient. There is probably no kudos attached to a secondment to such an institution. It does not have its own vote in financial terms, but depends on contributions from members of the resources board, which represents all the partners.
It is little wonder that we spent 0.028 per cent. of our gross domestic product, compared to the United States, which spent 0.187 per cent., France, which spent 0.157 per cent., Italy and Japan, which both spent 0.048 per cent.—that is a little closer to our figure—and Canada, 0.042 per cent. This country is a major player in civil and military aerospace, and at least some of those skills and techniques could have been transferred to the British space industry. We cavil and complain about the small sums involved and the paucity of resources, but it is equally worrying that the sums spent have declined in real terms year by year in the past decade.
I hope that the Minister will say what financing the BNSC will have in the next three years. The sums involved are not particularly large. They do not pose the threat of a great drainage from the main flow of the partners' budgets, but they are vital to the space industry.
As important as the money, is how it will be spent. We are pleased with the Government's promise to produce an annual report which should assist transparency and accountability. That is a constructive response to the Trade and Industry Committee's report.
The United Kingdom Industrial Space Committee said that it was one thing to have a strategy, but that strategy was of dubious advantage without an action plan to realise it. With the funding available over a three-to-five year period, we should move away from the short termism that has bedevilled space planning in recent years. We expect a cautious reply to the debate from the Minister, but if he assures us that there will be a review or a revaluation of spending in the past decade, for example, we would learn some lessons on projecting expenditure that could be applied in future.
Space strategy has international dimensions. Members of the Select Committee will make our annual visit to Brussels next week and meet representatives of the European Space Agency and others. I hope that the Minister, when he responds to the debate, will say what he thinks of the view expressed by the UK Industrial Space Committee that our European partners are too preoccupied with the applications of space rather than with space research and science. Whether or not the Government share that view, greater priority should be given to the development of space science.
There have been some encouraging signs in recent months, not least the creation of ASTRIUM, which is a major force. It is not the only voice in the British space business but it is the biggest. Proper weight should be given to opinion across the spectrum so that a single big player does not dominate the debate and all the players in the UK space industry have an opportunity to express their opinion. Proper opportunities should be given to all the players in the UK space industry.

139WH
Would the Minister share his thoughts on security? Are the Government happy with requests from the European Union and the Western European Union to use the assets of the European Space Agency for military observation purposes? Would that be acceptable to all European Space Agency members? Is it worth jeopardising the participation of countries that would perhaps find such a defence application unacceptable? I do not have strong views on the issue but it merits consideration—it is a small grenade that I lob into the pond to get the Minister's reaction. Since we debate the subject so infrequently, it might prove to be a catch-all debate.
We are talking not only about the relationship with our international partners. The Government have established a fairly good working relationship with industry and the partnership arrangements have been relatively successful in the recent past. The UK Space Industry Committee feels that the Government's partnership arrangements are sometimes too inflexible and that its one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate in every instance. In the unfortunate experience of the EGNOS programme—the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Satellite Service—when its procurement stage was reached and there was talk of getting partnerships together, Britain dithered over how to secure 50:50 partnership arrangements. As a consequence, we missed the boat—if that is the right expression; missed the rocket might be more appropriate—in terms of taking the leading role that our technical expertise should have afforded us. Rather than British companies being in pole position and adopting a more influential role, we are now visibly having to pick up the remaining crumbs.
There is obviously an interface with defence and security but not all the delays and export licensing procedures are necessary. There is no debate involving international trade and globalised businesses in which we do not run up against that old sore of export licences, but it is galling when the delays in the treatment of export licences result in business going to other countries, not least EU or NATO partners who obviously have much the same concerns as we do about the desirability of entering into such contracts.
The next stage of the Galileo programme has also been delayed. It was supposed to start in December and has now been postponed to April. Apparently, there are doubts about whether income flows will be enough to give commercial investors a return. It is a wee bit worrying to hear that the case for Galileo has still to be proved. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is the lead Department on it. One does not have to be an entrepreneurial whizz kid to work out the business significance of the programme. While it is understandable that transport and communications matters are at the heart of the programme, we cannot allow the DETR to lose sight of the business opportunities that its realisation will create. I should like to think that we will stop leaving ourselves open to the charge that there is undue delay or diffidence in this area.
As I said earlier, what became obvious to myself and my colleagues on the Committee was the great enthusiasm and excitement of the people involved in the
140WH
space business. The word "anorak" is often used disparagingly, but in this instance it is not something that is particularly offensive, or it should not be taken as that. These are a group of dedicated people who fired themselves, and others who come into contact with them, with the sheer excitement of what they are about. If anything captures the public imagination, it is the exploration of space.
Could the Minister tell us today what the Government's view is on Mars exploration? It is about time they gave us some excitement in our lives—as far as space exploration is concerned—by saying, "Yes, we are in favour of doing something serious about the Martian challenge", and then getting behind it. If we want young people becoming involved in schools and universities in serious science, then we have to inject that degree of excitement and imagination at critical points of their scholastic careers, and to have something with which these young people can make a connection.
Mr Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton): The Mars lander vehicle of the Beagle 2 project, which the Open University co-ordinated under Dr. Colin Pillinger, gives exactly that opportunity of excitement. I once asked the Prime Minister a parliamentary question on the very subject, and now the Government have given some backing. The private sector has also played its part. That is exactly the sort of scheme to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.
Mr O'Neill: I have to say that the Pillinger example is a great one; the problem is that it is the only one. We need more examples of that character, and to achieve that we come back to the issue of national leadership. This is not a matter of party dispute. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed it privately on a number of occasions. Although we are often hard pressed to find much that was good about the past Administration, I would pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his endeavours on behalf of the space industry—which were almost successful—in keeping the space programme limping along, in keeping it alive.
We now have to move beyond the incubatory stage, but in order to do that we must also address issues. I want to discuss the issue that dare not speak its name—"launching", and whether or not we should have a UK launch capability. I am not the world's expert on matters relating to space. I do think, however, that more serious consideration should be given to this issue, than the dismissive approach, which is often adopted by the British National Space Centre and Government. It should be the subject of a serious study and we should be able to come to a rational decision.
We do not need the rather cumbersome approach that is currently being adopted, where there is a market assessment of every element that is a bit bigger than a widget. That is a classic product of the "Yes Minister" system of government: there is a review of every single bit, and money and time is spent on reviews instead of on conducting a straightforward independent study, which could be carried out at a measured pace and would enjoy the trust of all who participated in providing evidence to it. At the end of the day we could then say that for 10 or 15 years we will or will not play a major part in the development of a launch capability. It is necessary to say, in these circumstances, that

141WH
perhaps the greatest fear that we have is fear itself. There ought to be an attempt made by the BNSC in this way and Government have to give a lead.
The Government have to be given credit. I know that my hon. Friend is not the Minister responsible but that it is Lord Sainsbury who is in another place. I have to pay tribute to him because he has, in large measure, developed the nascent programme which the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) sought to keep alive in the dying days of the past Administration. We need more than that. There are rising expectations and we have to give the British space community a sense that the Government are backing this work and that the priorities are set in the context of a longer-term strategy for developing the industry's strengths and exploiting new areas of technology that the UK is in a strong position to develop. If we could do that, we could excite the public and particularly encourage young people to study space science. There is a wealth of talent in academia and in the UK.
We bemoan our inability to produce enough good scientists and technologists. We hear the ritual complaint that more people are doing media studies than anything else or that they end up doing that. That is because people think that it is glamorous or that they might get on television. Heavens above, the glamour and excitement associated with space is far greater than carrying an Uher tape recorder around on behalf of a local radio station on a wet Tuesday afternoon to an old folk's treat, which is the nature of the end product of media studies for all too many people. People do not appreciate that. The advantages to UK plc of a higher priority and a better sense of purpose and direction to the space industry would go no small way towards encouraging other areas of British business and industry as well as British academia.
My colleagues and I on the Select Committee enjoyed our brief foray into space policy. The fact that the Government have taken a decision to produce an annual report will provide successor Committees—I am assuming beyond a general election which might be held this year—to invite interested parties to discuss the contents of these reports in the years ahead. This debate will not necessarily become commonplace. If it does, it will assume other dimensions which are not particularly attractive. If it can engage the attention of Parliament by being effective, we can praise it and if there are shortcomings, we can criticise it. Sometimes, all too sadly in this House, it is more attractive to criticise than to praise. The Government have done a good job in the available time, but by doing so they have created a demand for even more effort, more assistance and more resources.
I hope that today the Minister will be able to tell us that more resources are available, and that there is a better focus and greater encouragement for all those who are thinking about or who are involved in the UK space industry.
2.54 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It comes as something of a surprise to be in the Chamber again for a debate in which I am not speaking from the Front Bench. Some people would think that I am a glutton for punishment because I seem to spend most of
142WH
my life in this Chamber discussing various parts of the world. I make my few comments today purely in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, not in my capacity as a Front Bencher dealing with international matters.
I am delighted that we are having a debate on space policy and on the Select Committee report because it has been some seven years since the previous debate on space: an Adjournment debate in 1994 secured by me and answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). I think that I am correct in saying that he had been a Department of Trade and Industry Minister for some three or four hours when he was summoned to the House to respond to the debate. Needless to say, the record shows that he acquitted himself admirably. I associate myself with the remarks by the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) about the way in which my hon. Friend handled his brief when he was in charge of space matters, among other things.
The Minister has been in his post considerably longer than my hon. Friend had been when he replied to that debate, so we will expect great things from him when he rises to his feet. Not least, I hope that he will tell us that we will not have to rely on the good offices of either Select Committees or Back Benchers to have future debates on space, but that the Government will think about inaugurating an annual debate on space in Government time in the main Chamber of the House of Commons. I hope that he will give that some thought. It would be welcomed by hon. Members who have consistently taken an interest in these matters.
I make a few comments that lead from the excellent work by the Select Committee. I agree with much of what has been said and what appears in the report, so I am able to keep my remarks fairly brief. The institutional arrangements are an area that the Select Committee recommended for review. I read the Government's response to mean that they supported the Select Committee's view.
ESA has grown out of the European Space Research Organisation and included the failed ELDO—the European Launcher Development Organisation. The remit was to help to build a competitive space industry, notably for communication satellites. It was the centre of excellence in European space and was the natural leader in Europe; it was inconceivable at the time that individual countries could afford comprehensive competence in space. When the British National Space Centre was set up in 1985, most of the innovative funding was provided by Government. Expensive projects, such as space station, were politically justified and therefore had to depend on Government funding.
What is the situation today, some 16 years later? The pursuit of space science still depends predominantly on Government finance. The European Space Agency has a proven track record on developing European space science and an enviable record on international co-operation with National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the United States and other countries' space programmes. I would not want to change that. Indeed, it would be fair to congratulate the European Space Agency on having appointed the eminent Professor David Southwood from Imperial college as science director on the retirement of the successful present science director, Professor Roger Bonnet, who has led ESA space science to its present position of international eminence.

143WH
As to the rest, we have a totally different scenario. Our space companies have prospered, originally on a national basis, but now on a European basis. UK industries operate with their erstwhile French and German competitors in ASTRIUM. Those companies are comparable in size to companies in the United States and have matched their technical and competitive capabilities. I would, however, still like them to grow into greater entrepreneurial and financial risk takers. It is worth mentioning that smaller companies, among others, have grouped themselves into an organisation called ASTOS, the Association of Specialist and Technical Organisations for Space, which does well in representing smaller industries in the sector.
For those companies to grow into greater entrepreneurial and financial risk takers, more space programmes and policies need to be switched to industry, with fewer being the initiative of the European Space Agency, which prefers Government funding and has little experience of market forces. Although I welcome the belated involvement of the European commissions, which have complementary roles to the ESA, we must not let them rule the roost as they have even less experience of market forces than ESA.
I can illustrate my point with one or two examples. The Galileo project is massively expensive with no certain market, largely because the United States is now providing the Global Positioning System free. Incidentally, I have an excellent gadget in my car, a satellite navigation system that I find indispensable. Not only does it take me along routes that I would never discover by studying a map and successfully get me to my destination, but it gets me out of major cities that are unfamiliar to me. It has proved to be an absolute bonus. Many of our car manufacturers are fitting that as standard in cars and it will be a growth market.
I have no doubt, therefore, that there will be market demand for Galileo services, but I recognise why, in the current circumstances, the industry is reluctant to provide upfront funding. That does not mean that the project should be run by an organisation in which the commission takes the chair and ESA provides the design and contracting functions. Surely we must establish an industrial consortium to design, build and exploit the system if it is to have any chance of commercial success.
That could mean Government support through subsidy. We should not be frightened of that. After all, if we think about how Airbus was created and run, who would have thought that Airbus would be equal to Boeing by the end of the previous century? Certainly the companies could not have taken the risk without Government support. That is arguably good use of taxpayers' money.
In looking at the British National Space Centre, the Minister should consider appointing a new director general from industry or from outside in order to give pre-eminence to individuals with market experience. I should like to make it clear that that is not an attack on the present director general, who is a fine official and has made a very good impression since he took over. At the very least, however, that option should be considered by the Minister. He should not allow the
144WH
position to remain an hereditary one within the civil service. After all, that was not envisaged when BNSC was first set up.
I agree with the Select Committee that we should rigorously review our attitude to future launches. We missed the bus by refusing to join the Ariane programme when our Blue Streak had been 100 per cent. successful, notwithstanding the failure of the ELDO rocket. I still have a vivid picture in my mind of the rusting rocket in the jungle in Kourou in French Guyana—a success story that we never pursued, an opportunity that we missed. We deprived our industries of a lucrative market. What can be more lucrative than building a high-tech component for Ariane that is used only once and destroyed and is then reordered for the next launch? After all, Ariane is remarkably successful and now has more than half of the commercial launcher market.
The future lies in reusable launcher vehicles that can reduce the cost of launches to a 10th; some say more. We have innovative industrial and technical contributions to make, but the long-term cost of developing a successful launcher seems to terrify us. Obviously, that means that we must co-operate with our European colleagues, but we should not refuse to take part at the early stages, as the Government are doing. The marketplace is well established. Launchers will be required and, if the early research points to the probability of a successful reusable launcher, surely money will be made available from the private sector to help to fund the development.
We should not lapse into thinking that that is a sector in which the French have become predominant and that we must leave it to them—quite the reverse. Let our industries and technical people free to persuade others that they have some inspirational ideas. As things stand in the European Space Agency, that can be done only with Government support. I am sad that that support has been refused.
I welcome the debate. We need to examine the institutional arrangements rigorously to put our industries in the driving seat on future developments. I see ESA carrying on in space science more or less as at present, but it should act as the research centre for application programmes. Industries, which must operate in a competitive environment, should be responsible for the direction and specification of the work. Naturally, they will have to make a contribution to the funding of the research and development, but they will have greater confidence if they have control of the direction and specification of the work and the ability to stop it if the research is getting nowhere commercially.
I hope that I have not taken up too much of the Chamber's time, but, as it has taken nearly seven years to secure this debate on space policy, I should just like to pay tribute to the space industry in this country, which has kept hon. Members engaged in debate and informed on developments throughout that time through the good offices of the all-party parliamentary space committee. The United Kingdom Information Storage Consortium and the British Association of Remote Sensing Companies have led the way. The organising officer Frank Richardson has ensured that MPs have been given the opportunity to meet and to discuss space issues with industrialists in a way that provides an excellent example to other industries. I thank him and the companies in the sector for

145WH
maintaining the involvement of parliamentarians and hope that the Minister will ensure that space policy is high on his and his Department's agenda in future.
3.7 pm
Mr Ian Taylor: It is an honour to follow, for the second time in seven years, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). She was correct in her opening remarks. I was sitting with my new boss at the DTI, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), being allocated my various exciting responsibilities, when at about 10.30 he looked at his watch and said, "Well that's pretty clear. By the way, you'd better get back to your private secretary, because in 10 minutes' time you're answering a debate in the House on space policy." That was the debate that my hon. Friend had initiated.
There was a denouement that evening. The Prime Minister held a reception at No. 10 for Ministers and I duly turned up. He took one look at me and said, "Oh, Michael Heseltine tells me that you've already performed in the House since your appointment this morning, and that you didn't make any spending pledges. That's a good thing, because Ministers have been sacked for less." I had survived for 24 hours and did not make any spending pledges, although subsequently—I can now speak with the gross irresponsibility of an Opposition Back Bencher—I wished that I had. There would have been satisfaction if I had committed the Government to spending more on the space project and got away with it—[Interruption.] This is an unscripted aside.
I must declare that I have at various times acted as an adviser to Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd., close to my constituency—which is the world's foremost designer, launcher and monitor of the products from micro and mini satellites—and to Satellite Observing Systems, which, with SSTL, had put together a project for GANDER—the global altimeter network designed to evaluate risk, to which I may return later. Sadly, that project did not receive British National Space Centre backing, despite being an ideal example of what Britain could do in space. It is vital to develop it if we are to make the world's shipping safer and more effective.
I shall now reflect on some of the interesting points raised by the excellent Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill). One does not have to agree with every word of the report to view it as first class, and a huge contribution to the debate about Britain's role in space. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee on their report.
The main problem is that resources are limited under all Governments. Another is that space is not an issue on which Governments wish to stand or fall, so when it comes to the spending round, Ministers fighting for the space project are unlikely to come out well.
Sometimes enthusiasm among the wider public reaches unreasonable proportions. I know that if posterity notices me at all, it will accuse me of being the Minister who did not take part in the project for the international space centre, which has no British flag flying on it. There is not enough time to record the interesting history of that episode in full, so I offer an abbreviated version.
146WH
In short, most other countries did not take part in the international space station project either—and some who did wished they had not. The German Minister cried on my shoulder, saying that Chancellor Kohl had insisted that because the Americans and Russians were going to take part, Germany could not be left out. The French Minister took me out to dinner to ask me to help persuade his Prime Minister that the French should not take part in the space centre project, because France could not afford it. I offered that help, but it was decided that if the Germans were going to participate, so must France. Both the French and German Ministers then took me aside at a conference to explain why the Italians had to participate if the French and Germans were: and money was lent to the Italians to help them with their bid. Our budget was not big enough to contribute to a project that undoubtedly receives public admiration, but is second-rate science.
The Chairman of the Select Committee also spoke about education and enthusiasm. I took part in many sixth form and university conferences on space, and there is no doubt that a Minister speaking to such an audience does not engender breathtaking excitement—particularly when his speech is delivered two minutes after Helen Sharman has finished. In case anyone does not know, Helen Sharman was the first British woman in space—courtesy of the Soviets—and her photograph is enshrined in the Mir space centre library in Moscow. She is certainly larger than life, and bounces around the stage. Sixth formers looking for inspiration about space do not look to Ministers, and I obviously did not bounce very effectively. The young looked up to people who had been out there and done things.
I regret that we have not done more to direct British participation in manned space travel. I greatly admire one of my predecessors, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), but he did not regard it as sensible to carve out part of the budget to contribute to the project. We have lost some of our past enthusiasm for it, but I understood my right hon. and learned Friend's financial constraints.
I wish we had done more on launch capacity. It is impossible to have a proper space policy without a good commercial launch capability. Once it had become less about putting Frenchmen into space and more about launching satellites, the Ariane project was very good indeed. I should like to pass on a reminiscence connected with that project. I had had a small union flag placed on Ariane 5 when it was launched into space one Tuesday. In those days we had Prime Minister's Question Time twice a week, and that Tuesday happened to be one of those days. Unfortunately, Ariane 5 exploded. The Prime Minister had had the normal briefing from departmental Ministers, and had heard some months beforehand my proud mention that we had now got some money in Ariane 5. No. 10 phoned and said, "What's all this about our money exploding in space?"
I had to explain that the good news was that we were in the development programme but not in the Ariane 5 rocket that had gone up—but that the bad news was that piggy-backing on that rocket were some important satellite experiments that had been led by the United Kingdom—by the University of Kent, by both the universities in Leicester and others—and were intended to look at the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. Sadly,

147WH
of course, those had been lost, although subsequently part of that mission was recreated. Those are the risks for space Ministers if things go wrong.
The United Kingdom space industry is vital and diverse. Logica, in my constituency—its space and defence element is based in Cobham—is a typical and vital player. To the wider public it is better known for its other activities, but is nevertheless a crucial player constantly at the cutting edge of expertise. There are many other companies, some of which I know about, that have contributed to the fine technology required for the engineering perfection necessary to get into space and to survive once there.
We have, of course, been involved in space science projects as well as civilian projects. The Hubble telescope, for example, has a leading British content. All that means that industry needs to know there is a future for space activity and plans for it. Some of the areas with which I had most difficulty in wrestling as a Minister were the public-private partnerships. Those allowed industry to participate in the project and get the full benefit from doing so, but at the same time the Government, or someone else who would get the project going, would be an anchor tenant, so that the ultimate commercial exploitation of it, which would come from the users of the raw material, could be developed.
Many projects have been stillborn, or British industry has not participated sufficiently, as those elements were not properly brought together. I have already mentioned GANDER, a project that could put 16 satellites in space to give a complete guide to wave movements and incipient storms at sea, so that in real time ships' captains can change course or manoeuvre. Losses at sea run into hundreds of millions of pounds, as Lloyd's will confirm, and yet at the moment we have inadequate satellite coverage. That means that the information to ships' captains tends to be theoretical or projected by mathematical models, unless by chance a satellite is over the area at the time.
We could get that project off the ground with a combination including industry and private investors. It is led by Britain, and we could do some exciting work with altimeters; again, Britain could take a lead in that. However, that would require assistance from Government, as an anchor tenant, so that the long-term future of the project could convince industry that it was in their commercial interest to back it, and to get the products out of those satellites into better management of shipping fleets. Some of the big shipping owners, such as the oil companies, certainly have expressed serious interest in the project.
If we are really to make sure that Britain makes progress in the commercial application of space technology, we need public-private sector partnerships that work better. The British National Space Centre was slightly unfairly criticised, although I understand the motivation of the Select Committee in doing so.
The paradox of government is that interdepartmental co-operation is obviously necessary, but rarely works. I remember going to the Department of Transport, as it was in those days, trying to persuade it to get in on the ground station of what has become the Galileo project. To some extent we were successful. I remember going to
148WH
the MOD and being much less successful in getting the people there to understand that the same project had important interests for their Department.
In both those cases, BNSC was a staunch ally for me as the Minister with responsibilities for space at the DTI, but we could not overcome the turf wars that went on inside the Department. One of the problems of anyone transferred from, say, the MOD to BNSC is that he retains his friends, but little influence, in the MOD. In turf wars, Government Departments look after themselves.
The BNSC is an excellent organisation, but it has the problems within it that interdepartmental co-operation leads to. It has done a very fine job. I was the Minister who, in 1996, initiated and put through the first overall strategy review of what we should be doing in space. That was largely piloted through by the BNSC, and as a result we managed to re-focus some of its efforts, moving, perhaps, from a project that was becoming mature in certain areas to other projects. I do not have time to discuss, as the report does, the relative maturity of telecommunications, earth observation and so on.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that space is one of those subjects about which, as the Minister responsible, one has to be aggressive. There is no point in being nice. One has to kick the living daylights out of your colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Ministry of Defence so that they give in, because they do not want one back. That does not always work, but I would much rather fail and leave bruises than not have tried. The Minister may care to take that on board.
I do not want to take up any more of hon. Members' time, but I am a great enthusiast for space. I think that what Colin Pillinger has done with the Beagle 2 Mars lander, which I mentioned earlier, is quite remarkable. Our universities have phenomenal scientific ability and expertise. I have mentioned some of them today. The universities in London are also active. We have, for example, the laboratories of University College.
The Beagle 2 Mars lander will depend on parachutes to get down to the surface, which is the business of Martin Baker, in the private sector, working closely with the Open University and Colin Pillinger. The probe, which will go into the surface of Mars to analyse it in situ and avoid the corruption of the material that bringing it back to earth would involve, will give us for the first time some idea of whether there has been bio-organic life on Mars, particularly if there are any methane traces. Those are incredible opportunities, and British science is in the forefront of them.
In welcoming this debate, and the work of the Select Committee, I add my voice to those in this Chamber who have said that space has a terrific role in education, in enlightenment, in broadening our horizons, and in commercial reality, because of the value of the data that we achieve from earth observation and telecommunications. All those factors should be better recognised by Government than I was able to achieve in my time in office—and I am sure that toady the Minister will astonish us by talking about the budget increases that he intends to announce shortly.
3.23 pm
Mr Lembit Öpik: I grew up with space in my head.
Mr O'Neill: It is still there.
Mr Öpik: Somebody had to say that.
While my friends were watching "Star Trek", I was watching the stars, because my grandfather was a professional astronomer for 70 years. That was why I was inspired to realise how marvellous, unimaginable, inspiring and breathtaking the opportunities for the human race really are when we start looking up—and even how, to some extent, it helps to put the problems that we create for ourselves here on earth into perspective. If we can survive without destroying ourselves—or, indeed, allowing ourselves to be destroyed—I am sure that we will move on to colonise the solar system. Mars will probably be the next significant staging post after the moon. Who knows, we might even colonise other solar systems in the suburbs of our galaxy.
The UK can take part in that exciting voyage. It will be a voyage not only of scientific discovery but of potentially enormous commercial benefit to the country. My biggest concern is that the UK has been faced at least three times in the 20th century with comparable commercial opportunities in glamorous and exciting areas of technological advance, but did not take them. First, the TSR2 fighter project was an example of a technology in which Britain could have led the world. Tragically, for political reasons, we chose not to pursue the project and cancelled it. The exceptional Lightning fighter survived only as a result of the rather stealthy and quick reactions of its manufacturers in taking it out of the political debate.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) mentioned the second opportunity—the Blue Streak project, which was technically superb for its time. Again, for political reasons—I would say primarily for financial reasons—we abandoned that initiative. If it had been allowed to evolve, it would have given us a commanding lead in the European Space Agency.
Thirdly, and perhaps most tragically in the past 20 years, came the demise of HOTOL. Again, Government did not support a superb and inspiring initiative by British business people and scientists. We must not allow that to happen again. This interesting and exciting document on UK space policy should enable us to draw a line in the sand and say that we will not walk away from the opportunities that the world of space presents to us and to British industry.
The hon. Member for Ochil said that people who were interested in space risked being accused of being "anoraks". I must point out that the technology in many modern anoraks comes directly from the Apollo space programme. Even those who wear anoraks without meaning to support the space project are benefiting from the work done in the 1960s, primarily by the United States.
This morning I spoke to Patrick Moore, who cited a couple of important examples of how space investment has led directly to benefits in everyday life. He saw, I think in Bristol, a device to scan babies for medical
150WH
reasons that was derived directly from space technology. We all know the example of the teflon frying pan. The non-stick frying pan exists because men walked on the moon in the 1960s—but I stress that they were not cooking with one on the moon; things were not quite that primitive.
Many other examples in technology and computer development point to the benefits of the enormous, virtually pure research project that the United States undertook. Admittedly it was undertaken for national prestige, but it led to enormous commercial benefits. It takes vision to achieve those goals, and political courage to make the investments that sometimes pay back only in the long term. If we consider how paybacks have come about in the past, we see that such investment does pay back.
In that context, I shall comment on the Government's observations on the report. I want to highlight the ease with which we can become so cautious that, although with good intent, we tie the hands of people in the British space industry and of scientists who are interested in space. I do not think that the Government intend to shackle the opportunities that we have been discussing.
On the European Space Agency, the Government response says that it is important
"to have a very clear statement of the objectives of any programme proposal and to seek the best value for money in achieving those objectives."
That is fair enough. But there is a danger that the words "value for money" will end up being used to justify non-investment in admittedly expensive but valuable programmes. Yes, we should go for value for money but we must recognise, as with the explosion of the Ariane rocket, that sometimes there is a big risk in space research. The Government must accept that investment in such research will be more risky and obscure than the standard investment in health, education and so on.
On higher education and space, the Government are right to respond by agreeing with the report that space is "a beacon subject". That is one area in which the Government can safely invest; a small investment earmarked for space research leads to an enormous return in inspiring young people and attracting them to science. The Apollo programme, for example, attracted some of the best brains and the most able individuals, who wanted to be part of an exciting national project. I am sure that the same can be done in the United Kingdom. People regard the SETI—search for extraterrestrial intelligence—programme as a bit of a laugh, but for very little money it keeps people talking about space, although I do not expect the Minister to commit the Government to major investment to search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.
The Government are equivocal on the Galileo project, and I understand why, but scientists and British experts are firmly behind it. I take issue with the Government's response that the case is still to be proved, because if we delay our support for too long we may miss the boat and thus the attendant benefits.
The subject of launchers was raised; the Government's response, understandably, focuses mainly on the cost. Their response to the report was:
"For the UK to pay its GDP share of this, the DTI element of the civil space programme would need to double."

151WH
Yes, but even if it were doubled, it would still be a relatively small amount of money in absolute terms. If we are to be involved in cutting-edge technologies, we should seriously consider a step-change in the amount of investment. I assume that it would be a lucrative industrial opportunity for those far-sighted British manufacturers and inventors who want to be involved in the programme. For example, David Ashford, who runs Bristol Space Planes, has done a great deal of work developing prototypes for single stage-to-orbit aircraft, or aerospace craft, or whatever one calls them. For a small amount of funding, a great deal more could be done. There are many other examples of that kind of opportunity.
The Government response states:
"The BNSC is a flexible and dynamic partnership."
The BNSC has been criticised, but in my dealings with it, it has always been constructive. It employs visionary individuals who are more than able to steer the Government in a strategically consistent and positive way. However, the BNSC is sometimes treated with caution by the scientific community, which is suspicious that there may be other agendas that could cause friction or act as a barrier to investment in pure scientific research. The work on near-earth objects has done much to dispel that, and I should be interested in the Minister's perception of how BNSC can further improve its links with the astronomical and space communities.
In response to the report's claim that
"UK space strategy must be sufficiently flexible to be able to react to potential future applications of space technology",
the Government said:
"The UK Space Strategy was established following extensive consultation with the space community."
That is absolutely vital, as that partnership can ensure that the Government do not repeat what happened in respect of HOTOL, which was a missed opportunity. The report also criticised the space strategy document for being limited in ambition, and I would agree with that concern.
My final comment on the report is that I would like reassurance from the Minister that we will not slip back into the small thinking that could prevent David Ashford and other such individuals from co-operating in line with the kind of strategy that the Government document has already laid out.
No space debate would be complete without my mentioning the near-earth object task force. As hon. Members know, I have spent considerable time in the past two years getting the Government to take the threat of cosmic disaster seriously. I remind hon. Members that the likelihood of an impact—sufficiently big to wipe out most of the human race, and seven tenths of life on earth—is 100 per cent. It will happen, we just do not know when. It could be before I finish speaking—in which case I apologise for the fact that my words will be the last thing that hon. Members hear—or it could be in 50 million years. My guess is that it will be somewhere between those two—[Laughter] I suppose that that is not a very daring speculation to make; I apologise for sounding so vague.
152WH
On a more serious note, there is some evidence to suggest that the last fatalities from cosmic impact in the UK took place in 1783, from when there is a reasonable amount of evidence that 16 people were killed by an unusual object from space. Dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago, and we know that species will be wiped out again in the near future—unless we take action to prevent it. Jupiter was hit in 1994 by fragments of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, and there are many other examples, which show us the certainty of the danger. One thing that worries me about the UK space policy document is that this aspect was not mentioned.
There is an industrial opportunity, as well as a scientific one. Telescope Technologies Ltd—TTL—which manufactures some of the finest telescopes in the world, and is based in Liverpool, has constructed a robotics telescope which would be perfect for the purpose of tracking what is coming in the earth's direction. Diverting the object would take international co-operation, and I have no doubt that the UK could benefit commercially, as well as scientifically, by making a commitment in principle to work on that basis now.
I raised this matter at Prime Minister's questions, and the Prime Minister requested that I be patient and wait, because there might soon be some response to the near-earth object task force report, which was published in September 2000. Can the Minister give me any more information than that? Can he give me an assurance that the Government will respond fully to the 14 recommendations of the near-earth object task force?
When I started on this project many people laughed, but I am glad to say that—aided in part by Hollywood—people now understand the danger, and actually recognise that this is not cloud cuckoo land, or empty speculation. It is scientific fact, and there is clear and present danger that the human race needs to face up to sooner or later. The UK has the expertise to play a profoundly important role, for example with Mark Bailey at the Armagh Observatory, and with Jay Tate and the many others who helped with the campaign at Spaceguard UK.
Finally, I conclude with a disappointment. I was saddened that Helen Sharman had to be taken into space by the Russians. It would have been great if we in Europe had progressed enough to be taking ourselves into space. I have much respect for the Russian space programme, but it served to highlight the fact that western Europe's manned space programme has fallen quite far behind compared with other partners.
I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the points already made about a manned mission to Mars. It would be cruel to suggest that that would present an ideal opportunity to send the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland there; none the less, it would be good to be involved in a manned space programme.
I remind hon. Members that when JFK committed the USA to sending a man to the moon, the USA had had 15 minutes of manned space flight experience. We are a lot further along the track to a manned mission to Mars, and I have no doubt that British involvement in such a project would inspire the next generation of scientists to recognise the opportunities in space technology, and the next generation of British business people to turn those opportunities into tremendous profit for UK industry.
3.40 pm
Mr Richard Page: There is no chance that a near-space object will protect the Committee from my contribution.
I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) on the report. That Committee is as near as one can get to the Public Accounts Committee, on which I sat for almost 10 years and which, as all hon. Members know, does not look at policy. It is a sign of the maturity of Select Committees that they are starting to look at policy issues without dividing into partisan groups and to make effective and constructive contributions on ways in which we can make legislation more effective in future. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry is in the forefront of that change. I value its reports, which are well worth reading.
We have all expressed our credentials—some a little more esoteric than others—and our interest in space technology. I have followed the House's space agenda for some 20 years, was fortunate enough to visit the Ariane satellite under construction, saw the space satellite farm ASTRA in Luxembourg, visited satellite construction companies in the UK and also went to Peru to see an Ariane launch—I obviously put a hex on it as it fell into the sea, which did not best please the French. I read the report with a growing feeling of nostalgia because the old issues keep coming back. The EU-ESA relationship continues, in a state of dynamic tension. The old dalliance with launches was floated delicately to us. Several of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) touched on that issue, to which we may return at the end of our debate.
The report also mentions earth observation. There is a worry about the lack of enthusiasm about taking up the data that are being produced and paying for it in the process. There is also the perennial problem of project management. The Government have made a series of sensible decisions over the years. They have not always got it all right, but they batted hard for satellite communications right at the start and that, in addition to the funding that they gave, was a valuable fillip for British industry. In particular, our IT industry did well from that boost.
With one small exception, the Government were also right about launches. I do not want to disagree too much with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), but putting the pimple called Hermes on top of an Ariane rocket and shoving two unfortunate people into space with a thermos flask of tea because that is all that could fit into the capsule—with nothing for them to do but come back when they reached their destination—was not a satisfactory use of taxpayers' money. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) rightly expressed concern about the financial viability of that operation. However, we can all agree to disagree.
The Government have a serious problem in that the Conservatives are apprehensive about politicians being able to back winners. I can now move into one of my manufacturing speeches and talk about the National Enterprise Board, which did not have a single success in picking winners. It will be seen how all this fits into a seamless whole when I advance my next point.
154WH
Space is at the cutting edge of technology; it is right at the forefront and if manufacturers get it wrong, they will go out of business. If manufacturers lose a battle, they can actually lose a war. However, countries never go out of business, although they may have hard times and may have to cut back. Therefore, when a decision is made to provide backing to this cutting edge of technology,
"to boldly go where no man has gone before",
it is incumbent on the Government to take a larger part of the risk, gradually seeing the risk diminish as commercial involvement comes in behind. Major projects that will push forward the general advancement of mankind are about the only area of government where that is applicable.
If I were to go through every single point in this excellent report, our debate would last long past the allotted three hours. I shall take up three or four points that have already been mentioned by previous speakers; indeed, if I have them noted and they have already been raised, they are probably the points that matter the most. I can only endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said. This debate is the first one on this subject in this Parliament, when the space industry is an issue that should be given the chance to canter round the course more regularly than once every six or seven years. I hope that that message is understood by the various members of the Government and the government machinery and that we have a debate on the space industry more often.
I am delighted that the Government have managed to retain the organisational arrangements that were put in place by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton when he was Minister for Science and Technology. I say that because organisations need stability—it is not necessary to see constant change to the point that an arrangement never settles down long enough for us to discover whether it works.
I also echo the point about the uncertainty of the funding arrangements over the past three years—they have been somewhat erratic. After the election, when the positions are reversed, the Conservatives will be bringing a greater stability to this funding so that people can plan ahead with greater certainty. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point about future funding, which was also made by some of my colleagues and tell us how the Government see the taxpayers' money being spent.
Mr. O'Neill: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should continue with level funding, that is to say probably 2.5 per cent. per year being sustained on the basis of the inflation target? Or is he saying that we should have stability and have an increase? Or is he saying we should have stability in the sense that we know how little we are going to get every year and it might well reduce?
There are three options, and the hon. Gentleman may wish to consult his colleagues before saying which of the three he prefers, and before making yet another spending pledge from a tax-cutting party. Those present would benefit from sharing the hon. Gentleman's thoughts.
Mr. Page: I am disappointed that, after all the nice things that I have said about him, the hon. Gentleman

155WH
has asked me nasty questions about funding. I used the word "stability" and stability would mean that we would maintain spending at the level that it is, not allow it to keep dropping down as apparently has happened over the past three to four years and, in that period of time, we would obviously carry out a review. The hon. Gentleman will know about reviews, as he comes from the party where they are as thick on the ground as snow in the Antarctic.
I am looking for stability and some ability to plan ahead knowing that there will be funding, rather than people working up enthusiasms and having the disappointment of seeing all plans cancelled. I do not think that there will be any difficulty or harm in carrying out a review of the benefit of the taxpayers' investment in space and in it having a slightly wider remit. I say this because the soon-to-be-published DTI audit will consider only the consequences of reduced or stable expenditure.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had to succumb to the temptation of mentioning the teflon frying pan; no debate on space would be complete without mentioning it, and I should like to take the matter a little further. I hope that, when the review takes place, it will be on a slightly wider basis. We have not looked right throughout the piece—for example, we have not looked to see how many meals have been saved because it is a teflon frying pan or how much food has not had to be thrown away because it was in a teflon frying pan. I do not want any hon. Member here to take me up on this too closely, as it could become a little difficult for me, but having been given the lead-in on teflon frying pans, I felt that I should just make the point that any review should be wider than the immediate consequences and benefits that appear to be flowing from whatever investment has taken place.
The DTI is conducting an assessment of civil spending in space programmes over the past decade. It is important for the House and the taxpayer to know the rate of return on that particular investment. I agree with the UK Industrial Space Committee that the value of return on the taxpayers' investment is far greater than the investment itself, because it sustains high-tech industries, that there is a spin-off of valuable property and environmental businesses, and that it is time that we were given a glimpse of what we as a nation are getting from this investment in space.
I mentioned the European Space Agency earlier and the EU, and the sense of nostalgia that things have not really got better, although there is a slight improvement. It is rather like one of these stately gavottes where there is a move, a counter-move and then another move, gradually getting closer together until, eventually, the two will start to realise that they need each other and it is just a matter of negotiating a secure and stable relationship. The implementation of the recently agreed joint European space strategy by the EU and the ESA is fundamental to achieving the full social, economic and technological benefits that flow from the space industry. Working together, we have something that will be for the benefit of everyone in the EU, and the quicker that they get together on that, the quicker the benefits will flow.
156WH
This joint strategy on applications must be seen in the context of overall benefit and the importance of space science. I just float a thought in all of this. Should we consider reforming the ESA, so that it can accept private funding as part of the natural financing of projects? It would have to be across the board and every country would have to be a player, but the introduction of private funding on a properly negotiated basis would be of benefit to everyone.
I am not going to repeat everything that is said in this report, or everything that is said generally, about earth observation, but there has been an extraordinarily slow take-up of the commercial services for such data. It has been disappointing, and the public market has clearly failed. Let us hope that the EU global system for environment and security programme will be a catalyst for driving that forward once more in improving and developing the public-user community. Although I am disappointed by progress so far, I know that earth observation is important, will still be important and will still need funding, and our earlier investment has put our industries in a good position to compete for work in the global monitoring for environment scrutiny programme.
The general difficulty is the difference between the US and ourselves. In the US, earth observation data are made available via the use of public funds, while in the UK, we think that it is better to create a commercial market for them, so people with a profit motive will try to sell them on.
That leads me to another of my concerns, on which the report touches slightly. Within the space industry, we do not pay enough attention to marketing and correctly calculating what might be the take-up of any service or of any data that might be provided. I put that failing down to our own centre, to ESA, the EU and, in many ways, to the industries themselves. Our industries make the case to the wider public and a proper marketing strategy, correctly worked out, would give greater guidance and greater confidence in progressing particular projects. I am concerned that Galileo may suffer from this lack of focus.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has outlined some of the risks. In this report, the Committee makes a fundamental criticism that
"there is an apparent lack of leadership of the UK's participation in Galileo"
and says that there is a need for the BNSC
"to ensure joined-up thinking across Government, particularly between DTI and DETR, on the Galileo programme."
The question of whether that fundamental problem has been resolved will be asked repeatedly. I hope that the Minister can tell us that joined-up government, which we were told was always going to be the hallmark of this Administration, will, even after this length of time, suddenly emerge singing from that proverbial common hymn sheet.
In turn, have the Government, along with their EU and ESA partners, been able to reach agreement with the Americans over the future of the global positioning system, because there are implications over the potential size of revenues that the Galileo programme has been estimated to attract? If those figures do not stand up, one can see the difficulties and the expenses that will arise.

157WH
The Committee was fortunate enough to attract Antonio Robota, the Director General of ESA, to speak to it on 30 January 2001. Unfortunately, I did not find him totally convincing over the timing and progress of the Galileo programme and this is of obvious and considerable concern when we have the decision of the US Government to open their GPS. Again, I hope that the Minister will say a few words on that.
It makes it that much more important, given the UK's strengths and private-public partnerships, that the UK Government should take the lead in the proposed Galileo navigation programme to ensure that it is established on a sound, long-term basis. Taking the leading role in the ESA programme will be advantageous when ESA procures the early stages of Galileo, and failure to do so might mean UK industry being locked out from the downstream phases of the programme.
We have heard emotional pleas around the Chamber about launchers. Everyone likes to see a big firework: we light the fuse, stand back and whoosh, off it goes. It is all very sexy, but we have more launchers than we can shake a stick at. The old eastern bloc countries and China have launchers, as does the Ariane project; the Americans have theirs and now there are sea-launchers from oil rigs and other platforms. Unless a convincing argument is made, we should not go anywhere near that. It might pay us, however, to examine the horizontal take-off and landing project, now SKYLON, to find out whether a re-usable launcher and sub-space transport—travelling to Sydney in just a few hours—is feasible. Lord Sainsbury is worried about us getting sucked into that programme, but that need not be so. An evaluation could be made and a proof of concept taken. A sum of between £500,000 and £1 million would be enough for the evaluation, after which no commitment or obligation on either side would apply.
I agree with the call for a more regular debate on the subject of the space industry. I also endorse the call to evaluate what we can get out of space research—we should try to get out more in the future.
4.1 pm
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) on securing the debate on the Select Committee's excellent report, which has been rightly praised from all quarters. The report's first recommendation was for a parliamentary debate on the subject. The Government welcomed that suggestion—hence today's debate.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) can rightly take credit for instigating the previous debate on the topic, all those years ago when we were all so much younger. She mentioned that she would like an annual debate. That was not the Select Committee's recommendation, but it is a splendid idea. There are such things as Opposition days and I am sure that Conservative Members will for many years have many opportunities to use those days for debates on the subject.
I want to make the Government's intentions clear on the issues surrounding this important topic. Almost all the main points are in the report. I shall also respond to some of the questions from the hon. Member for
158WH
Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) that were outside the scope of the report, but germane to the issue. I am very much a space cadet and far too passive to answer the questions raised by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor).
My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury's mix of aggression and charm has driven the agenda forward successfully over the past few years.
4.3 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.29 pm
On resuming—
Because of the quality of the contributions and the depth of experience on both sides of the Chamber on the issue, it is a great shame that Lord Sainsbury cannot respond to those points himself. It would take a major constitutional upheaval to allow that. He will be reading Hansard carefully, not least to ensure that I have made the right commitments and statements in my speech, so I had better stick fairly closely to my brief.
The Committee's inquiry has drawn attention to the valuable part which space, and more particularly satellite technologies, play today in the lives of people from all walks of life. The distribution of television channels is probably the most obvious application, but satellites are not just important to business and leisure; they are crucial to the well-being of society. It was in 1996 that the amount of money going into that industry from the private sector overtook Government investment. That was an important turning point.
I should like to illustrate the effects that new technologies are having with examples from the fishing industry, which is very important to my constituency in Hull. Before the fleet even leaves port, crews consult weather forecasts that have been compiled using satellite imagery and satellite wave measurements. Those will be updated and delivered by satellite while the ships are at sea. Earth observation satellites are used to guide the fleet to the most favourable catch locations, based on sea temperatures and, in future, actual radar sighting of the fish stocks. Other satellites may become the eyes of authorities policing the same fleets.
Fishermen now routinely enjoy the benefits of satellite navigation, satellite communications and, in times of distress, the use of satellites to relay calls to search and rescue services. Many of those services are provided commercially. Some may wonder whether it is important that any of them should be based around British technologies and supplied by British companies. The Government believe that it is and the Committee endorsed that view.
In August 1999, we set out in "UK Space Strategy 1999–2002: New Frontiers" the goals that we would pursue for the space sector. Briefly, those were to pursue scientific excellence in our space research and to deliver success in sectors with greatest commercial promise. Those objectives were fully in tune with the Government's broader aims of opening up new commercial opportunities in the knowledge-driven economy; increasing the quality of life through the application of new technologies and protection of the environment; and pursuing knowledge and enhancing

159WH
education through building on the strengths of the science and engineering base. In short, whereas formerly the policy may have been the pursuit of national glory, two criteria now drive policy: commercial success and scientific excellence.
Space is important because the annual global market for communication and navigation services is expected to catapult from $20 billion to $150 billion by the end of the decade. The UK needs to be a significant player in that market. It must run right through: from the development of satellites, ground hardware and software to the operation of satellites and their exploitation for service delivery. Those are knowledge-based businesses with high value-added aspects, particularly as one moves down the supply chain.
The UK has achieved some notable successes in the sector. The European space company ASTRIUM has selected Stevenage as the headquarters for its communications satellite manufacturing business. ASTRIUM secured orders for six satellites last year: that was more than 20 per cent. of the accessible commercial world market. All together, European satellite producers outperformed the United States suppliers in the market last year. Overall, the turnover of the UK space industry is considerably less reliant on Government expenditure than those in other European countries. That is the result of a bipartisan policy, which has avoided sinking vast sums of money into projects of national prestige.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I know that the Minister is keeping up to speed with developments in the sector, leaving Lord Sainsbury to lead it. Can he at least understand the frustration that the UK industry feels when contracts are let by the Ministry of Defence to American companies, which themselves have been driven forward by United States Department of Defense and NASA contracts? The technological breakthroughs that we would otherwise have in this country thereby go to American companies. That is a serious problem in looking after British and European industry.
Mr. Johnson: I take the point, but we have had tremendous success in that sector. We should continue to work with business to find opportunities and to ensure that we can win such contracts.
Hon. Members have made points about expenditure and the restrictions placed on British companies, which I shall try to answer in more detail at the end. In general, our approach is well respected throughout Europe. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham secured the previous Adjournment debate on the subject in 1994—I know that she will remember her words well—and talked about our taking a lead in Europe. She will accept that great advances have been made. We have had a bipartisan policy and have avoided sinking vast sums into projects of national prestige. The British space industry is lean and competitive. It is important that Government policies keep it that way.
The UK is becoming a magnet for satellite operating companies. The international satellite operator for maritime services—INMARSAT—has been located in the UK since the early 1980s. It is being joined by several
160WH
internationally mobile operators, notably the new commercial spin-offs from INMARSAT and INTELSAT. Even EuropeStar, which is a joint venture between French and United States space companies, has chosen London for its marketing operation. Clearly, the UK is a place where those companies want to do business.
We need to be able to influence the development of satellite systems at European level. They have strategic significance. The Trade and Industry Committee focused on one in particular—the Galileo global satellite navigation system. As well as exploiting the commercial opportunities that that system will present, we want to ensure that there is maximum value for European taxpayers' money. The case has not yet been made. There is further work to be done in that respect.
That goal will be achieved by involving the private sector in the programme at the earliest opportunity, but not merely as a contractor. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) touched on that point. The UK has pioneered the private sector's involvement in investment in space technology. As the Committee noted, that has not been without challenges. However, major infrastructure projects such as Galileo should go ahead only on the basis of a developing public-private partnership. Bringing in private sector disciplines and sharing risks flexibly will ensure a market-orientated programme. We do not live in a command economy. Early private sector involvement should ensure demand-led services.
I do not want to give the impression that space is only about big projects and big companies. The UK has a core of small and medium companies that display great innovation in developing sub-systems and components for spacecraft. Many are also active in the delivery of services and content by satellite.
We have one of the most competitive manufacturers of small satellites of less than 500 kg. Surrey Satellites Technology Ltd., which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, is a world leader and supplies spacecraft to the United States and French militaries and to many developing countries. It has recently launched groundbreaking nanotechnology satellites. It is a small firm, integrated into the University of Surrey, and is a prime example of what can be achieved when academic and business principles are brought together in science and engineering.
That brings me back to the way in which the UK pursues world-class science through the space programme. We do that by looking up, through astronomy and interplanetary missions, and by looking down, through environmental monitoring of the earth and its atmosphere.
Mr. O'Neill: I raised the question of funding. I recognise that the partnership principle is, by and large, desirable, but there are occasions when it appears that the insistence that the ratio be 50:50 and that one size should fit all is unduly rigid. If the Minister cannot give me an answer, perhaps he could write to me on the point. There could be circumstances in which it may be more convenient for all concerned to make the ratio 70:30 or 60:40 in the early stages of a project, when the

161WH
Government's participation may be critical in pulling in private sector partners that have been a little uncertain, or cannot afford to make the commitment.
Mr. Johnson: That is a well made point. It will be considered and perhaps I will write separately to my hon. Friend. I will come to the whole area of finance and whether we spend enough in a separate part of my contribution.
We have a strong scientific community. It develops outstanding missions and commands the respect of its international peers. I can illustrate that with an example. The American spacecraft Cassini is on its way to Titan, one of Saturn's moons. It is a shame that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire is representing the Opposition in the debate. I thought that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) might be here. I gather that he understands the issue so well that he has written a book on Saturn. Titan carries the European Space Agency lander Huygens on a seven-year journey. Between them, those spacecraft carry a total of 18 experiments. That is related to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil made about the excitement of such endeavours. There are more of them, which I will come to later.
British scientists are the principal investigators for the surface science package on the lander, but such is the strength in depth of the science community that it is also involved in a further seven experiments. A total of 11 different research groups are involved from throughout the country.
It is perhaps inevitable that the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council is a victim of its own success in fostering that community. Several Committee recommendations were critical of the research council's inability to fund all the attractive space science projects at the time that they were presented to it. The Committee was particularly concerned that another exciting development, the Beagle 2 Mars lander, should be fully funded.
I am delighted to confirm that the project is firmly on course and fully financed. Since the Committee's report, the Government have negotiated additional support from the European Space Agency for the project. Lord Sainsbury told me last night that Blur, as opposed to Blair, has recorded a track to be taken in Beagle 2 to Mars. Damien Hirst has designed something. It is an exciting project, of which we should all be proud.
It must be for PPARC to judge competing priorities for finite funds. Most of those involve long-term commitments. The Cassini-Huygens mission is an extreme example of that. There is, inevitably, only limited flexibility in the research council's budget from year to year to accommodate even relatively small proposals for additional funding. Nevertheless, the research council and the research group on Beagle 2 have been innovative in their approach. That has allowed that exciting mission to go ahead. I am sure that, when Beagle 2 lands on Mars at around Christmas 2003, it will stimulate great excitement among students and school children throughout the UK, as well as delivering its demanding scientific objectives of establishing whether conditions have ever existed on Mars for life as we understand it.
That brings me to the Committee's recommendation that the next space strategy must take account of higher education needs and the supply of graduates to the
162WH
industry. The Government recognise that space-related courses in science and engineering have the potential to attract young people. We agree that we should find ways of maximising the beacon effect that such courses can have. In that way, we will encourage more people into science and technology careers, both generally and in the space sector.
I remind hon. Members that the Government embarked on a major reinvestment in the science base. We have listened carefully to the consistent message from researchers that constantly declining budgets were beginning to damage the physical and intellectual capital of the nation. As a result, in 1998, we established the joint infrastructure fund, a groundbreaking £750 million public-private partnership with the Wellcome Trust to fund first-class research infrastructure projects. The fourth round of awards was announced in December providing £125 million of new investment. With the Wellcome Trust, we are investing £1 billion over three years in the science research investment fund, ensuring world-class facilities for world-class science, keeping Britain at the forefront of scientific advances.
We have announced a major package of Government investment in science that includes escalating increases to the science budget amounting to £725 million over the next three years. That represents an average year-on-year growth in real terms of 7 per cent. That will significantly improve our position in the science world and help our industry to compete internationally and to push back the boundaries of technology. We are proud of the long-term commitment to science and engineering that that represents.
Such was the task facing this Administration that it has been essential to prioritise even within those substantial sums. It has not proved possible to increase the £45 million or so that the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council invests in space research. The research council has, however, benefited from the new funding for ground-based astronomy and the new synchrotron.
As I said earlier, the scientific uses of satellites are no longer confined to looking outwards from our planet. Environmental science has benefited greatly from the ability of satellites to provide global information on the earth, its oceans and atmosphere. UK scientists have been the most successful in Europe in obtaining observing time on the European Space Agency satellites ERS 1 and ERS 2. That is a result of their high-quality research proposals.
In July this year, ENVISAT, the agency's environment satellite, will be launched. That is a highly complex satellite with some 10 different instruments, including the advanced along-track scanning radiometer. That is being funded by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in order to provide a continuous long-term series of sea-surface temperatures. That will shed much-needed light on the issue of global warming.
The agency now has the support of its member states for a continuous programme of environmental research to follow on from those one-off missions. The UK has been highly influential in determining new ways of working in that programme. There will be considerable flexibility between missions of different costs and sizes.

163WH
The researchers will work much more closely with the industrial teams developing the satellite, so that better cost-benefit trade-offs are made. We anticipate gains in both the effectiveness and efficiency of the mission.
The first mission to be selected under those new arrangements was a study of the ice sheets, another important element in understanding global warming. That was chosen in competition and the scientific proposals were led by a team from University College London. That is a further example of the excellence of British science in space.
I shall pick up some of the issues that have been raised in the debate. I have thought further about what my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil said about 50:50 funding, which is an important point. In addition to the letter, I can say to him now, as a result of very swift deliberation on my part, that in developing public-private partnerships—Galileo, for example—we will approach the issues flexibly. It is important to introduce private sector disciplines from the start, although exactly how to do this will vary between each project.
My hon. Friend also talked about military uses. I think that he described that as "throwing a grenade" into the debate. He will know that ESA is a civil space agency, funded for civil space purposes. However, civil defence synergy, especially in telecommunications and navigation, plus some other military links, should be considered. Obviously it would need to be considered in co-operation with other member states.
My hon. Friend, like other contributors to the debate, also mentioned launchers. On that subject I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, as I do on many issues in this debate. There really seems to be a consensus on how to proceed. The question of launchers was fully discussed by the space community before the conclusions on the space strategy were reached in 1998, after extensive consultation. The problem is that those in the space community themselves were not convinced of the argument on launchers. It is important that those who wish to take the UK back into the launcher market recognise that they failed to persuade the space community when we had a very comprehensive debate on the issue. They failed to persuade the Government to reverse the decision of a decade earlier, and I do not think that that was the fault of the British National Space Centre; I simply think that the facts do not support the case.
Mr. Öpik: It is important to say that by the same token, the technology that has been available to the UK has at times been exceptional, and there are many of us who still feel that HOTOL was an enormous opportunity that was missed by the United Kingdom industry and Government.
Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman makes that point for the record. We believe that the case has not been made. Several contributors have asked about funding, and whether we should spend more on space. As the hon. Member for Esher and Walton reminded the House, the UK chose not to be involved in the development of the international space station. Several Members have also pointed out that we have not
164WH
invested significantly in the Ariane 5 programme. Between them, those programmes account for a large slice of European space expenditure. For other programmes—scientific and commercial satellites and so on—the UK budget is comparable with those of our international partners.
When the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire was speaking in response to a mischievous intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil—who has a degree in mischievous interventions—on spending pledges, he said that the Opposition would maintain current expenditure, and would not make the cuts that had been made previously. If one says that one will maintain current expenditure, one is accepting that expenditure has been brought to the right level. There has been a reduction, but one based on ensuring that we are getting value for money for the British taxpayer. For the future, we intend to keep to the present budget. In terms of this Government's record, that has been money well spent; the BNSC has given us value for money.
Mrs. Gillan: This is an important part of the Minister's speech. He is in effect saying that he rejects the recommendation of the Select Committee, which said:
"There will need to be an increase in the UK Government's expenditure on civil space over the next planning period."
I presume that what he says today also supersedes the Government's response, because I appreciate that that was produced last year, before the figures were available. I also presume that he is basing what he says on a new set of figures, which I would very much like to have set out, both for my benefit and for that of other hon. Members. Even in the evidence, John Haynes, who is the chairman of UKISC, said that there had been a decrease in funding in real terms. I need to reassure myself and the rest of the space industry that there will not be more decreases in funding, and the situation needs to be spelt out.
Mr. Johnson: We will stick to the response to the Select Committee, and we will review the issue. The hon. Lady has to recognise, for reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, who has some experience of these issues, that my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury fights hard to maintain the budget, and we will be looking to maintain it. As we said in our response to the report, there is a case for examining all the issues very carefully. In advance of that review, we believe, as has been reaffirmed by the Opposition spokesman, that the expenditure is about right at this moment, but we will take into account the important points that were made by the Select Committee.
Mr. Page: The Minister is giving a mixed message. One moment we are going to maintain the budget and the next moment we are going to fight hard to maintain it. Do those two statements have the same meaning? Is the Minister needlessly creating doubt?
Mr. Johnson: I am merely explaining what happens in every spending review. It is a fact of life, for reasons that have been set out. It is an important feature of the Select Committee's report and our response to it—and of the

165WH
debate—that they lift the profile of the issue and make clear the commercial advantages to Britain of further development in the area.
Mr. O'Neill: Perhaps my hon. Friend could clarify a point for me. I understand that we produced our report in July, that the Government responded in October and that the three-yearly public expenditure review has been published. All the contributing Departments know what resources they have. Is my hon. Friend telling us that the BNSC has conducted an assessment of what is to be spent, or is he saying that that is still going on, and that we do not yet know whether it will be in excess of the £181.19 million spent in the year 1999–2000? Is that figure still being negotiated? My hon. Friend has not made that clear to us.
Mr. Johnson: My understanding is that we are still reviewing all the points made by the Committee, some of which could lead to greater expenditure. We do not believe that there is a case for reducing the budget, but nor do we believe that the argument that we are not spending enough in this area is sustainable.
Mrs. Gillan: As we have plenty of time for debate, I hope that the Minister will not mind my pursuing another point. Perhaps he will seek inspiration before answering, because I appreciate that he is not the leading Minister on this subject—although he is doing a sterling job in replacing Lord Sainsbury. I hope that the day will come when we can bring Ministers who are in the House of Lords to this Chamber and question them directly. Can the Minister allay our fears by telling us how long the review process is, and when we can expect a final outcome? In their response to the Select Committee report, dated 24 October, the Government said that decisions had yet to be taken following the conclusion of the annual spending round, but that the evaluation would be completed later that year—that is, last year. That timetable seems to have been pushed out further. Can we have reassurances on that—if not verbal ones now, in writing later?
Mr. Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady for understanding the need for a little time to think about the issue. Spending plans for the next three years are not yet published and are therefore not finalised in detail. This debate and the other representations made to us have enabled us to consider the issue further. That is probably the best that I can say.
Mr. Page rose—
Mr. Johnson: If the hon. Member insists on intervening again, I will of course give way.
Mr. Page: I just want to make sure that I have summarised the Minister's position accurately. Am I correct in saying that he is committed to sustaining existing levels and will fight hard to do so, that there are no fixed spending plans agreed, and that the Government will consider the various recommendations for increased expenditure made by the Select Committee?
Mr. Johnson: If I can summarise the hon. Gentleman's point, the spending plans for the next three years have not yet been published, so we have not finalised the budget in detail.
I want to pick up the other point about the BNSC, which was the subject of one of the recommendations; my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil mentioned "ad hocery"—a term used in the Committee's recommendations—in that regard.
I think that the BNSC is an example of joined-up thinking, because if a separate agency were established, other Departments would have to be involved in a co-ordinating committee, whereas Departments actually work together in a single organisation. As far as I know, the BNSC offers a unique example of how such an arrangement can work. As the hon. Member for Esher and Walton said—I am sorry to keep mentioning him in this debate, but he does have considerable experience in the area—although there are problems, they are the problems of a system that is far better than an agency that would then have to co-ordinate different Government Departments. The present system encourages co-operation and breaks down artificial barriers. The success of our approach can be seen in our ability to influence the European debate over the past three years.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has a great interest in this issue and made some important points, one of which was about near-earth objects—the subject of a debate that he instigated a couple of years ago. We have not made our full response to the task force on near-earth objects. We expect to announce our response to its recommendations before too long, and the hon. Gentleman has done a great service in drawing attention to the issue through the Adjournment debate that he secured.
The risk of collision is extremely low, but the consequences could be very significant on a global scale. I agree with him that such an event could happen either in the next second or in 17 million years' time. Like him too, I think that it will be somewhere in between. Action to increase the detection of near-earth objects with the potential to collide should therefore be addressed internationally. That is what the hon. Gentleman said, and we agree with him.
On manned space flight, space stations and life sciences, the Government are supporting several research groups who wish to conduct experiments in space. Astronauts undoubtedly attract public attention to space, but putting people into space is extremely expensive, harks back to the old criteria of obtaining national glory, and cannot be an end in itself. We keep an open mind on the commercial and scientific opportunities that the space station may offer.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire talked about private funding for ESA. At the last Ministerial Council we encouraged the director general of ESA to come forward with proposals that would allow the agency to participate in public-private partnerships. Galileo and GMES—global monitoring for environment and security—are two programmes in which private funding may be involved. Public funding from other bodies is an alternative source; that is a relevant point, which we pursued as recently as December, I believe, when the last meeting took place.

167WH
If I have not managed to respond to every point that was raised, I hope that I have at least managed to add to the gaiety of the nation in my response and covered most of the major points.
In summary, the Government found the Committee's report a valuable opportunity to move space up the political agenda, we have welcomed the constructive recommendations in the Committee's tenth report, we believe that the space programme is delivering excellence in science and that that is underpinning a vibrant and innovative commercial sector. We continue to achieve more for less from the programme as we introduce new management methods and attract new external sources of funding.
Mrs. Gillan: I may have missed a reference to it, but one of the responses to the Committee's recommendations was the annual publication of
168WH
"UK Space Activities". Can the Minister give us an idea during which month in each of the years to come we can expect to read that great document?
Mr. Johnson: I am afraid I cannot, but I will drop a note to the hon. Lady when I have had the benefit of talking to Lord Sainsbury, so that she gets quality information rather than—[Interruption.] I have just remembered in a blinding flash of inspiration that that document will be published in March this year. I shall look forward to reading it as much as the hon. Lady will.
In conclusion, I believe that Members of the House would not expect anything less than the approach we are adopting to using public funds and getting good value for money. This has been an important debate, and has probably been more enlightening for me than for the other Members present. Again, I congratulate the Trade and Industry Select Committee on an excellent report.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Five o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98, (g) 1998–99, (h) 1999–2000 and (i) 2000–01, (I) his Department's total spending on quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues by focus groups, opinion polling, task forces or other means and (II) the cost of each individual project. [146582]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on task forces, including reports produced, is updated and published every six months.

  Employment Agency Regulations
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish a revised draft of the Employment Agency Regulations. [148636]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have today released a final draft of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations and will be consulting representative bodies. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and also on my Department's website www.dti.gov.uk. I have invited comments to be made by 16 March.

  Car Industry (Government Assistance)
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government assistance has been provided to(a) General Motors and (b) Vauxhall Motors in the UK in the past five years. [148142]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  (a) No Government assistance has been provided to General Motors in the last five years.

  (b) Vauxhall Motors have received a total of £10 million Regional Selective Assistance. This was a single offer in support of a project to modernise the Ellesmere Port plant and introduce the new Astra model in 1997. All the grant has been fully drawn down by the company.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ex-miners from(a) Scotland and (b) the UK claiming compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema have died before their claims were fully processed; and how many claims have been fully processed to date. [148211]
  252W
  Mr. Hain
  The Department's claim handling agents, IRISC, have registered a total of 6,802 claims by former miners who have died and where the date of death is after the date of claim. Of these 656 were Scottish claimants. In all these cases the claims will be continued by the claimant's widow or dependants. In addition, where the claimant's death certificate shows that one of the respiratory diseases for which British Coal were found liable either caused or materially contributed to the death, the Department will also make bereavement or loss of society awards. The Department has made 4,650 bereavement or loss of society awards, totalling £38.7 million. Of these 258, totalling £2 million, were Scottish claimants.

  The Department has settled some 7,080 claims in full, with payments totalling £25 million. Of these some 585 settlements, totalling £1.6 million, were to Scottish claimants. In addition the Department has made some 25,000 interim settlements, totalling £83.5 million, with some 2,000 payments, totalling £5.5 million, made to Scottish claimants.

  In total the Department paid out £21.6 million in coal mining compensation to Scottish respiratory and vibration white finger claimants.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners in Amber Valley have(a) claimed and (b) received payments in compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. [147389]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department's claim handling agents, IRISC, have registered 1,945 claims in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema from claimants in Amber Valley. As at 24 January the Department had settled 106 claims in full, and made a further 219 interim settlements. In total the Department has paid out nearly £1 million in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema related compensation in Amber Valley.

  Arms Exports
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the process of indirect offset with regard to Arms export licences. [147594]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  Offset (both direct and indirect) is a matter between the customer and the supplier. For the criteria for export licensing, I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave on 26 October 2000, Official Report, columns 199–203W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt).

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Homes and Leasehold Reform Bills
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on which dates the Minister for the Environment attended departmental meetings to discuss(a) the Homes Bill and (b) the Leasehold Reform Bill. [147444]
  253W
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Information about internal meetings and advice is not disclosed under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions municipal solid waste incinerators have been found to be operating in breach of conditions on their operation imposed by(a) planning consents and (b) pollution control consents in each of the last five years; and what assessment was made of the potential damage to the health of local residents in each case. [147506]

  Mr. Meacher
  Planning Consents: The Department does not keep a central record of breaches of planning consent conditions. It is the responsibility of the local planning authority that imposed the planning conditions to assess the effect of any that are breached and to take any necessary action.

  Pollution Control Consents: Within the UK, municipal solid waste incinerators (MSWIs) are regulated under part 1 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 by the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, the Environment and Heritage Service in Northern Ireland and local authorities. In England and Wales, the Environment Agency is responsible for regulating MSWIs with a capacity of one tonne per hour or more under the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) regime.

  The table summarises the numbers of breaches of emission limits to air from MSWIs currently operating in England and Wales under the IPC regime. The table does not include breaches of limits in the period 1 January to 1 December 1996 for MSWIs that closed following the implementation of the Council Directive on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste incineration plants.

  All operators of MSWIs are required by their authorisations to inform the Agency of any breaches of emission limit values or failures of equipment that could result in a breach. On receipt of these notifications the Agency assesses the cause and the potential effect on the environment and health. Where enforcement action is necessary the Agency follows its Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. I understand that to date there have been no breaches of limits that have warranted a detailed study of the impact on health, as the Agency has determined that the potential impact would be negligible. However, should an emission limit be exceeded in the future to the extent that the impact is not likely to be negligible, the Agency has assured me that it would take appropriate enforcement action and study the potential effects.

  Numbers of breaches of emission limit values for MSWIs between January and December for the period 1996–2000

  Air

  1996–98 (annual average)

  1999

  2000

  HCl

  302 (101)

  142

  60

  SO2

  11 (4)

  42

  13

  NOx

  34 (12)

  29

  27

  CO

  65 (22)

  107

  41

  254W

  Numbers of breaches of emission limit values for MSWIs between January and December for the period 1996–2000

  Air

  1996–98 (annual average)

  1999

  2000

  Particulate matter

  16 (6)

  3

  5

  Metals

  0

  1

  0

  HF

  1 (0.3)

  0

  0

  Dioxins

  0

  0

  0

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what length of time he will allow for the completion of the mapping exercises required by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [147702]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has a Public Service Agreement target to open up public access to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land by the end of 2005. The Countryside Agency has a duty under the Act to prepare and consult on statutory maps of open country and registered common land in England. This is a major task. The Agency plans to map region by region and aims to complete the mapping process by September 2004.

  We are considering with the Agency the possibility of early commencement of the right, either on a region-by-region basis, or for mountains over 600 m and registered common land.

  GM Products
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the European Parliament's decision to allow the European Commission to start issuing new licences for GM products to go on to the market in Europe from February. [147579]

  Mr. Meacher
  The European Parliament has taken no such decision. The placing on the market of products consisting of or containing GMOs within the European Community is governed by Directive 90/220/EEC. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are currently considering a revision to this Directive under Community co-decision procedures. In accordance with these procedures, the Parliament and the Council are required to take a decision by 14 February 2001 on whether to adopt the text of a revised Directive approved jointly by a Conciliation Committee of the two institutions on 20 December 2000. On the assumption the revised Directive is adopted as currently drafted, member states and the Commission will continue to have joint responsibility, as they have under the existing directive, for taking decisions on the authorisation of the placing on the market of products controlled by the Directive. Such decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, including detailed assessment of the measures necessary to avoid any adverse effects on human health and the environment that might arise from the authorisation of a particular product.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the estimated number of motor vehicles abandoned in the Greater London area during the month of November 2000; and if he will make a statement. [147839]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Department holds no central records of the number of vehicles identified as abandoned. Abandoned vehicles in the Greater London area are the responsibility of the London borough councils and the Corporation of London under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what talks have taken place with provisional bidders for NATS in regard to extra capacity and aircraft movements in British airports. [148190]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Bidders for the NATS PPP are required to submit a long-term strategic plan covering all aspects of NATS business, including proposals for meeting the challenge of increasing demand for airspace capacity.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the consultants advising the Government on the sale of NATS. [148167]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The following consultants are employed by the Government in connection with the NATS PPP:

  Credit Suisse First Boston

  Slaughter and May

  Deloitte and Touche

  Ove Arup and Logica

  Real Time Engineering

  Enviros Aspinwall

  Insignia Richard Ellis

  PricewaterhouseCoopers.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has had from the IPMS concerning the possibility of industrial action involving air traffic controllers. [148145]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  None.

  Private Property Owners (Local Authority Licensing Scheme)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to consult on proposals for legislation to give powers to local authorities to set up schemes for selective licensing of private property owners. [148052]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 129W.

  Rate Relief (Sports Clubs)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the annual cost is of giving mandatory rate relief at 50 per cent. to voluntary sports clubs in England; [147887]

  (2) how many voluntary sports clubs in England during 1998–99 received discretionary rate relief; and at what level; [147888]

  (3) how many voluntary sports clubs in (a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland are listed with the relevant agency responsible for the collection of rateable values; [147890]

  (4) how many sports clubs in England will benefit from the mandatory rate relief and discretionary relief proposals published in the Green Paper on the Local Government Finance Bill; [147894]

  (5) how many voluntary clubs in England have a rateable value of under (a) £3,000 and (b) £8,000. [147895]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 31 January 2001]: The rating lists do not record the use of property as a voluntary sports club as distinct from other sports clubs, so the information is not available in the form requested. The rating lists for England include around 16,000 sports properties, including those used by voluntary clubs as well as professional and commercial sports bodies. The equivalent information requested regarding Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland relates to a devolved matter and as such is for the relevant devolved administration to provide.

  Of the 16,000 sports properties in England, around 7,500 have rateable values of under £3,000 and a further 4,000 have rateable values above £3,000 and below £8,000.

  Under the proposals in our Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance", mandatory rate relief would be available to all small businesses and non-profit making bodies in England. All 11,500 sports properties with rateable values below £8,000 would be eligible for the relief, the amount depending on their size. 7,500 sports properties with rateable values below £3,000 would be eligible for 50 per cent. mandatory relief. 3,000 properties with rateable values between £3,000 and £6,000 would be eligible for mandatory relief between 50 per cent. and 20 per cent. 1,000 properties with rateable values between £6,000 and £8,000 would be eligible for mandatory relief of less than 20 per cent., tapering to no mandatory relief above £8,000. Mandatory relief would be available to all non-profit making sports clubs, as well as commercial or professional clubs that met other tests of being a small business, as proposed in the Green Paper. We are currently considering responses to the Green Paper and will announce the final details of the proposed scheme in a White Paper later this year.

  All non-profit making sports clubs are currently eligible for 100 per cent. discretionary relief and would continue to be so under the Green Paper proposals, both to top up any mandatory relief and for those clubs over the size threshold for mandatory relief. Information on the number of voluntary sports clubs eligible for discretionary relief is not held centrally.
  257W
  To give 50 per cent. mandatory relief to all 16,000 sports properties in England would cost around £35 million in 2000–01. This includes commercial and professional bodies as well as voluntary clubs, as information on voluntary clubs is not available separately. This figure does not take account of any discretionary relief which is already given to non-profit making sports clubs, nor of any transitional or other reliefs which may apply to any of these properties.

  English local authorities estimate the total cost of discretionary rate relief to all non-profit making bodies at £24.5 million in 2000–01. This includes relief for non-profit making sports clubs as well as other philanthropic, educational, social, scientific, literary or fine arts bodies, excluding those which are charities. Information on how much of this was for voluntary sports clubs and the level of relief given to each club is not recorded centrally. Information is not readily available for 1998–99.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the results of the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the administrative burden on voluntary sports clubs through the Green Paper on Local Government Finance. [147893]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 31 January 2001]: We will publish the Regulatory Impact Assessment of the proposals for rate relief for small businesses and other non-profit making bodies including sports clubs in due course. If the relief were to apply to all non-profit making bodies within certain rateable value thresholds, as we currently propose, we would expect the additional burden on clubs in making an application to be minimal, and no more than is currently involved in apply for discretionary rate relief.

  Council Housing (Voluntary Stock Transfers)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the council housing stock voluntary transfers which(a) have taken place since 1997 and (b) are proposed by local authority, indicating the number of housing units involved in each case; [148261]

  (2) how many voluntary transfers of council housing stock have taken place since 1997; and how many more are proposed; [148259]

  (3) how many housing units on average were involved in each voluntary transfer of council stock since 1997. [148260]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  There have been 75 large scale voluntary transfers of council housing stock since 1997 involving 259,659 dwellings; an average of 3,462 dwellings per transfer. A further 14 are pending involving 124,633 dwellings. The tables show transfers which(a) have taken place since 1997 and (b) are proposed indicating the number of dwellings involved in each case.
  258W

  All housing stock voluntary transfers which have taken place since 1997

  Local authority

  Number of dwellings

  Cotswold DC

  4,282

  South Staffs C

  5,273

  Lichfield DC

  4,921

  South Oxfordshire DC

  5,018

  Eden C

  1,510

  LB Lambeth—Moorlands

  515

  LB Bexley

  4,118

  LB Bexley

  4,097

  Congleton BC

  4,061

  Oldham BC—Limehurst

  642

  Liverpool CC—Windermere

  493

  LB Merton—Pollards Hill

  1,018

  LB Tower Hamlets—Poplar I

  1,852

  Kerrier DC

  3,732

  LB Hackney—Kingsmead

  951

  LB Brent—Fortunegate/Church End

  1,481

  Basildon DC—Vange

  708

  West Somerset DC

  1,869

  Stoke-on-Trent CC—Bentilee

  917

  Tewkesbury BC

  3,066

  Rother DC

  3,058

  LB Lambeth—Lansdowne Green

  681

  LB Tower Hamlets—Poplar II

  2,431

  Wirral—Leasowe

  1,082

  Tameside—West Ashton

  901

  West Devon BC

  1,446

  South Somerset DC

  8,883

  East Lindsey DC

  5,102

  Liverpool CC—Pinehurst

  646

  Manchester CC

  1,030

  LB Hackney—Morningside

  1,084

  South Hams DC

  3,096

  LB Hammersmith and Fulham—Old Oak

  668

  LB Hackney—Upper Clapton

  1,000

  Telford and Wrekin C

  13,081

  LB Enfield

  1,194

  Worthing BC

  2,525

  Bath and North East Somerset C

  9,887

  Manchester CC—East Wythenshawe

  6,667

  LB Greenwich—Charlton Triangle

  1,280

  LB Hackney—Haggerston

  661

  Allerdale BC

  3,704

  Allerdale BC—Salterbeck

  727

  Preston BC—Avenham

  1,121

  LB Lambeth—Central Stockwell

  2,358

  Birmingham CC—Central areas

  2,813

  LB Islington—Barnsbury

  647

  LB Islington—10 estates

  739

  Liverpool CC—Speke Garston

  4,382

  West Lindsey DC

  3,929

  LB Lambeth—St. Martins

  1,033

  Boston BC

  4,871

  Tynedale DC

  3,564

  Newcastle Under Lyme BC

  9,887

  Restormel BC

  3,577

  Manchester CC—Colshaw Farm

  600

  North Devon DC

  3,293

  LB Hackney—Stamford Hill

  1,095

  LB Hackney—Pembury Estate

  1,241

  Burnley

  5,330

  Manchester CC—Sale Estate

  1,655

  Weymouth and Portland

  3,105

  Huntingdon

  6,650

  Elmbridge

  4,894

  Test Valley

  5,495

  Wyre Forest DC

  6,056

  Manchester CC—Whitefield Estate

  1,033

  LB Tower Hamlets—THCH

  1,551

  Tameside

  8,532

  MBC

  7,934

  Richmond

  7,139

  Coventry

  20,125

  259W

  All housing stock voluntary transfers which have taken place since 1997

  Local authority

  Number of dwellings

  Fylde

  1,905

  Chester

  7,096

  Horsham

  4,650

  Number of authorities

  259,659

  Average

  3,462

  Proposed voluntary transfers of council housing stock

  Local authority

  Number of dwellings

  East Northants

  3,540

  Blackburn and Darwen

  10,218

  Manchester CC—Knutsford estates

  464

  Manchester CC—Handforth estates

  664

  Chichester

  5,510

  West Oxfordshire

  3,884

  Mendip

  4,544

  Torbay

  2,975

  West Wiltshire

  3,965

  Staff Moorlands

  3,247

  East Staffordshire

  5,859

  Walsall

  28,195

  Calderdale MBC

  13,066

  Sunderland

  38,502

  Total

  124,633

  Average

  8,902

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of planning appeals in 2000 were determined by(a) a written inquiry, (b) a full inquiry lasting less than two days and (c) a full inquiry lasting more than two days; and what the average cost of an inquiry was in each category. [147441]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Figures are listed for the three appeals procedures. Hearings do not normally take longer than one day.

  Year 2000

  Total number

  Percentage of number decided

  Planning appeals1 received

  14,962

  —

  Planning appeals decided

  12,602

  —

  by written representations

  9,197

  73

  by hearings

  2,573

  20

  by inquiries (2 days or less)

  626

  5

  by inquiries (more than 2 days)

  206

  2

  1Appeals under s.78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  The following unit costs have been calculated by the Planning Inspectorate in each category for the financial year ending 31 March 2000. (Figures for the calendar year 2000 are not readily available).

  £

  Planning appeals determined by

  Average unit cost

  Written representations

  1,047

  Hearing

  2,135

  Inquiry

  5,618

  Water and Recreation Sport
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to award a research contract about access to water for sport and recreation. [148635]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  We are today letting a contract to a consortium led by the University of Brighton to establish the facts about participation. The research will also provide information about availability of water space, the effectiveness of current arrangements in meeting the demand for different types of water-based sport and recreation and the scale and nature of potential demand.

  Lorries
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when 44-tonne lorries will be allowed to operate generally in Great Britain. [148632]

  Mr. Hill
  The necessary Regulations (Statutory Instrument SI 2000 No. 3224—The Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) (Amendment) Regulations 2000)—will come into force on 1 February. The regulations will allow certain types of lorry to operate at up to 44-tonnes maximum weight in Great Britain. The lorries in question must have six axles, a maximum axle weight of 10.5 tonnes and Euro 2 low emission engines. These vehicles will result in a considerable saving in lorry miles where heavy goods are being carried and will be no bigger, and cause less road wear, than existing 40-tonne, 5 axle lorries.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Moluccas
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's response to continuing unrest in the Moluccas. [147689]

  Mr. Battle
  We continue to urge the Indonesian Government to exercise tolerance and restraint and remind them of their responsibility to maintain law and order and take immediate steps to bring the perpetrators of the violence to justice. I did so most recently with Foreign Minister Shihab on 12 December.

  Our Ambassador to Indonesia has just returned from a visit to the province and the Indonesian Minister for Settlement is arranging a further visit to Maluku with a group of diplomats next month. We will continue to work with the Indonesian authorities and UNDP to promote reconciliation, begin wider construction work and to offer practical assistance where appropriate.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Gibraltar with the Spanish Government; and what specific issues were considered. [147840]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Secretary of State met the Spanish Foreign Minister, Sr Pique, in London on 24 January. They considered a wide range of EU and international
  261W
  issues, as well as a number of Gibraltar related questions, including HMS Tireless, border delays, telephone numbers, the Brussels Process, aviation and the European Parliament franchise.

  Nice Treaty
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters and postcards addressed to Her Majesty the Queen on the subject of the Nice Treaty have been passed on to him. [148005]

  Mr. Vaz
  About 850, as of 30 January.

  Entry Clearance System
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit India to examine the functioning of the entry clearance system. [148634]

  Mr. Vaz
  I plan to visit India and Bangladesh to inaugurate our new Visa Information Posts later this year.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Africa to examine the functioning of the entry clearance system. [148714]

  Mr. Vaz
  I plan to visit Entry Clearance Posts in Africa later on this month.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his oral answer of 23 January 2000,Official Report, column 790, what the response was of the Turkish Ambassador concerning the bombing of a cattle feed factory at Samarwa and the killing of Iraqi cowherds. [148151]

  Mr. Vaz
  I plan to speak to the Turkish Ambassador today. I will then be in touch with my hon. Friend to arrange a meeting to discuss these matters.

DEFENCE

  HMS Tireless
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where HMS Tireless is to be repaired. [148207]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 64W.

  Services Training
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent in the last 12 months for training by the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Marines, (c) Army and (d) RAF in the United Kingdom; and what proportion of these totals are spent in Scotland. [147014]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: Our latest best estimates for the amounts spent on individual training by the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army and RAF in the last 12 months are respectively: £233 million, £39 million, £422 million and £446 million. These figures
  262W
  are approximate and exclude the costs of front-line collective training which are difficult to separate from normal day-to-day operations.

  Of the figures above, £869 million was spent by the Services' Training Agencies. It is estimated that just over 1 per cent. of this sum was spent in Scotland. The balance of £291 million, which represents the cost of training conducted outside the Services' Training Agencies, is not broken down on a regional basis, and figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Operation Palliser
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the conclusions and recommendations were of the investigation into specific medical problems arising from Operation Palliser announced by his Department on 15 June 2000; if he will publish the report; and if he will make a statement. [147585]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: I will write to the hon. Member and enclose a copy of the press release which was issued by the Ministry of Defence on 25 July 2000. This gave a comprehensive report of the conclusions and recommendations of the three Service Boards of Inquiry.

  A background paper summarising the findings of the Service Boards of Inquiry, which was sent to the House of Commons Defence Committee on the same day, is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Saturn Electronic Protection Measure
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the new advanced electronic countermeasures Saturn System will be in service; what the service life of the system is; if it is compatible with all the NATO nations aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [148103]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Saturn Electronic Protection Measure (EPM) is the latest in the EPM generation and is already in service. It was introduced to meet NATO Stanag (Standardisation Agreement) requirements and will be in service for the foreseeable future. It is compatible with other NATO Saturn capable platforms.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many depleted uranium shells have been fired by United Kingdom armed forces in conflict, broken down by campaign. [148160]

  Mr. Spellar
  United Kingdom armed forces have used depleted uranium (DU) rounds in conflict only during Operation Granby in the Gulf in 1991. The Ministry of Defence's assessment is that UK tanks used fewer than one hundred 120 mm rounds against Iraq's military forces during hostilities (this equates to less than one metric tonne of DU).

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the liability for compensation arising from personal injury by armed forces personnel
  263W
  who have suffered medical problems as a result of deployment to Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [148146]

  Dr. Moonie
  It would be inappropriate to disclose information about my Department's estimated financial liability while claims for compensation remain to be settled. I am withholding the information requested under exemption 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, I can say that 15 claims for compensation have been received from members of HM forces who contracted malaria as a result of deployment to Sierra Leone. In only one of these cases does my Department accept that the claim is valid.

HEALTH

  BSE
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if post mortem tests for BSE carried out in EU countries are carried out before the carcase is dressed. [141720]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: No. The test sample is taken after the head has been removed and the carcase will be dressed before the test is carried out. It will be detained until the test result is known.

  Health Service Employees (East Somerset)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) doctors were employed by (i) East Somerset NHS Trust and (ii) Taunton NHS Trust for each year since 1990–91. [144599]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: The latest information available is shown in the table.

  National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services: All doctors and all nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff excluding learners within East Somerset NHS Trust and Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust as at 30 September for each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  Taunton NHS Trust

  Nurses

  Doctors1

  Nurses

  Doctors1

  1991

  950

  70

  1,380

  130

  1992

  640

  90

  1,430

  140

  1993

  630

  80

  1,510

  150

  1994

  660

  80

  1,560

  170

  1995

  700

  90

  1,330

  190

  1996

  580

  80

  1,220

  190

  1997

  580

  110

  1,130

  210

  1998

  600

  110

  1,080

  230

  1999

  600

  120

  1,140

  230

  1Data relating to the years prior to 1995 should be handled with caution owing to potential understatements of the number of staff returned by the organisation.

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Owing to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Trusts were first formed in 1991. Prior to this, data to this level were not available.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Fluoride
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the release of fluoride into a patient's mouth through the use of slow-release fluoride dressings during dental treatment requires the prior consent of the patient. [147417]

  Mr. Hutton
  For children and adults the consent required from the patient or from a person with parental responsibility would be the same as that for any other dental treatment.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use by NHS dentists of products intended to be placed in the mouths of patients that release fluoride over an extended period of time. [147837]

  Mr. Hutton
  I understand these treatments are at an experimental stage. Full evaluation would be necessary before consideration could be given to making the products generally available to National Health Service patients.

  Medical School Training Places
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra medical school training places will be created in each year from 2001 to 2004 expressed in the same terms as the figures in the NHS Plan; and if he will make a statement. [147555]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: Following our announcement in 1998 that the annual intake of medical students in the United Kingdom should be increased by about 1,000, medical school intake in England is planned to rise as follows as set out in the table.

  Academic year

  Actual and planned increases in intakes

  1999–2000

  223

  2000–01

  289

  2001–02

  273

  2002–03

  273

  2003–04

  22

  Work on the planned further increase of up to 1,000 places set out in the NHS Plan is being taken forward by a Joint Implementation Group (JIG) which includes representatives of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Department and the General Medical Council. The joint implementation group will make recommendations to the HEFCE Board, which is responsible for the allocation of medical student places to higher education institutions (HEIs) in England.

  The JIG invited all HEIs in England to submit proposals to provide these extra places in September 2000. The group is currently considering the proposals that have been submitted and will make recommendations to the HEFCE in due course.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require newly established primary care trusts to use the current drug tariff arrangements. [R] [147757]
  265W
  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: The prices set out in the Drug Tariff apply to prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacies, dispensing doctors and appliance contractors, or personally administered by general practitioners, under Part II of the National Health Service Act 1977. Primary care trusts are not responsible for administering these arrangements. They do not apply to any other arrangements which may be made locally for the supply of medicines, appliances or other items.

  Hospitals (Kent)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of stay was for in-patients at(a) the William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, (b) the Kent and Canterbury Hospital and (c) the QEQM Hospital, Margate, for each month from September to December 2000 inclusive. [148143]

  Ms Stuart
  The table shows the average duration of an in-patient spell by month of discharge at East Kent Hospitals National Health Service Trust for 1999–2000:

  Days

  Month of discharge

  Mean duration of in-patient stay

  April

  3

  May

  4

  June

  4

  July

  4

  August

  4

  September

  3

  October

  4

  November

  4

  December

  4

  January

  4

  February

  4

  March

  4

  Notes:

  1. 1999–2000 is the latest year for which data are available.

  2. Data are collected by provider, and are not available for individual hospitals within an NHS trust.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bedded patients there were in accident and emergency departments awaiting operations on Monday 29 January in(a) the William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, (b) the Kent and Canterbury Hospital and (c) the QEQM Hospital, Margate. [148144]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not held centrally but should be available from the Chair of the East Kent Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average mileage was travelled on National Health Service business by(a) hospital consultants and doctors and (b) hospital and health service managers in the area covered by East Kent Hospitals Trust (i) in 1997 and (ii) 2000. [148111]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department does not hold the information requested centrally.

  Mental Health Services Spending
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expenditure on mental health services as a proportion of total NHS spending has been in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [148082]
  266W
  Mr. Hutton
  The expenditure on mental health services as a proportion of total National Health Service spending for each year between 1988–89 to 1998–99 is given in the table. Information prior to this date is not available. While health and community health services spending on mental health as a proportion of total spend has remained fairly constant, expenditure by local councils on mental health as a proportion of their total spend on social services have risen steadily.

  year

  HCHS gross expenditure on mental health as a percentage of total expenditure

  1988–89

  12.5

  1989–90

  12.34

  1990–91

  12.07

  1991–92

  11.58

  1992–93

  11.56

  1993–94

  11.00

  1994–95

  10.69

  1995–96

  10.65

  1996–97

  12.21

  1997–98

  12.26

  1998–99

  12.08

  1. The NHS expenditure information is based on profiles of expenditure provided by trusts but scaled to match health authorities total expenditure. Thus, there is a possibility that the figures under-estimate the expenditure on services purchased by health authorities from the private and voluntary sectors. It may be the case that hospital expenditure is over-estimated and community expenditure is under-estimated. These figures exclude Health Authority overheads.

  2. In 1996–97 the data collection methodology changed. Therefore, figures from 1996–97 onwards are not directly comparable to figures up to and including 1995–96

  3. From 1994–95 costs include care management, which cannot be identified for earlier years.

  4. All figures exclude administrative and clerical overheads.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were issued but not dispensed in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [148083]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Doctors (Retention)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physicians who qualified in each year since 1990 left the profession within five years of qualification; and if he will make a statement. [148088]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, the Department does commission occasional studies by the Medical Careers Research Group (MCRG) into the career patterns of newly qualified doctors from particular cohorts. The table shows the MCRG's estimates of the numbers of doctors not practising medicine, and the numbers not practising medicine in the United Kingdom, five years after qualification.

  The percentage of graduates not practising medicine after five years has remained quite low for all cohorts, with no clear trends over time. For the 1993 cohort, only 5.2 per cent. were not practising medicine by 1998. The

  267W
  trend in those not practising medicine in the UK after five years also remains stable, but the latest figure is lower than in previous years at 8.8 per cent.

  Patterns of retention—five years after qualification

  Not practisin medicine after 5 years

  Not practising medicine in the UK after 5 years

  Year of qualification

  Cohort size

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1974

  2,344

  131

  5.6

  339

  14.5

  1977

  3,130

  184

  5.9

  395

  12.6

  1983

  3,841

  204

  5.3

  357

  9.3

  1988

  3,731

  307

  8.2

  514

  13.8

  1993

  3,639

  188

  5.2

  322

  8.8

  Note:

  The figures exclude non-respondents who are registered as doctors in the UK

  Source:

  Medical Careers Research Group

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Chief Superintendents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations led him to reintroduce the rank of chief superintendent. [148170]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Criminal Justice and Police Bill currently before Parliament includes provision for the reintroduction of the rank of chief superintendent.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave approval for the rank of chief superintendent to be reintroduced at the earliest legislative opportunity following consultation with police service interests and on the recommendation of the Police Advisory Board (PAB). The PAB view was that the abolition of the rank from 1 April 1995 had led to operational and management difficulties.

  Equal Treatment Directive (Women MPs)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for the ability of political parties to introduce measures aimed at increasing the representation of women in Parliament of the draft Equal Treatment Directive. [147698]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This is a very complex issue which will involve analysis of relevant equality, employment and electoral law. The Home Office has recently agreed to lead this work, but it will involve cross-departmental consideration. I cannot yet estimate when conclusions will be reached.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the benefits are of the licensing procedures of substantial severity under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; if these are dependent upon the species of animals used; and if he will make a statement; [148106]

  (2) if he will exclude procedures involving (a) major surgery and (b) xenotransplantation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 from the substantial severity category; and if he will make a statement; [148109]
  268W
  (3) if he will ensure that the guidelines attached to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 stipulate that the Secretary of State will not license procedures likely to cause severe pain or distress that cannot be alleviated; and if he will make a statement. [148107]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The reply I gave the hon. Member on 8 November 2000,Official Report, column 253W, fully explained the criteria for placing scientific procedures on animals in the category of "substantial severity". That reply also made it clear that, for each licence application, the likely severity of the effects of a proposed procedure on the animals concerned are weighed against the benefits likely to accrue in medical research or other developments.

  This is an area of research where, rightly, enormous care is taken in granting licences. This means that licences can allow protected animals to suffer substantially severe effects only in the relatively few cases where it appears justified by the significant medical, pharmaceutical and other research gains to be made (66 of the 3,481 project licences in force at the end of 1999 had substantial severity conditions). Even then, as I made clear in the earlier reply, licence holders are required to minimise pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, and to approach the prescribed severity limit only when absolutely necessary.

  The species of animals to be used may be a factor in determining severity limits, given the criteria for defining the categories and the known varying degrees of sentience between species. However, the judgment on severity limits is exercised with respect to the suffering to be encountered by a protected animal, rather than the species by itself.

  The Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, presented to Parliament in March 2000, states that the Secretary of State will not license any procedure likely to cause severe pain or distress which cannot be alleviated. This accords with section 10(2A) of the Act, which in turn refers to Council Directive No. 86/609/EEC, regarding use of anaesthesia and analgesics. As a further safeguard, all project licences contain a standard condition (number 6) requiring that only the minimum justifiable animal suffering is caused and personal licences all bear a standard condition (number 14) requiring the prompt and humane destruction of an animal that is in severe pain or distress that cannot be alleviated. In addition, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectors have the power to require the prompt and humane killing of any protected animal they consider to be suffering excessively or unnecessarily.

  There are no current plans to exclude major surgery and xenotransplantation from the substantial severity category. Each application for a licence to undertake such procedures will continue to be assessed on a case by case basis.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special police constables were serving in each of the Metropolitan policing divisions in December 2000. [147841]
  269W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not collected centrally in the form requested. The information shown in the table has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis:

  Borough

  Number of special constables

  Barking and Dagenham

  20

  Barnet

  54

  Bexley

  25

  Brent

  22

  Bromley

  20

  Camden

  18

  Croydon

  34

  Ealing

  7

  Enfield

  36

  Greenwich

  16

  Hackney

  19

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17

  Haringey

  19

  Harrow

  14

  Havering

  24

  Hillingdon

  26

  Hounslow

  22

  Islington

  38

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24

  Kingston

  19

  Lambeth

  29

  Lewisham

  14

  Merton

  15

  Newham

  26

  Redbridge

  22

  Richmond

  18

  Southwark

  18

  Sutton

  9

  Tower Hamlets

  17

  Waltham Forest

  16

  Wandsworth

  17

  Westminster

  52

  In addition to the officers serving in boroughs, 10 officers are attached to Territorial Policing, 14 officers are serving with the Marine Support Unit based at Wapping and eight officers are based at Heathrow. A further four officers are currently unallocated.

  In total there are 763 special constables serving in the Metropolitan police district.

  Drugs
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the effect of smoking cannabis on the probability of taking other controlled drugs. [147949]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 430W.

  Asylum Seekers (Eastbourne)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are housed in temporary accommodation in Eastbourne. [147798]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at 26 January 2000, there were five asylum seekers (including dependants) supported under the national asylum support scheme housed in temporary accommodation in Eastbourne.

  Extraditions (Switzerland)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests by Her Majesty's Government to the Swiss authorities for the extradition of a Swiss national to the UK have been refused since 1981; and how many UK nationals have been extradited to Switzerland in the same period. [147951]

  Mr. Straw
  No central record is kept as to the nationality of a person whose extradition has been sought. Statistical information is only available since 1997. Since then, no United Kingdom extradition request to Switzerland has been refused; and 11 fugitives have been surrendered to Switzerland.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Learning and Skills Councils (Northumberland)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much is deducted from the budget of Northumberland county council for the funding of learning and skills councils; and what his estimate is of the amount of these funds which will be returned to Northumberland county council or otherwise disbursed within the county of Northumberland. [147161]

  Mr. Wicks
  There has been no deduction made from the budget of Northumberland county council: its Education SSA will rise by £4.75 million to £139.66 million, an increase of some 3.75 per cent. for 2001–02. From 2000–01 to 2001–02 total funding for education in Northumberland increased by 5.69 per cent. We estimate that Northumberland's share of direct grant in 2001–02 will be £5.09 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 29 January that he would be making available an extra £52 million in grant to authorities with lower than average increases in their Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) in 2001–02, and who face pressures from the change of responsibility for adult education to the Learning and Skills Council from April. Northumberland local education authority's share of the additional grant will be £1.35 million.

  The £142 million being allocated via the Learning and Skills Council means that all authorities have an increase of some 6 per cent. on what they are spending on Adult and Community Learning in 2000–01. For Northumberland, with current spend of £92,000, the provisional Learning and Skills Council allocation for 2001–02 is £98,000.

  Within the county of Northumberland, Wansbeck local authority has been allocated £3.1 million over the next three years from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund distributed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  New Deal
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will rank each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom by the latest estimate of the number of people on the New Deal in each, indicating in each case the number of people on each of the four New Deal options; and if he will make a statement. [147315]
  271W
  Ms Jowell
  The information requested has been placed in the House of Commons Library. Nationally, New Deal has helped almost 270,000 young people into work. Research has shown that the New Deal benefits the labour market because young people leave it better equipped, motivated and more skilled.

  University Tuition Fees
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students make contributions towards their university education of(a) the full cost, (b) more than £500, and (c) less than £500; and how many make no such contribution. [147535]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: Undergraduates taking their first degree course are expected to make a contribution towards their higher education only if they can afford to do so. From 2001–02, we expect around 50 per cent. of students to make no contribution to tuition fees, as a result of the rise in the income threshold. Over 85 per cent. of mature students do not pay fees. No student pays the full amount of tuition as the maximum fee set amounts to 28 per cent. of the average cost of an undergraduate course.

  In 1998–99, the latest year for which data are available, there were 241,000 English and Welsh higher education students liable for fees under the Education (Student Support) Regulations. Of these, 45 per cent. were exempt from making a contribution towards fees, 20 per cent. of students made a partial contribution, and only 35 per cent. were expected to make a full contribution towards fees. Of the 20 per cent. of students making a partial contribution, it is estimated some 58 per cent. paid £500 or less and 42 per cent. paid more than £500.

  Computers for Teachers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Key Stage 3 maths teachers will qualify to apply for the second phase of the scheme for £500 subsidy for the purchase of a laptop or personal computer. [147552]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: There is £12 million available for the second phase of the Computers for Teachers scheme. These funds will enable a maximum of 17,000 Key Stage 3 mathematics teachers, who register and meet the eligibility criteria, to receive a subsidy of up to £500.

  A further £3 million will be available for further education teachers, 4,000 of whom will benefit.

  Schoolchildren (Downham Market)
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost to public funds is of educating and transporting the 25 eligible pupils who were not found places at Downham Market High School in the present academic year. [147866]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 31 January 2001]: Of 26 pupils whose applications for admission to Downham Market High School were turned down in appeals between April 1999 and July 2000, seven have subsequently been admitted to the school. The alternative schools of 14 out of the remaining 19 pupils are known; there is no reason to suppose that the cost of educating
  272W
  them at other schools is significantly different, and no extra teaching costs are known to have been directly incurred as a result of their going to other schools.

  The education authority is providing support for transport for 12 out of the 26 pupils at a cost of £10,972 per annum. It is not possible to say how this compares with the costs which might have been incurred had all the pupils attended Downham Market High School, because that depends on individual pupil addresses and such hypothetical costs have not been calculated.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the situation regarding applications for admission to higher education institutions in autumn 2001. [147867]

  Mr. Wicks
  The total number of home and overseas students applying for university and college places this year has increased by 0.7 per cent. since the same time last year, according to the latest figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). There has been a 1.4 per cent. increase in the number of young (under 21) home applicants and an increase of 1.0 per cent. in the number of mature (21 and over) home applicants.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what the final 2001–02 Standards Fund allocations made to local education authorities are by(a) constituency and (b) region; what the total local education authority contributions were to the Standards Fund for 2001–02, broken down by constituency; and what the total value of the Standards Fund was in 2000–01; [148059]

  (2) what total amount of (a) grants and (b) capital spending is incorporated in the Standards Fund for 2001–02; [148060]

  (3) what the percentage increase is in (a) local education authority contributions and (b) DfEE contributions to the Standards Fund for 2001–02. [148061]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 31 January 2001]: The table shows, by region, the amounts allocated so far through the Standards Fund to each local education authority for 2001–02, including the local education authorities' contributions. Allocations cannot be given at constituency level. Some allocations remain to be made as they depend on data not yet available. All allocations requiring a local authority contribution have been made. Of the £2,492 million so far allocated, £1,837 million is recurrent and £655 million is for capital spending.

  Following the announcement in the pre-Budget statement of an extra £143 million DfEE grant for capital spending this year, the Standards Fund for 2000–01 totals £2,488 million. For 2001–02 the Standards Fund will eventually total around £2,870 million. This is an increase in local education authority contributions of around £150 million (25 per cent.), and an increase of around £230 million (14 per cent.) in DfEE contributions.
  273W
  The figures include all grants paid through the Standards Fund, other than New Deal for Schools capital, which is paid through the Standards Fund, mechanism but is not considered part of the programme.

  Standards Fund 2001–02: Allocations to date for each local education authority by region

  £

  Local education authority

  Allocations

  Local education authority contribution

  Eastern Region

  Bedfordshire

  19,865,257

  6,284,844

  Buckinghamshire

  22,653,437

  7,034,749

  Cambridgeshire

  21,842,240

  6,622,654

  Essex

  50,566,352

  16,178,119

  Hertfordshire

  46,322,685

  14,956,779

  Luton

  11,538,920

  4,078,918

  Milton Keynes

  9,894,058

  3,230,331

  Norfolk

  34,076,755

  10,973,711

  Peterborough City

  9,140,823

  3,044,501

  Southend-on-Sea

  6,579,443

  2,117,434

  Suffolk

  27,483,022

  9,019,570

  Thurrock

  6,605,554

  2,160,417

  Eastern region total

  266,568,546

  85,702,027

  Inner London

  Camden

  11,968,744

  3,746,206

  Greenwich

  16,615,398

  4,522,537

  Hackney

  15,705,838

  5,183,890

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  8,681,248

  2,684,530

  Islington

  12,481,672

  3,858,322

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6,041,420

  1,887,280

  Lambeth

  15,049,994

  4,782,498

  Lewisham

  16,381,036

  4,812,873

  London, City of

  389,537

  114,653

  Southwark

  16,235,884

  4,872,125

  Tower Hamlets

  24,516,407

  7,963,509

  Wandsworth

  13,591,551

  4,026,035

  Westminster, City of

  9,582,082

  3,136,499

  Inner London total

  167,240,811

  51,590,958

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  10,721,024

  2,793,094

  Barnet

  12,772,739

  4,553,502

  Bexley

  9,267,325

  3,053,043

  Brent

  17,005,997

  4,979,801

  Bromley

  10,873,278

  3,427,831

  Croydon

  14,376,020

  5,225,834

  Ealing

  18,312,990

  5,723,659

  Enfield

  14,055,449

  4,767,387

  Haringey

  16,862,995

  5,217,283

  Harrow

  8,005,251

  2,732,688

  Havering

  9,279,140

  2,857,777

  Hillingdon

  10,810,174

  3,606,122

  Hounslow

  11,845,191

  4,104,795

  Kingston upon Thames

  5,860,486

  1,723,197

  Merton

  7,625,813

  2,500,670

  Newham

  20,117,146

  5,632,629

  Redbridge

  12,081,952

  4,174,317

  Richmond upon Thames,

  5,636,277

  1,678,965

  Sutton

  7,090,164

  2,266,843

  Waltham Forest

  15,803,156

  4,741,728

  Outer London total

  238,402,567

  75,761,165

  274W

  Standards Fund 2001–02: Allocations to date for each local education authority by region

  £

  Local education authority

  Allocations

  Local education authority contribution

  Midlands East

  Derby City

  12,568,987

  4,171,796

  Derbyshire

  34,423,706

  10,217,337

  Leicester City

  20,929,762

  5,891,401

  Leicestershire

  24,278,965

  7,413,528

  Lincolnshire

  29,137,603

  9,464,423

  Northamptonshire

  29,661,718

  9,400,560

  Nottingham City

  20,159,924

  5,526,930

  Nottinghamshire

  33,304,946

  9,978,736

  Rutland

  1,902,246

  603,762

  Midlands East total

  206,367,857

  62,668,473

  Midlands West

  Birmingham

  71,004,673

  20,296,512

  Coventry

  17,321,818

  5,996,634

  Dudley

  14,954,457

  5,262,209

  Herefordshire

  7,559,763

  2,378,725

  Sandwell

  17,240,352

  5,622,825

  Shropshire

  11,853,031

  3,604,954

  Solihull

  10,081,181

  2,767,660

  Staffordshire

  35,389,029

  10,742,750

  Stoke on Trent

  17,278,785

  4,264,493

  Telford and The Wrekin

  9,504,410

  3,171,341

  Walsall

  15,987,739

  5,514,368

  Warwickshire

  22,915,856

  7,177,840

  Wolverhampton

  15,807,504

  5,667,597

  Worcestershire

  22,268,304

  7,089,089

  Midlands West total

  289,103,901

  89,556,998

  North West

  Blackburn with Darwen

  10,317,071

  3,666,886

  Blackpool

  5,959,569

  1,914,479

  Bolton

  14,524,060

  4,783,822

  Bury

  8,744,378

  2,613,302

  Cheshire

  28,723,325

  8,639,244

  Cumbria

  24,032,252

  7,815,081

  Halton

  10,003,179

  2,249,305

  Knowsley

  12,642,286

  3,398,524

  Lancashire

  56,096,728

  18,497,946

  Liverpool

  31,129,673

  8,512,961

  Manchester

  33,828,214

  9,182,076

  Oldham

  14,403,492

  5,031,845

  Rochdale

  16,370,233

  4,178,281

  Salford

  15,632,513

  3,904,388

  Sefton

  14,829,390

  4,007,497

  St. Helens

  12,283,283

  2,765,161

  Stockport

  12,009,873

  3,567,250

  Tameside

  11,523,479

  3,787,397

  Trafford

  9,897,914

  3,230,736

  Warrington

  8,142,929

  2,582,078

  Wigan

  13,386,486

  4,228,312

  Wirral

  20,428,834

  5,091,949

  North West total

  384,909,163

  113,648,520

  Northern

  Darlington

  5,103,939

  1,583,029

  Durham

  26,306,858

  8,122,520

  Gateshead

  13,549,086

  3,007,975

  Hartlepool

  8,354,906

  1,765,255

  Middlesbrough

  10,418,810

  2,894,454

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  15,748,520

  4,425,445

  North Tyneside

  11,581,629

  2,929,964

  Northumberland

  15,982,608

  5,066,476

  Redcar and Cleveland

  9,692,454

  2,366,599

  275W

  Standards Fund 2001–02: Allocations to date for each local education authority by region

  £

  Local education authority

  Allocations

  Local education authority contribution

  South Tyneside

  10,857,578

  2,647,610

  Stockton on Tees

  12,815,327

  2,918,073

  Sunderland

  18,560,141

  4,632,967

  Northern total

  158,971,854

  42,360,367

  South East

  Bracknell Forest

  4,163,416

  1,241,993

  Brighton and Hove

  9,100,742

  2,606,128

  East Sussex

  17,940,377

  5,639,959

  Hampshire

  45,513,601

  13,717,212

  Isle of Wight

  6,388,240

  1,973,376

  Kent

  55,612,193

  18,449,586

  Medway

  11,915,896

  3,893,882

  Oxfordshire

  24,428,425

  7,918,965

  Portsmouth

  7,810,967

  2,541,028

  Reading

  6,154,042

  1,832,982

  Slough

  6,715,088

  2,430,429

  Southampton

  9,583,707

  3,264,316

  Surrey

  33,722,008

  10,841,519

  West Berkshire

  6,808,821

  2,058,372

  West Sussex

  25,503,577

  8,067,082

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  5,865,547

  1,798,962

  Wokingham

  6,270,249

  1,847,611

  South East total

  283,496,895

  90,123,402

  South West

  Bath and North East Somerset

  7,060,120

  2,173,004

  Bournemouth

  4,918,049

  1,547,003

  Bristol, City of

  20,761,673

  5,206,075

  Cornwall

  21,242,882

  6,654,170

  Devon

  28,027,277

  8,657,312

  Dorset

  15,120,702

  4,583,271

  Gloucestershire

  24,719,540

  7,554,282

  Isles of Scilly

  464,173

  129,627

  North Somerset

  7,153,866

  2,165,746

  Plymouth

  10,685,961

  3,354,221

  Poole

  4,793,317

  1,502,079

  Somerset

  21,396,706

  6,724,594

  South Gloucestershire

  11,025,123

  3,196,538

  Swindon

  8,825,101

  2,798,599

  Torbay

  4,871,802

  1,559,138

  Wiltshire

  19,126,190

  5,869,802

  South West total

  210,192,482

  63,675,462

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  10,753,091

  3,446,744

  Bradford

  41,289,876

  11,882,707

  Calderdale

  10,495,877

  3,549,883

  Doncaster

  15,455,746

  4,723,231

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  14,663,121

  4,219,414

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  17,189,914

  4,153,997

  Kirklees

  22,377,123

  7,583,934

  Leeds

  41,331,442

  10,380,803

  North East Lincolnshire

  8,740,642

  2,673,257

  North Lincolnshire

  8,246,663

  2,299,437

  North Yorkshire

  26,777,441

  8,279,660

  Rotherham

  18,127,487

  4,369,488

  Sheffield

  28,200,024

  7,435,795

  Wakefield

  16,356,738

  4,788,380

  York, City of

  7,447,298

  2,024,698

  Yorkshire and Humberside total

  287,452,815

  81,811,428

  England total

  2,492,706,891

  756,898,799

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Egypt
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her proposed budget is for(a) bilateral development assistance and (b) development assistance through the EU to Egypt in the financial years (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [147886]

  Mr. Mullin
  (a) Discussions on a new Aid Framework for the next three years, in the light of the spending review, have yet to be concluded. The current figure for bilateral development assistance to Egypt in 2001–02 is £4.6 million.

  (b) The EC provides a significant amount of development assistance to Egypt mainly through its Mediterranean Assistance (MEDA) programme. The latest MEDA regulation for 2000–06 was agreed last year but the country allocations for 2001–02 and 2002–03 have yet to be decided. The UK's contribution to the new MEDA programme is estimated to be about 19 per cent.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid the UK Government will send to El Salvador following the recent earthquake; and how this money will be spent. [147371]

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps will be taken to provide additional foreign aid to El Salvador following the recent earthquake in that region; and if she will make a statement. [147582]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Department for International Development has contributed some £1.3 million for the purchase and distribution of vital emergency shelter, water and sanitation and medical supplies to those affected by the earthquake in El Salvador. This support is being channelled through the UN, Red Cross and a number of NGOs.

  The table summarises the funding allocation and the type of assistance provided.

  Organisation

  Type of assistance

  Amount (£)

  UNOCHA

  Co-ordination

  35,000

  PAHO

  Health

  300,000

  IFRC

  Shelter, food, health, water and sanitation

  100,000

  Oxfam

  Water and sanitation

  300,000

  Care

  IDP support

  138,900

  Christian Aid

  Emergency shelter

  100,000

  Plan International

  IDP support

  50,000

  Save the Children UK

  Public health, non-food, education

  200,000

  SCIAF

  Emergency shelter

  100,000

  Total

  1,323,900

  HIV AIDS (South Africa)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of state for International Development what(a) financial, (b) practical

  277W
  and (c) medical assistance she has given to the South African Government in relation to AIDS, since May 1997. [147882]

  Mr. Mullin
  Since May 1997 the Department for International Development has committed approximately £11 million in support of initiatives to help the South African Government in their efforts to manage the HIV epidemic.

  Practical support with this funding has included condom procurement and supply, assistance to the 1National AIDS/STD Control Programme, and National TB Control Programme and initiatives to provide improved sexual health services particularly among adolescents and mineworkers.

  Direct medical assistance has been limited as South Africa has, in general, the necessary skills to tackle the epidemic. However support to the National AIDS/STD Control Programme includes technical assistance from a specialist in genito-urinary medicine.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 6W, if she will place in the Library a copy of the KFOR information pack on depleted uranium provided to UNMACC. [147414]

  Mr. Mullin
  Yes.

  Romania
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the value was of grants provided by her Department to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations in Romania in each year since 1996–97. [147209]

  Mr. Mullin
  The value of grants provided by the Department for International Development to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations in Romania in each year since 1996–97 is:

  £

  1996–97

  179,130

  1997–98

  120,806

  1998–99

  185,346

  1999–2000

  224,792

  Bonded Labour (Indian Sub-continent)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects her Department is supporting in(a) India, (b) Pakistan and (c) Nepal to help end the practice of bonded labour in these countries. [147583]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Department for International Development is committed to helping to eliminate all abusive labour practices. These include bonded labour, forced labour and child labour. These abusive practices persist where poverty denies people their rights and a decent livelihood. All our programmes are intended to 278W
  contribute to improving the livelihoods of poor people and helping them realise their rights. We also have projects targeted at particular abusive practices.

  In India we are supporting a programme to eliminate child labour, including bonded child labour. Our support to primary education addresses the issue of bonded child labour. The Rural Livelihood Project seeks to enhance livelihoods and reduce indebtedness.

  In Pakistan we are working with the Asian Development bank on rural development strategies that include tackling bonded labour. We have commissioned research on access to land for poor people. We continue to support the phasing out of child labour from the football stitching industry.

  In Nepal we are supporting a multi-agency programme to ensure food security for the freed Kamaiya (bonded labourers). We also support Action Aid's Poverty Reduction Project which has been working with bonded labourers in the Kailali district, to help them achieve secure livelihoods.

  We are supporting Anti-Slavery International to raise awareness of the issue and stimulate action by non-governmental organisation, trade unions, business and Government in all three countries.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museum Displays (Radioactive Minerals)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidance he has issued to museums displaying radioactive minerals. [147619]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My Department has issued no such guidance. Organisations, including museums, which work with materials which emit ionising radiation are subject to the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999. As part of this, they may be required to appoint a Radiation Protection Adviser to provide advice and guidance in such matters.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions since he became Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport he has met(a) Mr. Srichand Hinduja and (b) Mr. Gopichand Hinduja; and what was discussed. [147999]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: I met Mr. Srichand Hinduja and Mr. Gopichand Hinduja on 25 February 2000 to discuss their Foundation's Pledge for the Millennium which I had signed and which sought to promote tolerance and understanding between people of different faiths as a means of increasing economic prosperity and ending conflict.

  They also asked about the future of the Faith Zone after the closure of the Dome and I informed them that this was a matter for the New Millennium Experience Company.

  I have also met them once, unofficially, at a social function.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funds are available to the National Lottery Commission for the purposes of meeting obligations to pay compensation to a third party; and if he will make a statement. [148184]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (as amended), such sums as are necessary to defray any expenditure of the Commission shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament. The Act (as amended) also provides for the Consolidated Fund to be reimbursed from the National Lottery Distribution Fund for the Commission's expenditure, taking into account receipts from the Lottery operator's licence fees.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from the People's Lottery consortium regarding the costs of bidding for the National Lottery contract; and if he will make a statement. [148182]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  None.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many families in Hornchurch will benefit from the introduction of free television licences for households with a member aged 75 years or over. [148316]

  Janet Anderson
  TV Licensing, which administers this concession for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 4,500 people aged 75 or over in the Hornchurch constituency.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what period an employer is required to continue making payments of Working Families Tax Credit to a person(a) outside the UK and (b) taking extended unpaid leave. [147229]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: Guidance on when an employer should stop paying tax credit payments is included in the booklet "WFTC/EG—An employer's guide to tax credits" which is routinely issued by the Inland Revenue to employers. Employers are normally required to pay tax credits until the date the Inland Revenue has told them to stop, unless the employee leaves the employment before that date. This applies provided the employer's payroll arrangements remain in the UK. The employer can stop paying tax credits to an employee as soon as there is a pay period in which no other payroll payments are due to that employee. The Inland Revenue then pays the employee direct for the rest of the award period.

  Road User Charge (Foreign Lorries)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government plan to introduce their proposal for a Britdisk vignette on foreign road hauliers; and if he will make a statement. [147145]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: The Chancellor proposed in the pre-Budget report to introduce a 'vignette' or 'road user charge' for foreign lorries. The proposal, including its practical implementation, is now being developed further.

  Red Diesel
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the increase in revenue to the Exchequer were all users of red diesel to be charged at the duty rate charged on(a) standard diesel and (b) ultra low sulphur diesel. [148149]

  Mr. Timms
  Rebated gas oil, also known as red diesel, is liable for duty at the rate of 3.13 pence per litre and is used in excepted vehicles and as a heating and industrial fuel. Assuming the current level of use, raising the rate of duty on gas oil to that applying to(a) standard diesel and (b) ultra low sulphur diesel would raise additional revenues of £3.5 billion and £3.3 billion respectively. In practice, the additional revenue would be significantly less than this because a fifteenfold increase in the duty rate would reduce the demand for rebated gas oil.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 2001,Official Report, column 304W, when he (a) received and (b) approved the Inland Revenue Commissioner's report. [147785]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue annual report was published on 26 January.

  I received and approved it prior to publication.

  Widow's Bereavement Allowance (Crossland Case)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds the Inland Revenue settled the Crossland case regarding the exclusion of widowers from receiving widow's bereavement allowance; and what legal advice it received regarding a possible outcome if the allowance was challenged under the European Convention on Human Rights. [148208]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government made a friendly settlement with Mr. Crossland, which was published by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It would not be appropriate to disclose any legal advice the Government received, in accordance with exemption 4 (law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Tonnage Tax
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what specific commitment he has made to review the tonnage tax arrangement within a particular time period. [148577]
  281W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all taxes under review, and changes are considered as part of the Budget process.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the terms of reference of the inquiry by Sir Anthony Hammond QC; and if he will make a statement on the scope of the inquiry. [148148]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 70W, and to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on 30 January 2001, Official Report, columns 166–68W.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the dates and context of discussions that he has personally had with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), since May 1997, to discuss matters relating to the Hinduja brothers. [148112]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 31 January 2001,Official Report, column 224W.

  Mr. DuncanSmith
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers and officials of Her Majesty's Government have communicated with other Ministers and officials concerning the Hinduja brothers' application for citizenship. [148262]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on 30 January 2001,Official Report, columns 166–68W.

  Stem Cell Research
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions he has met Sir Chris Evans since May 1997; [146861]

  (2) what advice he has received from Sir Chris Evans concerning stem cell techniques, cloning and biotechnology. [146862]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations, it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.
  282W
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons he has not met religious leaders to discuss their objections to human cloning and the use of embryonic stem cells. [146864]

  The Prime Minister
  I was unable to agree a meeting owing to existing diary commitments. However, I do meet religious leaders regularly and will continue to do so.

  The Government have listened very carefully to representations made on the recommendations of the Donaldson Report and the regulations and respect the views on both sides of the debate of many people on these sensitive issues.

  NHS
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Prime Minister what personal responsibility he has for the NHS. [146952]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 27 July 2000,Official Report, columns 1256–61, in which I set out plans to bring about the most fundamental and far-reaching reforms the National Health Service has seen since its establishment in 1948; and to create a service fit for the 21st century.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is the state's total liability at 2001 prices to pay civil service pensions, assuming all existing contributors retire and that all pensioners die at the age projected by the scheme's actuaries. [148008]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The latest assessment of the capitalised value of liability to pay civil service pensions was undertaken by the Government Actuary's Department in 2000. This showed total liabilities of £54.4 billion for benefits accrued in respect of employment (or further employment) prior to 1 April 1999, broken down as follows:

  Value of liabilities

  £ billion

  Current pensions and associated contingent pensions

  25.2

  Deferred pensions, including contingent pensions for those no longer contributing

  7.3

  Accrued benefits for existing contributors

  21.9

  Total

  54.4

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General what recent discussions the Director of the Serious Fraud Office has had with his European Union counterparts; and if he will make a statement. [146809]
  283W
  The Solicitor-General
  The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Mrs. Rosalind Wright, addressed the Cambridge Symposium on Economic Crime in September 2000. The Director ensures that the SFO makes the fullest possible contribution to the continuous discussions with her European colleagues on improving the response to fraud and mutual legal assistance within the European Union.

  The Director and her staff are also in regular contact with member states' specialist financial crime and fraud investigators, magistrates and prosecutors in connection with casework.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment he has made of the effect of changes in funding recently announced for the CPS on the morale of the service. [146811]

  The Solicitor-General
  As some Members of this House will know, the CPS has secured additional funding for next year of £30.4 million from the new criminal justice reserve. This is in addition to the extra resources allocated to the CPS from the 2000 spending review announced last July. As a result, the CPS's budget next year will be 23 per cent. higher in real terms than now.

  Through the CPS's consultation machinery and my own frequent visits to the areas, I know that news of the additional funds has been welcomed by staff. This is hardly surprising. A staff survey, published last May, showed that securing adequate funding and improving resource allocation were among the key development priorities staff identified to improve morale within the service. When the next survey is undertaken I have no doubt that it will show a significant improvement in morale.

  With the new funding secured, the CPS has launched a national recruitment campaign for lawyers and intends to follow this with a similar campaign for caseworkers shortly. Additional staff are being recruited across the service, targeted at those areas with the greatest need.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many times in the last 12 months he has initiated a prosecution in a case which the CPS had previously decided not to pursue. [146812]

  The Solicitor-General
  The relationship between the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions is one of superintendence and it is in the context of those arrangements that the accountability of the Crown Prosecution Service for individual case decisions is secured.

  If the Crown Prosecution Service tells a suspect or defendant that there will not be a prosecution, the Code for Crown Prosecutors provides that that is normally the
  284W
  end of the matter. There are special reasons why a case might be re-started by the CPS, especially if it is serious: for example, where initially there was insufficient evidence to proceed but further significant evidence comes to light; or in rare cases where a decision not to prosecute was clearly wrong and ought not to stand. The CPS does not keep central records of re-instituted cases.

  Crime Victims
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the level of victim satisfaction as set out in the recent British crime survey. [146813]

  The Solicitor-General
  Public confidence in the criminal justice system is vital if the system is to operate effectively. The 2000 British Crime Survey sought to measure the existing level of public confidence so as to provide a base line against which to set targets for improvement. The survey produced disappointing results: although the majority of people are confident that the criminal justice system respects the rights of defendants, only a quarter are confident the system meets the needs of victims of crime.

  The Government are committed to improving the level of service provided to victims and are confident that new legislation and new initiatives will do much to increase levels of victim satisfaction. These measures include provisions in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to assist vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, the introduction of the Witness Service at all criminal courts, the introduction of victim personal statements and the CPS initiative to inform victims of decisions relating to their case.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases of child abuse were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions; how many of these proceeded to prosecution; and how many convictions were secured, in each of the last three years. [148150]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records in relation to particular offences. The information is held on individual case files, and could be obtained only by examining every relevant file in each CPS office. The costs of such an exercise would be prohibitive.

  However, records kept by the Home Office show that the number of defendants prosecuted and convicted for child abuse offences (which has a wide definition) was as follows:

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1997

  4,255

  3,458

  1998

  4,938

  3,412

  1999

  5,184

  3,519

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings have been made in his Department over the last 20 years, based on current prices, in(a) cash and (b) percentage of spending terms from (i) detecting fraud and (ii) providing a more accurate and efficient service administration. [147314]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested on savings from detecting fraud and administration changes over the last 20 years is not available. We have however set in track a number of improvements to administration and tackling fraud that will produce savings in the years to come.

  We are reforming the welfare state, to make it fit for the 21st century. After years of under-investment, we are putting in the investment needed to deliver more streamlined services focused on the individual needs of our customers, making better use of technology, and reducing the amount of fraud and error in the system.

  We are modernising the way DSS services are delivered. From 2001, we will create a dedicated new service for pensioners and a new working age agency, bringing together the Employment Service and parts of the Benefits Agency dealing with people of working age. Over the next three years we will build new IT systems to deliver a modern, streamlined service to all our clients. From 2003 the normal method of benefit payment will be by Automated Credit Transfer directly into bank accounts, saving an estimated £500 million a year in reduced administration costs. We have also introduced new streamlined arrangements for handling disputes and appeals across the Department.

  After years of neglect we are getting to grips with Social Security fraud. We are implementing a strategy to tighten up the system and make sure that from the very first claim, the right benefits are going to the right people at the right time. We have set firm targets for reducing the amount of fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance by 25 per cent. by March 2004, rising to 50 per cent. by March 2006. The latest results show that we have already made a reduction in fraud and error from 9 per cent. of the benefit paid to 8.4 per cent.

  State Pensions Liability
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total liability at 2001 prices of the state to pay basic state pensions, assuming that all existing contributors retire and that all pensioners die at the national average age of death. [148009]

  Mr. Rooker
  Long-term estimates of future basic state pension liabilities are published in table 15.1 of the Government Actuary's Department quinquennial review, "National Insurance Fund: Long Term Financial Estimates". A copy is available in the Library.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the additional cost of 286W
  paying the Minimum Income Guarantee to (a) all eligible Scottish pensioners and (b) to all Scottish pensioners, at April 2001 rates. [147559]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no additional costs associated with administering the Minimum Income Guarantee to Scottish pensioners.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total cost(a) of people receiving a means-tested benefit in Scotland, (b) of providing a means-tested benefit for people aged 15 to 25 in Scotland, (c) of providing a means-tested benefit for people aged 26 to 40 in Scotland and (d) of providing a means-tested benefit for people aged 41 to 65 in Scotland for each year since 1992 in cash terms and at 1999–2000 prices. [145649]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is in the tables.

  Amount of means-tested benefits paid to people in Scotland by age

  £ million

  Year

  Total all ages

  Aged 15 to 25 26

  Aged to 40

  Aged 41 to 65

  1992–93

  2,434

  388

  817

  664

  1993–94

  2,576

  401

  855

  737

  1994–95

  2,713

  393

  933

  765

  1995–96

  2,806

  397

  975

  816

  1996–97

  2,758

  382

  967

  808

  1997–98

  2,983

  346

  1,056

  916

  1998–99

  2,944

  337

  1,027

  917

  1999–2000

  2,941

  325

  999

  943

  Amount of means-tested benefits paid to people in Scotland by age, at 1999–2000 prices

  £ million

  Year

  Total all ages

  Aged 15 to 25

  Aged 26 to 40

  Aged 41 to 65

  1992–93

  2,913

  464

  977

  795

  1993–94

  3,003

  467

  997

  859

  1994–95

  3,119

  451

  1,073

  879

  1995–96

  3,136

  443

  1,089

  911

  1996–97

  2,986

  414

  1,046

  875

  1997–98

  3,141

  364

  1,112

  964

  1998–99

  3,013

  345

  1,051

  939

  1999–2000

  2,941

  325

  999

  943

  Notes:

  1. 'Means-tested benefits' are defined as Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based), Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance, Housing Benefit, Community Charge Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest million.

  3. Totals for all ages include recipients over age 65 and do not sum.

  4. Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based), Family Credit, Housing Benefit, Community Charge Benefit and Council Tax Benefit estimates are based on caseload samples taken in May in each of the years and are subject to a degree of sampling error. Disability Working Allowance figures are based on a 100 per cent. scan of all Disability Working Allowance claimants.

  5. Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based) replaced Income Support for the unemployed from October 1996.

  6. Community Charge Benefit was replaced by Council Tax Benefit from April 1993.

  7. Family Credit was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit from October 1999.
  287W
  8. Disability Working Allowance was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit from October 1999.

  9. Housing Benefit and Council Tax benefit figures include all local authority spending on benefit payments in addition to the money funded directly from Central Government.

  10. The latest GDP deflator was used in the calculation of the amounts of benefits in real terms.

  Sources:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1992 to May 1999.

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 to May 1999.

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent.

  sample inquiries, May 1992 to May 1999.

  Disability Working Allowance 100 per cent. count of claims.

  Departmental Report 2000.

  Pre-Budget Report 2000.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland were in receipt of means-tested benefit in Scotland,(a) aged 15 to 25, (b) aged 26 to 40, (c) aged 41 to 65 and (d) in total for each year since 1992. [145650]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Number of means-tested benefits recipients by age of claimant in Scotland, 1992–99

  Thousand

  year

  Total all ages

  15 to 25

  26 to 40

  41 to 65

  1992

  930

  130

  210

  240

  1993

  900

  130

  220

  240

  1994

  890

  120

  220

  240

  1995

  890

  120

  230

  240

  1996

  890

  120

  230

  250

  1997

  860

  100

  230

  250

  1998

  840

  90

  230

  250

  1999

  830

  90

  220

  250

  Notes:

  1. 'Means-tested benefits' are defined as Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance (Income Based), Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance, Housing Benefit, Community Charge Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  3. Recipients of more than one benefit have been counted only once.

  4. Figures do not include dependent members of a claimant's family.

  5. Totals for all ages include recipients over age 65 and do not sum.

  6. Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance (Income Based), Family Credit, Housing Benefit, Community Charge Benefit and Council Tax Benefit estimates are based on caseload samples taken in May in each of the years and are subject to a degree of sampling error. Disability Working Allowance figures are based on a 100 per cent. scan of all Disability Working Allowance claimants.

  7. Jobseekers Allowance (Income Based) replaced Income Support for the unemployed from October 1996.

  8. Community Charge Benefit was replaced by Council Tax Benefit from April 1993.

  9. Family Credit was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit from October 1999.

  10. Disability Working Allowance was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit from October 1999.

  Sources:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1992 to May 1999.

  Jobseekers Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 to May 1999.

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent.

  sample enquiries, May 1992 to May 1999.

  Disability Working Allowance 100 per cent. count of claims.

  Circulars and Guidelines (Housing/Council Tax Benefits)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the adjudication and operations circulars and guidelines on(a) Housing Benefit and (b) Council Tax Benefit that have been issued to local authorities since May 1997; and place copies of these in the Library. [146343]

  Angela Eagle
  As well as giving local authorities advance notice about changes in the operation of the scheme, the circulars provide them with routine information: for example, advising them of changes to DSS personnel contact phone numbers, or notifying them of uprating changes.

  A list of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit circulars issued since May 1997 has been placed in the Library. Copies of these circulars are already in the Library.

  Council Tax Benefit Regulations
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in his review of Council Tax Benefit regulations; and if he will make a statement. [147127]

  Angela Eagle
  In March 1999, we commissioned independent researchers to monitor the effects of the Council Tax Benefit restrictions introduced in April 1998. The report has now been finalised. However, the data obtained for this project proved to be of variable quality and therefore the findings are not generally reliable. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library in February and will be available on request.

  We are continuing to keep the current Council Tax Benefit restrictions under review.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if a client of the Child Support Agency may request the agency to close his case prior to the introduction of the new scheme with the intention of re-applying after April 2002. [146600]

  Angela Eagle
  The Child Support Agency may close a child support case when asked to do so by the person who originally made the application, provided that the parent with care is not in receipt of Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance.

  The new child support scheme will start first for new cases from April 2002. Existing cases will be transferred at a later date once we are sure that the new scheme is working well and changes in the levels of assessment will be phased in.

  If an existing case is closed before conversion to the new scheme, any fresh application made within 13 weeks will lead to an old scheme maintenance assessment, followed by conversion to the new scheme on the same date as other existing assessments. It would not be right for existing clients to be able to manipulate the rules for their own advantage by going off the books for short periods.
  289W
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what increase in resources the CSA plans for the Independent Case Examiner; [147004]

  (2) what are the processing times by the Independent Case Examiner for the CSA for cases referred (a) by a Member of Parliament and (b) by members of the public; [147005]

  (3) how many CSA cases have been referred to the Independent Case Examiner for each year since its establishment; what was the annual funding for the ICE since its inception; how many outstanding cases are with the ICE; and what is the waiting time for ICE referred cases to be processed. [146924]

  Angela Eagle
  The current clearance time for cases referred to the Independent Case Examiner by Members of Parliament and members of the public is 29 weeks. This is an improvement on the financial year 1999–2000 when clearance took 33.7 weeks on average. Additional funding was allocated in September 2000 for the recruitment of seven extra staff. The office of the Independent Case Examiner is currently in the process of recruiting the extra staff, which will result in a 17 per cent. increase in investigative resources.

  The office of the Independent Case Examiner opened in April 1997. There are currently 227 cases awaiting investigation. Cases referred currently wait around 11 weeks for an investigation to begin.

  Annual funding figures and the number of complaints received

  Financial year

  Complaints received

  Annual funding (£)

  1997–98

  1,087

  11,025,675

  1998–99

  1,226

  1920,960

  1999–2000

  1,536

  11,176,040

  2000–01 (to date)

  1,195

  11,176,040

  1Actual costs

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average waiting time is for clients awaiting investigations by the Independent Case Examiner's Office looking at the work of the CSA; and if he will make a statement. [146506]

  Angela Eagle
  Cases referred to the Independent Case Examiner currently wait around 11 weeks for investigation to begin. Average clearance times are currently around 29 weeks overall. Additional funding was allocated in September 2000, representing a 17 per cent. increase in investigative resources.

  Widow's Bereavement Allowance
  Mr.swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make Widow's Bereavement Allowance available to widowers. [148209]

  Angela Eagle
  We are introducing bereavement benefits in April which will be available to both men and women equally for the first time. There will be a new weekly benefit for widowed parents who satisfy the qualifying conditions and a new lump sum bereavement payment of £2,000—double the existing widow's payment.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Livestock Farmers
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he has held with livestock farmers' representatives in the last month. [146785]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I last met livestock farmers' representatives only yesterday at the MLC Outlook Conference. I met the President of the NFU on 30 January, and livestock farmers in Cirencester, Kirton, Corby, Norfolk, Great Yarmouth and Braintree on 6,18,19,23 and 24 January respectively.

  Sugar Producers (Everything but Arms Initiative)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implications of the everything but Arms initiative for British sugar producers and processors. [146786]

  Ms Quin
  The Commission's proposal would progressively reduce duties on imports of sugar from the least developed countries and the principle of access for LDC's is one which the Government support (which, depending on the volume of imports the LDCs were able to supply, could require the EU to respond by taking action to reduce existing cane or beet supplies.) However, the proposal also contains a safeguard clause to guard against any large-scale disruptive increase in imports. We are pressing for the implications of the LDC proposal to be fully examined in the context of current discussions on the future shape of the EU sugar regime.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with United Kingdom fishing industry representatives on the level of fish stocks. [146787]

  Mr. Morley
  Prior to the December Fisheries Council, I met with the UK fishing industry to discuss the scientific advice on the state of fish stocks as well as prospects for the 2001 TACs and quota package. I also saw the UK industry on 10 January to discuss their ideas about the North Sea cod and Northern hake recovery plans.

  BSE
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that scientific advice to Ministers relating to BSE is placed in the public domain. [146788]

  Ms Quin
  Under this Government, several steps have been taken to ensure that scientific advice on BSE is put into the public domain, including the establishment of the Food Standards Agency and greater openness for the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. There are no restrictions on the publication of scientific advice to Ministers on BSE risks.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contingency plans he has made in the event of research showing that the BSE causative agent crosses further species barriers. [146802]
  291W
  Ms Quin
  As part of the Government's approach to risk management, officials from a number of Departments have been preparing a contingency plan in case in the future BSE is found to be occurring naturally in sheep. I shall want to discuss the draft plan, when it is ready, with those who would be involved in its implementation. It will be a public document.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his counterparts in central and eastern Europe concerning the effect of enlargement of the European Union on agriculture in the United Kingdom. [146789]

  Ms Quin
  Over the past 12 months, my Ministerial colleagues and I have held discussions with our counterparts from Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Latvia, Bulgaria and Romania. Further meetings are planned.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the priorities are of his Department's programme of research and development for animal welfare. [146790]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF's research on animal welfare has funding up to £3.7 million in the current year. Its aim is to support our objective of ensuring farmed animals and fish are protected by high welfare standards and do not suffer pain or distress.

  We have 45 projects in three programmes covering:

  On-farm welfare

  Welfare during handling and transport

  Welfare at slaughter.

  All receive equal priority.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning animal welfare in advance of the next round of World Trade Organisation negotiations. [146797]

  Mr. Morley
  I have received a number of representations on this subject, and have supported the Commission's proposal to the WTO that animal welfare issues be considered in trade liberalisation negotiations.

  Scientific Advisory Committees
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to promote openness and transparency in his Ministry's scientific advisory committees. [146791]

  Ms Quin
  All chairmen and members of MAFF scientific advisory committees which are also non-departmental public bodies are appointed in accordance with the Guidance of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In addition, we have taken a number of steps to increase openness, including holding open sessions, publishing agendas and minutes of meetings and issuing public reports.

  Farm Woodland Schemes
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers participate in farm woodland schemes. [146793]

  Mr. Morley
  Between 1988 and end 2000, there were 8,225 approved applications under the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme and/or its predecessor the Farm Woodland Scheme. Individuals may make more than one application.

  Food Supply Chain
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve co-operation in the agri-food chain. [146794]

  Ms Quin
  Government and industry are working in a number of ways to promote improved levels of co-operation and working together in the food chain. For instance, some £5 million of grant aid has been allocated to projects under the Agriculture Development Scheme and many of these are being taken forward by supply chain partnerships.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with(a) the Department of Trade and Industry, (b) supermarkets and (c) growers on proposed codes of practice defining their respective relationships. [146799]

  Ms Quin
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek the agreement of the major supermarkets to a binding Code of Practice that addresses the specific concerns identified by the Competition Commission in its recent report on the supply of groceries from multiple stores. Officials have been kept informed of progress on the drafting of the Code by the Office of Fair Trading and have maintained contact with the DTI. We have received a number of representations about the proposed Code from individual supermarket companies and representatives of suppliers.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to help farm businesses seeking to diversify. [146795]

  Mr. Morley
  The England Rural Development Programme supports farm diversification through the £152 million Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES), Processing and Marketing Grants, the Vocational Training Scheme and tree-planting schemes. MAFF is producing a free guide on farm diversification and aims to make available free planning advice to RES applicants for farm diversification. The Rural White Paper contains a number of extra initiatives on planning to help diversification and we have consulted on providing time-limited rate relief for farmers wishing to diversify into non-farming activities.

  Dairy Market
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he had with British Creameries before it went into receivership concerning the state of the milk and cheese market. [146796]
  293W
  Ms Quin
  No such discussions took place with British Creameries.

  Horticulture
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to reduce the level of regulation on the horticulture sector. [146798]

  Ms Quin
  As part of the Red Tape reviews initiated in September 1999, we have examined those areas of concern identified by the industry and secured changes in EU provisions and also simplified our own procedures. On the former, we have successfully argued in Brussels that non-grower members should be able to become full members of Producer Organisation (PO) Boards; and for a fixed level of aid to be paid under the EU scheme, as requested by the UK industry. On the latter, improvements have been made to the for Ms and explanatory material, issued by this Department, for producer organisations.

  Farm Incomes (Blaby)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will visit farmers in Blaby to discuss farm incomes. [146800]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has no immediate plans to visit Blaby. However my right hon. Friend and I will be meeting many farmers at the Annual General Meeting of the National Farmers Union on 7 February and I am sure that the issue of farm incomes will be discussed.

  Local Authority Tenanted Farms
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the future viability of local authorities' tenanted farms. [146801]

  Ms Quin
  Local authorities' tenanted farms are important in providing a first rung on the farming ladder. Day-to-day management of these estates is the responsibility of individual smallholdings authorities. I welcome the initiative shown by authorities which pursue active and imaginative policies to maintain their estates' viability.

  Chicken Welfare
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of eggs are produced

  Table 2: Estimated CAP support1 to UK agriculture by sector, 1997–98

  £ million

  Cereals

  Sugar beet

  Fruit and vegetables

  Oilseeds

  Proteins

  Linseed

  Set aside and AAPS simplified

  Arable

  Total

  of which price support

  Price support

  Price support

  Direct aid

  Direct aid

  Direct aid

  Direct aid

  England2

  905

  230

  140

  145

  140

  70

  35

  115

  Wales

  10

  5

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  5

  Scotland

  138

  42

  0

  13

  23

  1

  0

  21

  Northern Ireland

  7

  4

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  6

  United Kingdom

  1,060

  281

  140

  160

  165

  70

  35

  145

  Percentage price support

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Value of output, 1997

  2,913

  —

  300

  1,153

  406

  129

  51

  —

  Percentage of 1997 UK output

  36

  —

  47

  14

  41

  53

  67

  —

  294W
  by free range hens; and what steps the Government are taking to promote higher welfare standards for chickens kept to produce eggs. [146803]

  Mr. Morley
  Some 17 per cent. of egg production in the UK comes from free range systems.

  Regulations are currently being drafted to implement EU Directive 99/74/EC which sets down improved welfare standards for laying hens in all production systems.

  Agricultural Support
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his estimate is of the total financial support for(a) United Kingdom and (b) English agriculture (i) directly and (ii) indirectly in each year since 1990–91; and if he will make a statement. [145954]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: Agricultural producers receive financial support in two ways: from consumers, as a result of the maintenance of market prices for some commodities at levels above those obtaining on world markets; and from taxpayers, in the form of direct receipts from the Exchequer.

  The value of producer support receipts from consumers can only be estimated and is dependent upon several assumptions, including the level of world prices which would have obtained in the absence of the CAP. An estimate by research analysis of the value of market support received by producers and direct producer receipts from the Exchequer for the year 1997–98 has been published in a Ministry report "Reducing Farm Subsidies; Economic Adjustment in Rural Areas", which can be found on the Ministry website.

  Total support received by UK producers from both of these sources was estimated to be a little under £6 billion in that year. A copy of the relevant table is to be found at Table 2. Some information concerning support receipts by English producers is also given.

  Exchequer expenditure on UK agriculture for the years 1990–91 to 1999–2000 is also given. Expenditure peaked in 1996–97 as a result of the MacSharry reforms of the CAP—which shifted the burden of support from consumers to taxpayers—and the measures put in place in respect of BSE. Not all of these expenditures will have benefited farmers directly: for example, some expenditures relating to the cost of storing surplus produce are not a direct receipt by producers. Corresponding figures are not available in England.
  295W

  £ million

  Beef

  Sheep

  Dairy

  Poultry3

  Livestock

  Total

  of which price support

  Total

  of which Price support

  Price support

  Price support

  Grand total

  Price support as a percentage of total support

  England2

  625

  150

  215

  85

  1,070

  165

  3,625

  53

  Wales

  138

  34

  148

  44

  153

  16

  473

  52

  Scotland

  249

  56

  124

  40

  125

  22

  715

  40

  Northern Ireland

  223

  55

  40

  13

  154

  20

  453

  53

  United Kingdom

  1,240

  295

  525

  180

  1,505

  220

  5,270

  53

  Percentage price support

  24

  —

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Value of output, 1997

  2,269

  —

  1,199

  —

  3,160

  1,482

  18,094

  —

  Percentage of 1997 UK output

  55

  —

  44

  —

  47

  15

  29

  —

  Total UK CAP commodity support (£ billion)

  5.27

  Other national and structural spending (£ billion)

  0.61

  Total support received by UK farmers (£ billion)

  5.88

  As a proportion of gross output (percentage)

  32

  1Price support estimated by multiplying production volumes by the estimated UK-world price gaps.

  2English and UK figures rounded to the nearest £5 million. Figures may not add up due to rounding.

  3Price support for other intensive livestock, net of excess feed costs arising from cereals market support, is assumed to equal zero.

  Notes:

  1. Direct payments include: AAPS; for beef—BSPS, SCPS, OTMS and de-seasonalisation premium (NI only), but excluding BSE-emergency measures paid in 1997; for sheep—SAPS; plus HLCAs for beef and sheep (worth £0.1 billion). Other national and structural funding is not included in the detailed figures.

  2. Ornamentals and potatoes are assumed to receive no direct or market support.

  Source:

  MAFF, Economic and Statistics Group, August 1999

  Table 1: UK public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies

  Year (April-March)

  £ million

  1990–91

  1,910

  1991–92

  1,977

  1992–93

  2,028

  1993–94

  2,905

  1994–95

  2,512

  1995–96

  2,897

  1996–97

  4,318

  1997–98

  3,583

  1998–99

  3,482

  1999–20001

  3,172

  1Forecast

  Source:

  Agriculture in the United Kingdom

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish details of recipients of agricultural support in excess of £500,000 per annum. [147543]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information defines the categories of information which are exempt from the commitments to provide information. Part II indent 12 (Privacy of an Individual) exempts disclosure to a third party of personal information which could facilitate a unwarranted invasion of privacy.

  Additionally, Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, states that
  "member states shall take the measures necessary to ensure protection of the data collected".

  This is reinforced by indent 15 (Statutory and other restrictions) of the Code of Practice which indicates exemption where such cases are prohibited under European Community law.
  296W
  It is therefore not appropriate to publish such details of recipients of agricultural support for reasons of confidentiality.

  Badger Culling
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress reports he has recently received in relation to the selective culling programme for badgers. [146804]

  Ms Quin
  Ten areas have been enrolled in the badger culling trial and initial culling has been carried out in seven of these, in line with the timetable set down by the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) on cattle TB. The ISG has advised that the trial is on course to produce results by the end of 2004 and possibly earlier.

  Rural Development Funding
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what rate rural development funding obtained though the modulation scheme will be matched by Government funding. [147852]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: The Spending Review 2000 plans include match funding of modulation receipts at a rate of 100 per cent.

  Agricultural and Food Imports
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the volume of (1) food imports into the United Kingdom; [147853]

  (2) agricultural imports into the United Kingdom. [147854]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: The tables show summaries of the volume and value of agricultural and food imports into the UK in 1999, as recorded by the Overseas Trade Statistics. More detailed information on processed and unprocessed imports,

  297W
  covering the period 1988 to 2000, is available on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food website at: http://www.maff.gov.uk/esg/excel/webindig.xls.

  Livestock imports in 1999

  Number (000 head)

  Value (£ million)

  Cattle

  3.0

  2.3

  Sheep and goats

  123.4

  4.5

  Pigs

  180.3

  10.0

  Poultry, including chicks

  9,134.6

  5.5

  Agricultural and food imports in 1999

  Quantity (000 Tonnes)

  Value (£ million)

  Unprocessed

  Eggs

  16.0

  11.5

  Fish: live, fresh or chilled

  82.2

  141.7

  Cereals, unmilled

  2,625.8

  286.8

  Fruit and vegetables: fresh, chilled or frozen

  3,974.3

  2,364.7

  Honey

  23.2

  16.1

  Cocoa and coffee

  351.0

  341.1

  Animal feedingstuffs

  141.8

  9.7

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  1,149.2

  199.4

  Total unprocessed

  8,363.5

  3,371.1

  Processed

  Meat and meat products

  1,298.5

  2,194.9

  Dairy products and egg products

  760.7

  1,175.9

  Fish, frozen or prepared

  469.0

  1,148.5

  Cereals and bakery products

  1,145.5

  847.9

  Fruit and vegetables, processed or preserved

  2,949.7

  1,768.6

  Sugar and sugar confectionery

  2,258.6

  725.2

  Cocoa and chocolate, coffee, tea and spices

  472.3

  893.6

  Animal feedingstuffs

  4,624.4

  639.9

  Cooked and prepared foods, sauces

  578.4

  963.5

  Alcoholic drinks

  2,427.4

  2,854.5

  Animal oils and fats

  1,570.9

  617.9

  Total processed

  18,555.3

  13,830.3

  Total imports

  26,918.8

  17,201.4

  Livestock Imports (France)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on livestock imports from France, [147851]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: The Chief Veterinary Officer's report for 1999 shows that livestock imports from France during 1999 were as follows:

  Number

  Cattle

  Breeding

  175

  Cattle

  Fattening

  1,458

  Sheep

  Breeding

  86

  Sheep

  Fattening

  184

  The importation of all these animals is subject to harmonised Community rules.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many public interest immunity 298W
  certificates (a) he, (b) Ministers of State, (c) junior Ministers and (d) civil servants in his Department have signed in each calendar year from 30 May 1997 [147733]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: There have been no public interest immunity certificates issued from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of civil or criminal litigation from 30 May 1997.

  Pet Travel Scheme
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in the extension of the Pet Travel Scheme to rabies-free islands. [146776]

  Ms Quin
  The Pet Travel Scheme was extended from 31 January to include cats and dogs from 28 rabies-free islands, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Cyprus. Over 14,500 cats and dogs have now successfully entered the UK using the scheme since it was launched last February.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members of Parliament (General Election Statistics)
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the President of the Council how many hon. Members left the House through(a) retirement and (b) losing their seats in (i)1983, (ii) 1987, (iii) 1992 and (iv) 1997. [148264]

  Mrs. Beckett
  This information requested is not held centrally.

  However, unofficial publications provide the following information:

  Stood down

  Defeated

  1983

  77

  63

  1987

  87

  41

  1992

  79

  60

  1997

  117

  132

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Speeding Fines
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was collected in fixed-penalty speeding fines on Northern Ireland's(a) Ml and M2 motorways, (b) urban non-motorway roads and (c) rural non-motorway roads for each year since 1996. [144693]

  Mr. Lock
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information detailing the amounts collected in fixed-penalty speeding fines in Northern Ireland since 1996 by category or road is not held centrally.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was collected in speeding fines in Northern Ireland in the years 1996 to 2000; and how and where this money was spent. [144685]

  Mr. Lock
  I have been asked to reply.
  299W
  Information detailing how much money was collected in speeding fines in Northern Ireland during the years 1996 to 2000 is not held centrally. Such fines are paid over directly to HM Treasury's Consolidated Fund.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Entertainment Expenses
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answers of 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 71W, if she will publish the full list of invitees to the party at Haymarket House on 22 September 1999 for the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz); and if the Lord Chancellor spoke at that function to welcome guests. [148265]

  Jane Kennedy
  As I have already made clear, the reception was hosted by The Hinduja Foundation who determined the invitation list, which was cross-party. The Lord Chancellor spoke briefly at the function.

  Asylum Appeals
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary,Lord Chancellor's Department what provision the Government are making for the general public, asylum seekers and their representatives to access information about the asylum appeals system. [148633]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Immigration Appellate Authority is today launching a websitewww.iaa.gov.uk. The site features up-to-date information on the organisation, the two judicial tiers it administers and the appeal procedures that apply. The IAA website will have links to the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate and Community Legal Service siteswww.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk. and

  Fines etc. in Greater Manchester, October 1999 to September 2000

  £

  New amount owed

  Amount paid

  Percentage paid

  Net amount written off

  Percentage written off

  Manchester

  7,149,567

  3,371,738

  47.2

  2,115,156

  29.6

  North and West Manchester

  11,120,286

  6,457,388

  58.1

  2,322,087

  20.9

  Oldham

  1,514,404

  895,342

  59.1

  519,254

  34.3

  Stockport

  2,225,873

  1,052,881

  47.3

  480,070

  21.6

  Tameside

  1,632,282

  816,770

  50.0

  320,291

  19.6

  Trafford

  1,874,208

  984,091

  52.5

  325,158

  17.3

  Greater Manchester total

  25,516,620

  13,578,210

  53.2

  6,082,016

  23.8

  England and Wales total

  391,750,916

  224,194,079

  57.2

  67,628,658

  17.3

  Notes:

  1. New amount owed includes fines, fee orders, costs orders, compensation and confiscation orders, imposed either by magistrates, or by Crown court judges and transferred to magistrates courts for enforcement

  2. Debt analysis data are collected centrally from Magistrates Courts Committee areas. They do not distinguish between individual courts in the area. North and West Manchester MCC is responsible for administration in Bury, Wigan, Rochdale, Middleton, Leigh, Salford and Bolton magistrates courts.

  3. Amounts paid and written off may relate to amounts imposed before the current 12 month period.

  4. The net amount written off includes amounts written back.

  Source:

  LCD Management Information System
  300W
  www.justask.org.uk. The IAA website will provide a useful entry point to gain information on the process of applying for asylum.

  A key feature of the IAA site is the provision of detailed daily court lists for all the Authority's hearing centres—allowing parties involved in appeals access to listing information as early as possible. Supporting the lists with on-line access to leaflets, guidance and travel maps, the website provides asylum seekers and their representatives with easily obtained practical information.

  Judges (Political Neutrality)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance he issues to judges on maintaining a politically neutral stance in public in respect of bills before Parliament. [147474]

  Mr. Lock
  The current guidance given to judges on appointment advises them against engagement in any capacity which might undermine, or be reasonably thought to undermine, their judicial independence or impartiality. A statement about the position of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary was made by the Senior Law Lord in another place on 22 June 2000,Official Report, House of Lords, columns 419–20, setting out the general principles on the participation of the Lords of Appeal in the business of the House of Lords.

  Fines (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for the last 12 month period for which figures are available, what the total value was of fines imposed by each magistrates court in Greater Manchester; what percentage was collected in each case; and how much each court has written off as uncollectable. [147947]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is in the table, with footnotes.

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

  War Crimes
  Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will take steps in appropriate cases to exercise their powers to remove British nationality from individuals whom they are satisfied have been personally involved in the commission of war crimes.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government take the issue of war crimes very seriously and are seeking to ensure that the UK is not, and does not become, a safe haven for individuals involved in such crimes. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is examining various measures, including the scope for using the deprivation of citizenship provisions contained in Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981.
  Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and especially for his assurance that an investigation is taking place. I am sure that he is aware of the presence in this country of some 1,500 members of the Waffen SS from the regiment known as the 14th SS Volunteer Division Galicia, which includes a number of war criminals and against whom there is now new evidence. Can he indicate when the Home Secretary's investigation is likely to be completed; whether the powers of the Home Secretary to remove British nationality will be used if, but only if, there is sufficient evidence against an individual; and what other measures are being considered?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot be precise as to when the review will be completed, but it is urgently taking place. The noble Lord is right to draw our attention to the recent programme "The SS in Britain". I can inform him that the Metropolitan Police are investigating allegations made as a product of that programme and forwarded by the Simon Wiesenthal centre. The police have received helpful information with regard to these allegations and have received the co-operation of the programme-makers. They are giving it very careful analysis.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, how on earth can any government be satisfied of personal
  792
  involvement—that is what the Question asks—without a conviction in the courts? Is the Minister aware that the Hetherington report found many people personally involved, worthy of trial, and probably worthy of conviction, but there has been only one conviction since 1991? What on earth are the Government going to do? It is the business of the judiciary not of the Government.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there was widespread concern about that. As a result of the inquiry conducted by Sir Thomas Hetheringon in 1989 our predecessors in government—they should be congratulated on it—brought forward the War Crimes Act. The noble Lord is right; there has been only one successful prosecution. But the police investigated—the responsibility must rest with them, it cannot rest with government—more than 300 allegations following the war crimes inquiry. We have to be satisfied that those allegations were properly and thoroughly investigated. I am sure that the police did a rigorous job in difficult circumstances.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government, whatever they can or decide to do, treat in a similar way any persons found to be involved in crimes against humanity, not necessarily in wartime, and committed against their own nationals as well as others; for example, the atrocities committed in death camps such as Belsen, which was liberated by the British Army?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, those circumstances would be covered by the War Crimes Act. But the Government have recently introduced a Bill to allow the United Kingdom to ratify the International Criminal Court statute. That will allow UK courts to prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity committed in the UK or by UK nationals and those subject to UK service jurisdiction overseas, and allow the United Kingdom to surrender indictees to the court. That gives ample testament to our commitment in this policy area.
  Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether he is in contact with Poland, which is looking into the extradition process, or with any other governments in connection with issues that he has been good enough to look at?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that I am not personally in contact, but I am sure that that the department is. I shall carry out some inquiries to find out exactly where those links and connections are. I shall write to the noble Lord and place a copy of that correspondence in the Library.

  Interception of Postal Items
  3.11 p.m.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What bodies are entitled to intercept items carried by the Royal Mail; in what circumstances; and under what powers.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the powers to authorise the interception of communications are to be found in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Under that Act, there are nine bodies which may seek authorisation to intercept items carried by the Royal Mail. These are the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, Government Communications Headquarters, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Metropolitan Police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Scottish police forces, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Ministry of Defence.
  The grounds on which a warrant can be granted are strictly limited. It can be done only when the interception is necessary for one of the three following purposes: first, in the interests of national security; secondly, for the prevention or detection of serious crime; and, thirdly, for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that on 20th January on the "Money Box" programme, the National Criminal Intelligence Service said that it had intercepted 10,000 letters from Nigeria concerning a financial scam asking people to move lots of money? Can he tell us exactly what is meant by "interception"? Can he further say what is the position about private mail, as a good deal of mail now comes via couriers and other means rather than via the Royal Mail?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the information given on that programme. I was not aware of it. Postal interception plays a very small part in interception operations. I am advised that out of 2,000 warrants issued in 1999, the latest year for which we have figures, just 130 authorised the interception of postal items. Interception is a vital intelligence gathering tool for law enforcement and national security purposes.
  As to the noble Baroness's final point, the fact is that an interception warrant may be served on a person who provides a "postal service". A "postal service" is defined in the legislation as any service which assists in the distribution and delivery of postal items. A "postal item" is defined as any letter, postcard or other thing in writing as may be used by the sender for imparting information to the recipient. That covers private courier services as well as the Royal Mail.

  London Underground: Financing Structure
  3.14 p.m.
  Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they remain committed, in the future financing of the London Underground, to separating responsibilities for operating the system from providing for its infrastructure.
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, yes. The Government remain committed to securing the best option for the Tube that combines value for money with maintaining and improving safety. We believe that our proposal for a public private partnership is the right one. We are also in discussion with the Commissioner for Transport of London, Bob Kiley, on his proposals. Building on the work already done, we aim together to work out how best to accommodate his thinking within the PPP framework.
  Lord Ezra: My Lords, I have carefully noted what the noble Lord has just said. I am glad that discussions are still going on with Mr Bob Kiley. However, in view of the difficulties which have arisen on the railways as a result of divided responsibilities, is it not important to see whether private sector participation, with which many of us agree, could be obtained on the Underground without dividing responsibility between operations and the infrastructure?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, safety is paramount and has been at the forefront of thinking on the PPP. I should make clear, however, that the Underground is not a fragmented system like the railways. The PPP is much more unified in its structure than anything that is involved in the national railway. The public sector London Underground will retain primary statutory responsibility for the whole network and the unified structure that we propose avoids separation between train maintenance and track maintenance.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Mr Kiley has described the public private partnership as "fundamentally flawed" and a "prescription for potential disaster"? Does the noble Lord not recognise that Mr Kiley has a good deal more experience in running an underground railway than many other people in this country?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it is worth emphasising that there is a great deal of experience in running London Underground in its present management. Indeed, it is that management which is carrying on the negotiation at the moment. But I do stress that we have had a series of constructive meetings with Mr Kiley. We are both looking for the best management system. We understand that Mr

  795
  Kiley accepts that the private sector has an important role to play. Despite the statements that we read, I emphasise again that discussions continue.
  Lord Marsh: My Lords, but is not Mr Kiley still committed to financing the new situation on the basis of direct access to the bond market? Is there a compromise between that and the PPP?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I stress again that in our discussions we have made it clear that we are trying to seek as much common ground as possible. I am not aware that the question of bond finance would in the end frustrate an agreement were that agreement to be possible.
  Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the views of the Labour group on the Greater London Assembly—I declare an interest as its leader—that any scheme for the funding of the Tube should deliver money quickly to deal with the under-investment over many years but should also be capable of external validation as to safety and value for money for Londoners? Does he also share the widespread amazement at the Mayor of London's stance in supporting the proposed strikes on London Underground?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we look both to the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that the safety regimes put in place are as rigorous as they should be and to the National Audit Office to ensure that whatever deal we do produces best value. I stress that we have said that the PPP must show itself to be the best value for London.
  On the question of the dispute, I am aware of the judge's decision but I am not aware of the full details of the judgment. However, it is worth pointing out that, although safety has been one of the points made by the rail unions in the dispute, the other areas are no compulsory redundancies, established staff levels to be maintained and all employees employed at the date of the present dispute to remain on their existing terms and conditions of employment. It is a concern about change that the unions are expressing—in a way, I think, we would all believe is of great inconvenience to the travelling public. But change is, I believe, inevitably in prospect if we want to get into the railway the kind of investment to which the noble Lord referred.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the Minister satisfy what may be a rather selfish question? Did the Government welcome unequivocally the appointment of Mr Kiley and are they now happy to see him in place?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we were not consulted on that appointment and we did not expect to be consulted. However, I have met Mr Kiley on a number of occasions, most recently half an hour ago. I explained to him that I had to leave our meeting to come to the House and answer a Question about
  796
  whether I would be meeting him. We have found Mr Kiley to be extremely able. He has engaged with us in constructive discussions.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the House will glad to hear those comments. The Minister has pointed out that the Government are doing what they can best to accommodate Mr Kiley's thinking within the PPP framework. Does that not suggest that the Government's willingness to be flexible in their thinking is very limited? What further assurances can the Minister offer noble Lords that he is prepared to consider the framework so that ultimately we achieve the best outcome?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords. I stress again that our primary objective is to secure the best value for money for Londoners and to ensure that investment is put into the Tube as quickly as possible. We believe that the PPP is the best system for achieving that. However, we have been open in our discussions with Mr Kiley and have made it clear to him that we are prepared to discuss all of his objectives for the railway, for the Underground—I apologise to noble Lords for using American terms—and that we shall be happy to try to accommodate them where they do not threaten our core intention of providing best value.
  Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble friend assist me on a matter regarding the performance of the London Underground? He stated that the objective of the PPP is to improve performance. Can he confirm that recent press reports stating that the PPP will not require the contractors to improve on their performance are totally incorrect?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I can do so.
  Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the Minister recall that a few moments ago his noble friend asked him whether he would condemn the Mayor of London's explicit support for the proposed strike? Does he also recall that inadvertently he forgot to answer that question? Perhaps I may give him an opportunity to do so now.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I do believe that the Mayor of London is wrong to say that he will support the strike and take part in picketing. I think that it is also regrettable that, although the strike has been described as a one-day strike, it appears that it will be conducted in such a way that it will hit travellers over two days. That seems inherently unfair on the travelling public. As I have said, I think that the Mayor's actions are regrettable.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a statement was made in a news broadcast to the effect that the Mayor intends to borrow a considerable number of millions of pounds from the fire brigade pension fund to commence immediately and without further delay the transport

  797
  work? Can the Minister tell the House what are the implications of that action? How will it fit in with the other proposed financial arrangements for the Tube? Furthermore, is there any risk that ultimately the people of London will need to pay the money back through a higher levy?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, many noble Lords will be aware that one of the underlying intentions of the PPP is to transfer risk to the private sector. We believe that if the intended PPP is disrupted in any way it would take one to two years to put in place alternative financing systems. However, I am not aware of any intention to use fire brigade pension fund money for that purpose.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is the size of the public subsidy to London Underground and what is the capital requirement?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, those questions will be covered by the rules governing commercial confidentiality. The noble Earl will understand that at this time that must influence many of our public statements as regards capital needs. As to past funding, in recent years that funding has been running at an average of around £500 million per year. By the end of 2001, I believe that, since the Government came to power, we will have put in around £3.4 billion. That figure contrasts with the previous government's spending plans, which included the elimination of any kind of grant to the Underground.

  Hammond Inquiry: Terms of Reference
  3.25 p.m.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will publish the terms of reference for Sir Anthony Hammond QC's inquiry in connection with matters relating to Mr Peter Mandelson's resignation.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the terms of reference for Sir Anthony Hammond QC's review, announced by the Prime Minister on Wednesday, 24th January, are:
  "To establish what approaches were made to the Home Office in 1998 in connection with the possibility of an application for naturalisation by Mr S.P. Hinduja, and the full circumstances surrounding such approaches and the later grant of that application; and to report to the Prime Minister".
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that detailed reply relating to this sorry affair. Can he confirm that the inquiry will be able to look into the question of how the Home Office appears to have succumbed to extraneous ministerial
  798
  pressures brought to bear when the issue arose over whether passports should have been granted to the Hinduja brothers?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be wrong for me either to describe or circumscribe in any way the extent of the inquiry being carried out by Sir Anthony Hammond. I believe that it would also be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that review. No doubt the review will be as extensive as the noble Lord wishes.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, will Sir Anthony's findings be published?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the report will be published and I have been advised that copies will be placed in the Printed Paper Office and, of course, in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm whether the previous administration, which was in power for 18 years, set up an inquiry to consider the behaviour of Neil Hamilton, Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer? If they did so, did they publish the terms of reference?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware that that was done. Perhaps different rules then applied.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the evidence be taken on oath and will it be subject to cross-examination?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think that this is a judicial inquiry or investigation and I am not aware that evidence will be taken in the manner suggested by the noble Lord.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am sure that Sir Anthony Hammond's long experience as the in-house legal adviser at the Home Office for most of his career will enable him to probe this matter very deeply. However, if his report exonerates Mr Mandelson, will be once again be reinstated? Mr Mandelson was a most respected Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is undoubtedly the case that Peter Mandelson was a widely respected Member of Her Majesty's Government. He did an excellent job in his ministerial postings. As regards the position of Sir Anthony Hammond, I believe that he is an official whose standing is above and beyond dispute.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if Mr Mandelson is found to be lily-white and guilt free, why is he not being asked back into the Government? Alternatively,

  799
  what was the reason for his resignation? If the Minister does not know the answer, perhaps he would like to ask his neighbour sitting to his right.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is an entirely hypothetical question. Those matters are, of course, properly ones for the Prime Minister.

  The Steel Industry
  3.28 p.m.
  The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Corus which was made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
  "I would like to make a Statement concerning the steel industry and the announcement made today by Corus.
  "The House will be aware that since early December Corus has been conducting a review of its operations. The results of this review were announced this morning. Corus has said that it intends to introduce radical restructuring measures which will involve significant job losses in England and Wales. Over 6,000 jobs will be lost. Around 3,000 of those will be in Wales and 3,000 will be in England.
  "Corus has failed to discuss its plans with the Government. Relevant information has not been disclosed; it has been resistant to any meaningful dialogue and has refused to discuss in detail its plans for the industry. We have expressed our concerns to the company about this lack of information at the highest possible level.
  "There is no doubt that Corus has been facing difficulties. Trading conditions are tough and there has been a clear need for the company to take steps to address these problems. The Government recognise that it is for Corus and any other company to take the commercial decisions they feel are necessary, but in this case capacity will be reduced and thousands of jobs lost as a result of a short-term response to the difficulties it faces.
  "The Government recognise that at a time of globalisation many sectors of industry are going through major reconstructing. In these circumstances the role of government is to provide economic stability. That is exactly what the Government are doing.
  "There are over a million more men and women in work than in 1997. Inflation now remains around or below the target of 2.5 per cent. Long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for 35 years. We have put an end to the old cycle of boom and bust. Building on that platform of stability, the Government have been driving forward an active industrial policy to enable established industries to modernise, to adopt new processes and technologies and to support the development of new industries.
  800
  "We have seen manufacturing productivity increase by around 3.5 per cent over the past year. Exports are growing, with manufacturing export volumes up by more than 9.5 per cent in the past year. Manufacturing output is rising, too. The prospects for manufacturing are improving, with most forecasters expecting growth to pick up over the next two years. Only this morning, the latest Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply report showed manufacturing growing at its fastest since March last year.
  "Today's announcement by Corus stands in stark contrast to other manufacturing companies. Those companies are prepared to take a long-term view. In recent weeks, both Toyota and Nissan have taken positive decisions on production in the UK when they could have gone elsewhere in the world. These companies have decided that they have a future as manufacturers in the UK. They have committed to substantial new investment. They have demonstrated confidence in their workforces and in the economic stability and favourable business environment the Government have established. Corus should—like Toyota and Nissan—weigh up its long-term interests and prospects and, in responding to the real challenges it faces, it should put greater weight on the new opportunities that exist for developing into new markets.
  "Even after today's announcement, Corus will remain a major employer, with around 22,000 employees in the UK, a demonstration of the fact that there is a future for the steel industry. It is because there is a future for the industry that Corus should think again about these proposed closures and redundancies and instead work with the trade unions, government and the National Assembly for Wales to identify a better way forward.
  "We recognise that this is a commercial decision to be taken by the company and that action has to be taken to tackle the losses being suffered by Corus. But Corus should now engage openly and work constructively with all the relevant parties, building on the strengths that exist in the steel industry.
  "UK steel workers have improved productivity dramatically in recent years. They are the most highly productive steel workers in the whole of Europe. Between 1998 and 1999 alone, they increased productivity from 533 tonnes per person to 571, well above the levels in Germany and France. We have been working with the industry to help it improve productivity, to modernise and adopt new technology.
  "The workforce at Corus has shown its long-term commitment to the industry and to the company, and I share its anger at Corus's behaviour. Corus should now work with its employees and the communities affected. If Corus refuses to change course, then it must meet its obligations. It must pay the costs of the clean-up of the sites involved in today's announcement. It should then release them quickly and play its part in helping the communities affected.

  801
  "The Government will not walk away from the innocent victims of this decision. We will be there alongside them. We will provide help for the individuals affected, support for local communities and backing for regeneration schemes to support the local economy and bring new jobs for people.
  "But it need not come to that. Corus should adopt a different approach. If it were to do so, it would have the support of the Government. On behalf of 6,000 steelworkers, their families and the communities in which they live, I urge Corus to think again and to work with us to identify a better way forward".
  My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
  3.35 p.m.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for repeating this very worrying Statement made in another place. I fear that the loss of 6,050 jobs is a severe blow to the British economy. Those job losses will, of course, have a ripple effect and other jobs will be lost in ancillary businesses of all kinds.
  It is a particularly devastating blow to Wales, which is due to take about half the job losses, mainly at Llanwern and nearby Ebbw Vale and Bryngwyn, which are to close completely. Shotton in North Wales also loses more than 300 jobs. All this in spite of the high productivity which the Minister was happy to acknowledge.
  One has to remember, too, that the job losses announced today come after 2,000 jobs were shed by Corus in its Welsh plants last year—4,200 in all in England and Wales. Employees and people generally in Wales have been deeply disturbed by this news, which comes on top of other job losses in manufacturing at Sony, Panasonic and elsewhere. So I am not quite as sanguine about the prospects for manufacturing as the Minister appears to be.
  I understand that the company argues that the job losses are necessary because of over-capacity in the industry—this may explain its refusal to accept the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation's proposal for a take-over of Llanwern—although it is only the heavy end, as I understand it, that is being closed at Llanwern. Corus also blames lack of demand in the UK for certain of its products.
  My first question to the Minister is whether it can be argued that Corus is engaged in reconstruction of the steel industry in the United Kingdom and whether it would qualify for financial assistance in this from the European Commission and its Steel Aid Fund. The company's losses have certainly been high and it will surely need such assistance. Have the Government sounded out the Commission? If not, will they do so?
  Judging by the exchanges at Welsh Questions in the other place yesterday, the Government are critical of Corus for keeping them in the dark about its plans. The Minister echoed those feelings today. I find this rather difficult to understand because Sir Brian
  802
  Moffat, the Corus chief executive, met the Prime Minister and a number of his Cabinet colleagues in Downing Street last week. As the Minister acknowledged, rumours of the company's difficulties and impending cut-backs have been circulating for quite some time. I cannot believe that the Government were unaware of them. My second question is, therefore, what did the Government do when they heard these reports? Did they really press Corus for its plans? Certainly they should have pressed the company harder than they did because we are told that Corus did not produce its plans.
  Although it is understandable in view of the imminence of an election that the Government should attempt to load as much of the odium for these closures on Corus, it is also fair to ask whether they think that the climate change levy—80 per cent of which will be paid by Corus alone—is appropriate at this time. Will the Government consider the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, when we discussed the steel question on Tuesday, that the Government seek to postpone its effect or to modify it in other ways? In the present circumstances the business rate paid on some of the plants should also be considered. I am told that Corus raised that issue with the Welsh Assembly some weeks ago.
  On Tuesday, we were reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that,
  "If further job redundancies are announced shortly, we shall take the action that we have taken in similar cases to ensure that we create jobs in the area and enable people to search for new jobs".—[Official Report, 30/1/01; col. 554.]
  What exactly do the Government propose? Who will take the lead on this? Is the First Secretary at the Welsh Assembly to take the lead so far as concerns Wales? Will it be the Secretary of State for Wales; or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; or will it be the Prime Minister in person? There seems to be some confusion as to who is in the lead in this area. Frankly, it has to be said that too many cooks spoil the broth.
  Each area affected is very different in character. Ebbw Vale, for example, is almost totally dependent on its steelworks. Each area will require special treatment. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that south-east Wales in not in the Objective One area and cannot benefit from the resources available under that heading.
  When Ravenscraig, Llanwern's sister plant in Scotland, was closed a decade or so ago, there were much better prospects of attracting major inward investment projects and every effort was made to secure alternative employment in the Ravenscraig area. It will be much more difficult to do that now, in spite of the high-quality workforces available in Gwent and elsewhere, because there is not so much mobile industry available.
  Finally, we are all concerned about the proposed reduction in steel producing capacity and our possible need of it at a later date. Will the Government examine the national interest in this issue in some depth? There are clearly implications for defence procurement.

  803
  The Government cannot stand idly by, denigrating Corus, although that is understandable. They must be realistic. Although they may plead with Corus to change its mind, it is somewhat unlikely to do so.
  3.43 p.m.
  Lord Ezra: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement by his right honourable friend in another place. I join with him and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in regretting that this decision should have had to be taken and that this large number of highly skilled steel workers should no longer have employment.
  From my days in the coal industry, I recall visits that I paid to both the plants in South Wales that are primarily affected, Llanwern and Ebbw Vale. Indeed, I was at Llanwern shortly after its opening in 1962, when I was shown round by the late Sir Campbell Adamson, then the plant manager. Therefore, I speak with enormous regret that such a wonderful plant, as it then was and as it has served the country ever since, should now face partial closure. I agree that everything possible should be done to reverse that decision if it is still feasible to do so.
  The Minister said in repeating the Statement that it is clear that,
  "at a time of globalisation, many sectors of industry are going through major restructuring".
  I should like to remind the noble Lord of the proposals that I made when the subject of manufacturing arose in this House on previous occasions, specifically in relation to the steel industry. I suggested that, because of the difficulty that many sectors of manufacturing were meeting, the Government should be studying the issue and should be bringing out a White Paper in which they could formulate a strategy. Had they done so, it would have been easier for the management of Corus to take a long-term view relating to such a strategy. I hope that it is not too late for that issue to be addressed.
  I should particularly like to know, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, indicated, what the Government have in mind if the management of Corus were now, even at this late stage, to take a different view? What measures could the Government introduce to help Corus which would not contravene either European or British competition rules; and which could make such a material difference that we could retain these assets for the long term, as we should all like to do, maintain a higher level of employment than is presently envisaged, and at the same time enable the company to regain its viability? Those are the real issues on which we should like to be informed.
  3.46 p.m.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, was right to say that the closures will have a ripple effect. I hope that I was in no way over-optimistic about the situation in manufacturing generally—although it should be pointed out that output in manufacturing is up: we saw productivity rise by around 4 per cent throughout last year, and
  804
  some parts of the manufacturing sector, such as aerospace or fibre-optics—one of the leading new areas—are doing extremely well. What we are seeing is a variable picture between the different parts of manufacturing. It is typically those parts of manufacturing with low margins such as steel, or where there is global excess capacity—for example, in automobiles—where the greatest pressure is being felt.
  I believe that there is no question of giving help under the rules of the European Coal and Steel Community, which are very tight indeed. With the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, we have had meetings with Corus. The company was pressed at the highest level to give us details of what it was planning to do and its long-term strategy. It is a measure of how out-of-touch the company is with current thinking on these matters that it should have refused to give us those figures, and that the figures and plans were only heard by us at eight o'clock this morning. I do not think that it is an appropriate way for a major company to behave in today's economy.
  So far as concerns the climate change levy, it will be appreciated that, with the 80 per cent discount, it comes to only £10 million. Therefore, the figure has not been significant in the overall scheme. We suggested discussing a package which covered areas such as business rates and various other matters. We accept that it would not have been a huge package, because we cannot do that under the rules of the European Coal and Steel Community; however, it could possibly have gone some way to mitigating the impact of the severity of the cuts. I am sure the House will agree that any such mitigation should have been given serious consideration by the company. However, the view of the company was that it would not affect its decision in any way.
  As I hope the Statement makes clear, we are asking Corus to reconsider and rethink its decision. If it persists, we shall obviously bring forward proposals on the basis of the figures that we now have. I had hoped that the other parties in this House could join with the Government in asking Corus to reconsider its decision.
  As regards manufacturing industry, the Government are deeply concerned about, and have given great consideration to, the interests of manufacturing, which we believe can continue, as now, to play a very large part in the economy of this country. There are many opportunities going forward. I am not certain about a strategy, but we have policies that obviously impact on the different factors that influence manufacturing. As I believe I illustrated when I mentioned the varying situations in different parts of manufacturing, I doubt if a manufacturing strategy will take us any further.
  I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that, as I said earlier, we offered to try to put together a package that included business rates, but the company were not interested in it. Of course, the major factor as regards the company's profitability is the question of the exchange rate. But since the dismissal of the two chief executives in December the situation has moved on

  805
  significantly by over 10 pfennigs. That, alone, would have an impact of £80 on the profitability of the company, which is the major consideration. In responding to that short-term situation, we have not been persuaded that the company has really given the proper and due weight to the long-term situation.
  3.51 p.m.
  Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, the Government need to be rather more self-critical about their failures to act in this matter. As has already been pointed out, we have known for a long time—much to the distress of many noble Lords on this side of the House—that Corus has been losing heavily financially. My noble friend the Minister gave us an illustration of just how much when he said that for every 10 pfennigs of change in the exchange rate between the euro and the pound £80 million of profit is wiped out. We are not talking about one lop or a 10 pfennig change; we are talking about 35 to 40 changes in the exchange rate over the past two years. Indeed, we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds of loss. We are familiar with what happened with BMW and Rover and the closure, and large loss of car making, of the two great American car subsidiaries at Dagenham and Luton.
  That being so, has it really not gone home to the Government that they have to do something about the exchange rate, if they believe that it is misaligned—and they do? Indeed, my noble friend told us just how much only yesterday. We are dealing with what we have been told twice from the Front Bench is the most efficient, productive steel enterprise in Europe. Yet we are here today calmly talking about a very substantial closure. Either the Chancellor of the Exchequer must wake up to the realities of what the exchange rate policy is doing, or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had better get much tougher in his dealings with manufacturers who are behaving badly.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, I believe that his desire to return to the policies of the past and the failed policies of boom and bust is not one that the great majority of British industry would in any way welcome. I see that my noble friend shakes his head, but, in reality, if we want to reduce the level of the pound, there is only one way that that can basically be done; namely, by convincing the financial markets that inflation will take off in this country and that there will be an extensive increase in the money supply, with all the inherent risks involved in terms of inflation rising. That is surely one of the lessons that has been learnt over the past 25 years. This Government have no intention of returning to those polices. If people want to put forward such policies, I believe that they should honestly say that increasing the money supply and the inflation rate is what they propose in order to bring down the pound. British industry should be asked whether that kind of instability and boom and bust is what they want.
  Lord Brookman: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest. I worked for some 20 years at the
  806
  Ebbw Vale steelworks, which is now one of those places destined to be closed. I must confess that I never thought that I would be present in this Chamber and hear from my noble friend the Minister—not of his making—that the heart would be ripped out of the Welsh steel industry. It is a sad day for me. Of course, even further job losses will take place in Redcar and elsewhere; and, indeed, there will be an unspecified number in other areas, probably 3,000, about which we do not know as I stand here today.
  Corus is wrong. It is short-sighted and, as many noble Lords will I am sure agree, it is grossly unfair. The company should keep its nerve. My noble friend the Minister is correct: manufacturing has a future. Toyota and Nissan showed that recently with their respective announcements. Corus is wrong in the whole area of consultation. Quite frankly, the situation is absurd. My noble friend said that the Government knew about the company's plans at eight o'clock this morning. That is unbelievable. Therefore, if ever there were a case that proved that further legislation should be introduced so that workers could have their due rights discussed in consultation, this situation has surely proved that point.
  My union, along with my successor, has worked extremely hard in a proper manner to put together a plan, a set of proposals. The latter was not formulated off the top of anyone's head in that sense: the proposals were properly constructed so as to try to save these jobs at Llanwern. They suggested the putting together of a consortium. That suggestion was rejected out of hand. That, in itself, is disgraceful. Workers have a right to be consulted and to have their views considered. If that union, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation (ISTC), has a consortium ready to pick up the gauntlet in an effort to try to save those jobs, I believe that Corus should listen to the workers even at this late hour.
  Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what the Government actually put before Corus in relation to the package? Indeed, the Welsh Assembly also maintained that it did so. Finally, will my noble friend or the Government be attending further meetings with the company to try to persuade those concerned that what they are doing is irresponsible and wrong for the British people?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend; there is a future for manufacturing in this country. Indeed, I believe that there is also a future for steel manufacturing in the UK. That is why we have asked Corus to reconsider its decision. I very much hope that the company will give serious consideration to the views that we have put forward today.
  As regards consultation, it is most regrettable that people hear of these collective redundancies by way of radio programmes rather than through proper arrangements from the company. That is why, on 18th January in the light of events elsewhere, the Secretary of State announced a review of UK arrangements for collective redundancies. As I said, this is no way for people to hear about such developments. I can tell my

  807
  noble friend that we did not go into great detail on the package of measures. It was not an enormous package, but it was dismissed out of hand by the company. Again, that is a sign that the company is not prepared to give serious thought to these issues.
  When proposals—though not worked-out properly—were put forward for the workers to take over some of these operations, it is extremely unfortunate that they were not given any consideration. I hope that the company will now reconsider the issues involved and sit down with the Government, the trade unions and the National Assembly for Wales to see whether we can overcome at least some of these difficulties and identify a way forward.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I obviously realise the deep anxiety and concern of the local people in Wales as a result of this announcement. I recognise that Corus probably behaved less than tactfully. I also recognise that the company may have made a commercial mistake. I have not the slightest idea as to whether or not it did; indeed, I wonder whether anyone in this House knows whether or not it made a commercial mistake. Does the Minister recognise that the economic success of this country, over the past decade at any rate, has been largely due to allowing major restructuring of British manufacturing industry?
  I take the latest figures available for steel. At constant prices, the value of output of iron and steel from the UK increased by 32 per cent between 1983 and 1999, during which period employment in the industry fell by over 50 per cent. In the eight major manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom, employment since the end of the war has fallen by over 80 per cent; in steel by 82 per cent. During that period the total employment went down from over 4 million to well under 1 million. Yet we have an economy with high productivity and high output. Inflation for the past decade has been less than 4 per cent. As the Minister rightly says, that is one of the factors that makes the pound high. I wonder whether higher inflation would be a price worth paying in order to get a lower pound.
  Does the Minister agree that it is right to allow overall market forces to continue because otherwise we too could regress as France has done? France has considerable economic problems because it has failed to face up to restructuring.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think this is a question of tact; it is a question of how a major corporation in this country behaves to its workers. I believe that in this day and age consultation and discussion with them about long-term strategy when in this difficult situation is absolutely fundamental to running a good business. As I say, this is not a question of tact; it is about how one runs a modern business appropriately.
  The Government are quite clear. We are not saying that we know better than Corus with regard to its strategy. What we are saying is that a company of this
  808
  size in these extremely difficult circumstances should be prepared to talk to the Government to discuss its strategy and the way forward so that it can convince the Government that it is following an appropriate strategy and adopting a long-term view and that it is not reacting to a short-term situation. When it refuses to do so, it cannot expect the Government or any other parties not to suspect that it is taking a short-term view. The behaviour of this company is not in tune with what we would expect of a major company. Of course, we are well aware of the importance of restructuring and, indeed, the necessity for it in many industries. However, this company has systematically restructured over a long period and has achieved incredibly high—indeed, the highest—rate of productivity in Europe for this kind of plant. The question, therefore, that must be raised is whether it is a long-term sensible decision to take the action that the company has done. That is what we question, not the need for restructuring to take place where it is necessary.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, this is an extremely sad day for the people of South Wales. It is not the first sad day that the people of South Wales have had to suffer. I think that we all recognise that for well over a hundred years the economy of South Wales was based on coal and steel which produced hundreds of thousands of jobs in their heyday. I take a leaf out of the book of my noble friend Lord Shore when he says that we should not calmly discuss the eonomics of the situation. I am not concerned in this debate about the exchange rate or restructuring. What I am concerned about is the impact that this action will have on people's jobs, on communities and on the quality of life in South Wales when these closures are implemented. I have always believed that we should consider the economics of the situation but that we should also remember that the economics must be geared to improve people's quality of life. Sometimes we have to stand back and say, "What is most important is how this impacts on people".
  My noble friend said that Corus employs 22,000 people in the steel industry in this country. When I left the industry 32 years ago in 1969, there were 17,500 people working in a single plant at Port Talbot where I had worked for 20 years. That is the difference. I congratulate the Government on attacking Corus for what I call "industrial vandalism" in this case. It is not considering the people who have produced the steel and helped to make the profits over a long period of time. The Opposition ought not to be carping about the Government's condemnation of Corus. They should support that condemnation. They should support the Government if and when they put in place support for the people involved. I say that for one big reason: it is not so long ago that the party opposite saw pit after pit close in this country, particularly in South Wales, damaging the interests of communities and

  809
  people. This House needs to face up to the fact that people are more important than anything else. I believe that the Government recognise that.
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I remind the House of the statement in the Companion about limiting comments to questions to the Minister.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I understand the anger of people caught in this situation, as expressed by my noble friend. This is a devastating blow for the communities involved and, indeed, also for the workers who raised their productivity in the industry year after year to the highest level in Lurope. That is why we are again asking the company—I stress this—to reconsider the matter and to work with us to find a way forward.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm two short points? First, long before eight a.m. this morning Corus came under legal obligations to inform and consult not only trade union representatives but also the Government. The failure to inform the Government has been sanctioned in statute by criminal sanctions for some 25 years. There is no need for a new law on this matter in the particular circumstances of the case we are discussing, although there may be such a need in the case of other employers. Does not my noble friend agree that when Ministers met Corus last week they should have told it that it was flying in the face of a criminal offence long dictated by statute and, indeed, departing from the normal consultation procedures of good employers? The good employers point has been mentioned, but as my noble friend mentioned Community rules, will be not also take account of the rules on our statute book of which Corus is flagrantly in contempt?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised an extremely important point. I do not wish to comment on it without further information on the details of the conversations that took place as that may indicate when decisions were made to take these actions. However, I shall take further advice on the matter. If I can obtain any further information, I shall write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, some of us have watched the steel industry closely—I have watched the engineering steel industry closely and, I hope, helpfully—for a long time and have rejoiced at the enormous achievements of that industry. It was preeminent internationally only two or three years ago.
  My noble friend may be aware that at that time the industry and parliamentary representatives established beyond doubt that there were areas of unfair competition in Europe. We have heard nothing from Corus in recent years about problems unless it has mentioned them today. As a result of our happy relationship with what was then British Steel, we
  810
  attended the meeting two or three years ago when it explained the implications of the merger with the Dutch firm. We accepted its hopes and assurances which now do not seem to have been fulfilled. Is there any possibility that jobs are being lost in this country because workers here may have fewer employment rights than workers in partner firms in mainland Europe? Will the Minister pay particular regard to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn about making clear that this business's interests are no longer with Britain? Instead they relate to the short-term calculation of profit wherever it can be planned, with no regard to the long-term interest in the United Kingdom which it should still possess?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that Corus has suggested recently that unfair competition is involved. Any suggestion of unfair competition would be immediately investigated. The question was asked as to whether people have been made redundant in this country rather than in Holland because it is easier to dismiss them in this country. There is no great difference in terms of costs, if not always of procedures. In this case it is fairly clear that the position relates to the performance and profitability of the individual plants rather than differences in costs or procedures for redundancy.

  Social Security Fraud Bill [H.L.]
  4.11 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness HON of Heigham): 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.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Nicol) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 [Additional powers to obtain information]:
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("(persons") in line 9 and insert—
  ("After subsection (1) of section 109B (power to require information,) there shall be inserted—
  "(1A) magistrate may, on an application from an authorised officer who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person—

  (a) is a person falling within subsection (2A) below, and

  (b) has possession of or access to any information about any matter that is relevant for any one or more of the purposes mentioned in section 109A(2) above,

  make an order requiring that person to provide to the authorised officer such information specified in the order as is information of which he has possession, or to which he has access, and which it is reasonable to require for a purpose so mentioned."
  (2A) After subsection (2) of section 109B").
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment which stands also in the name of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever, I point out that it may be convenient

  811
  for the Committee to consider Amendments Nos. 28, 48 and 49. I thank the Minister for writing on a number of points raised at Second Reading; and for a briefing meeting with officials on what is an extremely technical and complex Bill of great interest to many outside organisations and people.
  At Second Reading I stressed that we on this side of the Chamber are keen that social security fraud should be reduced. In that context we support the main contentions of the Bill. None the less, it is important to take into account the considerable representations on the side effects of the Bill, in particular on the protection of data and, related to that, the violation of human rights. No doubt those themes will arise time and again. I hope that we shall be able to avoid undue repetition. We shall come later to a specific amendment on data protection. It may be convenient to deal with the detailed human rights aspect on the Question whether Clause 1 shall stand part.
  We dealt with the question of whether the title of the Bill shall be postponed. Governments are enthusiastic about this kind of title. It is difficult to oppose a Bill with such a title. The classic example was Mr Michael Foot's Employment Protection Bill. It had many objectionable features; none the less it was difficult to oppose. How can one oppose a Bill entitled the Social Security Fraud Bill? Perhaps we should change the title to the Data Protection Infringement Bill.
  Important issues are raised. It seems likely that a general election will not be long delayed and, therefore, the measure may come into that group of Bills which the Government may nod through on the spur of the moment. If there is any possibility that that may occur, given the title of the Bill, noble Lords must give detailed consideration to the Bill to ensure that it is as good as it can be since discussion in another place may be curtailed.
  Amendment No. 48 is a subsidiary amendment. It deals with electronic data. I shall turn to that later.
  The amendment provides that the way in which the Government wish to obtain information to prevent social security fraud should be circumscribed in a similar way to that which exists when trying to prevent abuse of drugs, criminal acts generally, tax fraud and so on. Previous governments have always felt it appropriate to protect the position by recourse to the courts in one form or another. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
  As the Bill stands, there is virtually unfettered discretion for authorised officers to demand information from many outside bodies. That should be subject to a review, perhaps only briefly, by an outside body. The problems are set out clearly in the correspondence contained in the bundle of responses to the consultation document, kindly provided by the Minister. At Second Reading I pointed out that that was only a summary of a summary. The noble Baroness has now given us the full information. From the response to the consultation process provided by the Data Protection Commissioner, one sees how deeply concerned the commissioner is about the Bill and its side effects. Her letter to the Secretary of State states:
  812
  "As you will see, I have been unable to support the proposals in the form in which they are currently made".
  So far as I can see, they are now in the same form in the Bill.
  The commissioner makes a number of specific points. She says:
  "The commissioner does not believe that the department has made a convincing case that the proposed interference with the rights of privacy is necessary".
  Nor does she believe that the proposed safeguards—a matter to which the European Court of Human Rights has attached considerable importance—are sufficient to protect the rights of benefit claimants and applicants. As the Committee will recognise, those are strong words. The commissioner does not accept that the means by which it is proposed that investigators should obtain information are fair. She is particularly concerned that there will be no prior judicial authorisation of the exercise of the new powers and that too many hopes are invested in the code of practice. We shall come to the code of practice later.
  The present legal framework is that private sector information can be released only if a court or judge order disclosure, if the individual has given consent, or if the organisation holding the data is persuaded that not to make the disclosure in an individual case would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
  It is clear from the comments of the commissioner and other parties that the Bill would significantly weaken the legal safeguards on privacy and probably create the problem of whether there had been discrimination in some respects. We shall come to those issues later.
  Another important point is that the information will be disclosed without the knowledge of the person whom it is about. Hitherto we have been anxious to avoid that—witness the way in which one can obtain details of whether a particular credit rating has been affected.
  The commissioner finally suggests an alternative approach, which your Lordships may wish to consider, stressing not least the importance of asking people whether they will provide the information voluntarily rather than in the way set out in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 48 relates to the bulk provision of information. The explanations are rather naïve, saying that the measures that allow authorised officers to get general information on electricity, gas or telecommunications, for example, relate to the provision of information only on addresses, not on individuals. That is naïve, because, as much of the process outlined in the Bill involves cross-checking of data, it is not difficult to relate an address to the name on the electoral roll and thereby identify the individual to whom the information relates.
  There are also concerns about the scale of the operation. As we understand it—no doubt the Minister can give more details—the department envisages a very large operation on bulk information. The department may argue that the main amendment would result in some delay in getting the information,

  813
  but the points of principle I have addressed are very important. We are proposing the traditional approach that past governments have always adopted on drug trafficking, crime or other actions of fraud, rather than making the department the judge of whether it is reasonable for it to carry out an investigation, with no control exercised by any outside body, except in the limited case of local authorities, which will require the general, but not specific, authorisation of the Secretary of State.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord uses the word "judge". Does he accept that the authority against which the offence may have been committed is the judge of whether it needs information to establish that? It is not the judge of whether an offence has been committed. That will be for the courts to determine.
  Lord Higgins: Of course that is true.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is the substantive point.
  Lord Higgins: It is a substantive point, but it is not the only substantive point. The question is whether the so-called authorised person will have complete discretion, without anyone being able to check whether they have a justifiable suspicion or a firm basis for carrying out the investigation. We shall deal with that issue on many other aspects of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: I support the amendment, to which I have put my name. I join the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in offering my thanks to the Minister, and through her to her officials, for their kindness, their capacity for taking pains, their courtesy and their great skill and efficiency in dealing with communications about this and many past Bills. They are a model of what a private office ought to be. It is a pleasure to deal with them.
  I also join the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his comments about fraud. Fraud is an evil. Where there is gold, there will be claim jumping. Where there is public money, there will be fraud. That must be fought. Fraud is a form of theft and is so recognised in law. The prevention of fraud is prima facie always a good and legitimate public objective. That is common ground between all of us. At the same time, all of us, on whichever side of the argument, feel a certain unease about the arbitrary character of the powers created in the Bill.
  The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, were arguing a moment ago about the concept of judge and party in their own courts. The Minister is correct that the final judge of whether an offence has been committed is the court. Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is correct that the final judge of whether there is a need to get the information about a particular person will be the investigating officer. The Minister may say that that is liable to control by the courts. So it is, but by the time that the courts are called in, the horse will have been stolen.
  814
  I, too, have seen the powerful and impressive memorandum from the Data Protection Commissioner, to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred. She drew attention to the number of people who wish to obtain information for their own private purposes and who are capable of using official procedures to bring it about. I recall one case that concerned the local women's refuge about a quarter of a mile from where I live, sadly now closed. A violent former husband succeeded in getting the address of the refuge through the benevolence of a kindly policewoman in his home town who thought that he wanted it entirely for benevolent purposes. Hope does indeed spring eternal. If the Bill becomes law, with the best will in the world it will encounter such cases.
  There is a growing respect in this country for confidentiality and the right to privacy. The problem lies in deciding which is the lesser of two evils. My late noble friend Lady Seear used to say that ethical decisions in politics were always a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. It will be for the Minister to convince me that the methods that she is proposing are a lesser evil than those that they are designed to prevent. I say that without for one minute wishing to dispute that the evils that the Bill is designed to prevent are very great.
  The evil in the proposals in the Bill would be very much diminished by the judicial control proposed in the amendment. The Minister will produce a number of objections along the lines that the amendment will diminish the effectiveness of the proposals in the Bill. I understand that well enough. However, I am asking the Minister to convince me that that is the lesser of two evils. I believe it to be a fair request; and, in the course of setting out to convince me, I ask the Minister to take account of the proposals made in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  If the Minister is to show that the proposal does not infringe Article 8.2 of the convention and that, in fact, it enjoys the protection of that article, she must show that what she is proposing is necessary. That, among other things, involves showing that the amendment would not be appropriate. If her proposal can be achieved by the means suggested in the amendment, which, other things being equal, clearly would be preferable, then the proposal itself is not necessary. However, she must show that.
  It is necessary to show that the remedy is proportional. It has been suggested, I believe, by the British Bankers' Association that the penalties to be imposed on benefit claimants are harsher than those to be imposed on tax evaders. Were that to be the case, there would be room for an argument that the remedy was not proportional. In order to come within the terms of Article 8.2, it is necessary to show that safeguards are in place. We may address how far that can be done in later amendments. However, it would be prudent for the Government to include safeguards where they are able to do so because that may improve their standing in future court proceedings.
  Justice points out that under the convention it is not an absolute requirement for intrusions into private life to be subject to judicial authorisation. However, the

  815
  European Court of Human Rights said in the case of Klass v. Germany that it is in principle desirable to entrust supervisory control to a judge. Justice argues that that principle should be reflected in the Bill. That would put the Government into a much safer position in any future legal proceedings. Therefore, to that extent, the amendment would be desirable.
  If the Minister can put forward reasons which persuade me that, in spite of all those advantages, the amendment is less desirable than the procedure laid out in the Bill, I shall listen. But it remains for her to convince me.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Grabiner: As I understand them, these amendments would render the Clause 1 powers expressly subject to the approval of a magistrates' court. I believe that the practical effect of the amendments, were they to be agreed, would be not simply to diminish—I believe that that was the word used by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, a moment or two ago—those powers but, in my view, to emasculate them to the extent that they would become unworkable. Magistrates' courts are already heavily overworked and Parliament would not be thanked for having unnecessarily increased that workload.
  With regard to the question of necessity, I believe that it should be borne in mind that the exercise of the powers will not inevitably or even probably lead to an arrest or prosecution. The powers are intended to enable, for example, DSS investigators to detect and prevent fraud and error. The introduction of what, in effect, would be an additional level of vetting is, I suggest, entirely disproportionate in that it would unreasonably cut down the value of the powers being granted in the first place.
  The point can be tested by reference to the drafting of the proposed amendment. First, so far as concerns the language of the existing Bill, the prerequisite for the exercise of the powers in the first place involves the need for the investigator to have reasonable grounds for believing that one or other of the matters currently listed in sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) have in fact happened or, as the case may be, are likely to happen in the future.
  I suggest that the presence of that pre-condition is the short answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his opening remarks. He said that the power was unfettered. With great respect, that is not right. The power cannot be exercised absent the satisfaction of the investigating officer to the extent provided for under the terms of the Bill.
  The amendment, as drafted, introduces precisely the same test—on this occasion to be operated by the magistrates' court—as the one currently provided by the Bill which is to be operated by the investigating inspector or investigating officer of the DSS. I do not understand what possible advantage there can be in introducing precisely the same test—namely, that the magistrates must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds, and so on—as the one which must be satisfied by the investigating officer. If the amendment were to
  816
  be adopted, I believe that inevitably it would result in delay and enormously increased expense. Meanwhile, without over-emphasising that concern, Rome is burning.
  I wish to make one other point which has already been raised by the noble Earl, but I emphasise it because it is important. A wrongful exercise of a power—that is, the power specified in the Bill as currently drafted—would be judicially reviewable. I believe that in those circumstances the position of the private individual is adequately protected without the need for these amendments.
  Finally, in the course of his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, drew to the attention of the Committee some observations made by the information commissioner, as I believe she is now called. One point to which he drew attention was that, under these arrangements, a person would not know that he had been the subject of investigation. The information would be sought pursuant to powers without the knowledge of, so to speak, the target of the inquiry.
  The comparison was made with the situation relating to credit ratings. However, I suggest that there is a significant difference between the two sets of circumstances. With respect, I agree that substantive criticism can be made of credit ratings, although the current law allows precisely for that to take place. In such a scenario, and to give a clear example, an individual would be refused credit without knowing that the reason for the refusal was that the person deciding whether or not to give the credit was acting on the basis of erroneous information. That would be a very bad case. However, I dare say that, even as I speak, such cases are occurring hundreds of times out there in the real world.
  The distinction between that type of case, which, as I say, takes place at present under existing law, and the case with which we are concerned here is simple and obvious. If information is obtained pursuant to the powers that we are now discussing and it leads investigators to the conclusion that there is a case to be answered, inevitably the individual concerned will have to be invited to give an answer to the question. If, on the other hand, the investigators are satisfied that there is no case to be answered, that will be the end of the matter. With respect to the information commissioner, perhaps I may suggest that the point which she has put forward is not a good one.
  Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask whether the logic of his argument—that it is not necessary to get a magistrates' order in order to obtain this private information—would lead on to the argument that it is quite unnecessary to go to a magistrate in order to obtain a search warrant to search someone's house because the police officer who believes that there is reason to do so is satisfied in his own mind.
  Lord Grabiner: The concerns that drive the answer to the question of whether or not the obtaining of a search warrant should be made subject to an order of

  817
  the court would no doubt depend on the particular context. I know, for example, that such procedures and provisions apply in relation to serious revenue offences, or to the suspicion that there has been a serious revenue offence. However, it does not follow that the investigatory powers that are being sought would operate in a context that should be subject to the same considerations that statutorily will be applied, if that is the decision, in the case of search warrants.
  I turn to another important point in this context. We talk a great deal about the infringement of rights, and it is entirely right for us to do so. The Human Rights Act 1998 is an important part of our law. Articles 8 and 14 are critical in this discussion. We shall later discuss that in more detail. In that debate I shall certainly draw attention to the provisions of Section 29 of the current data protection legislation. That section legislates for the permission that is granted in the second paragraph of Article 8 of the convention, and it deals with the fact that it is right and proper to permit an interference with what would otherwise be people's rights under the first paragraph of Article 8 in a suitable case. A suitable case is one that involves the need to detect tax avoidance, or perhaps I should say tax evasion, a subtle distinction, but Members of the Committee will be familiar with it. It also involves the need to detect crime in its early stages. There is little point in closing the gate after the horse has bolted.
  The provisions are consistent with the entitlement that is granted under Section 29 and provide an opportunity to detect wrongdoing in advance and without the need to wait until it is too late to do anything about it. If we talk about necessity in this context, I respectfully suggest that Section 29 has to be taken into account. The relationship operates both ways: we need to take into account fairness to the individual and fairness to the community at large.
  Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, is correct to say that fairness works both ways, but he made a remark that surprised me very much. He said that he could not see that a useful purpose would be served by allowing the test that is currently in the Bill to be used by someone other than the investigating officer. However, it is surely fundamental, as a principle of law, of politics, and of common prudence, that having to consult someone else and rely on his decision before going ahead and doing what one wants to do is a valuable belt-and-braces double check on human judgment, which at all times is necessarily imperfect.
  I was also a little surprised by the extent to which the noble Lord relied on the argument that the courts would be overwhelmed by the body of work. However much that argument may have some substance in fact, it is capable of being worked to a dangerous degree of extension. If he relies on that argument I should be grateful if he would indicate what the point is beyond which he would not take it. How great an erosion of reliance on the courts would be allow in order to pursue his objectives?
  818
  The trouble is that the DSS and other government departments far too easily think that because something appears to them to be just and expedient they should be free to do what they want without further checks or controls. We all feel that, but it is not always good for us to be able to get away with it. I shall return to that point when we discuss the Bill's regulation-making powers. I detected just a whiff of that approach in the noble Lord's speech. I look forward to his further answers because I have not yet heard enough to persuade me.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Grabiner: I shall try to deal with the two points that the noble Earl made. On the first, I suspect that I was putting my argument inadequately. I pointed to the fact that the investigator has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for forming the judgment that he has prima facie formed, and I discovered in the amendment that a similar test—indeed, precisely the same test—would be deployed. The point I was trying to make was that I find the situation illogical. A complaining individual, so to speak, may be targeted by the exercise of the powers, and it might be said, when the individual investigating officer had formed that judgment, that the individual's behaviour would be susceptible to judicial review; that is, to civil proceedings. However, that approach would disappear if the individual had to satisfy a magistrates' court of precisely the same test because that would involve criminal jurisdiction. The point I was trying to make was that that seemed an unnecessary and illogical confusion. I well understand the belt-and-braces argument, but the real argument is about whether the particular context justifies what I would regard as a rather onerous and burdensome way of going about things. That brings me to the noble Earl's second point, although I should be happy to give way to him if he would prefer me to do so.
  Earl Russell: No, the noble Lord should conclude his speech.
  Lord Grabiner: The noble Earl's second point was about how far we should be willing effectively to erode the legal process in favour of the individual. I am not in favour of eroding any legal processes for any individual. Apart from anything else, that would be inconsistent with my professional life. The more legal process there is, the better off I am. I thereby disclose an interest. In a more serious vein, the decision is essentially a matter of judgment. Are we discussing a situation that falls on the side of the line that requires the judicial approval of a magistrate before the matter can be taken any further? Alternatively—I contend that this is the case—are we on the side of the line that involves saying that it is good enough, given the context of a particular case, that the matter need not go to a magistrate because it could be dealt with effectively by an investigating officer who acts bona fide and in accordance with the requirements of the statutory provision?

  819
  What persuades me that it is unnecessary to go through the process of a magistrates' court—I appreciate that this may not necessarily persuade the noble Earl—is that if one exercises the powers, one is taken to the continuing process of inquiry. One is not taken to prosecution or conviction. One is taken to a process of further inquiry. If the matter is to go any further, there are adequate safeguards in the system—in the criminal process—for dealing with any complaint that may arise thereafter. I respectfully suggest that in many cases the matter will go no further but if it does there will be adequate safeguards to protect the individual.
  Lord Higgins: It may be convenient for me to intervene now rather than later. I want to take up some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner. I may not have fully understood his arguments. I am not, as Members of the Committee know, a lawyer. He keeps referring to a magistrates' court. I searched in vain in the amendment for such an expression. That is a relevant consideration. Having said that, the question is whether it is appropriate for a magistrate to take an impartial view on the issue. The noble Lord pointed out that the test is much the same in both cases but that there is a difference between the test being applied by someone who is an authorised officer of a department and by a magistrate who will adopt an impartial view and who may be able to appraise the situation. After all, those authorised officers are not going to be at the level at which decisions are taken; for example, cases in regard to Inland Revenue fraud and so forth, where it is an impartial officer in the department.
  Judicial review may arise if the matter comes to court. But all these investigations are going on without the individual's knowledge. It is only if the department eventually decides that there may be a case to answer that the individual is told. None the less, a great deal of this information will start floating around the system and one of the worries I have about the Bill generally—perhaps reflected in the views of the commissioner—is that the information, once it is in the system, will tend to leak from one part to another. Hitherto there have been the most stringent Chinese walls between various government departments, but increasingly those seem to be disappearing.
  It is for those reasons, among others, that we feel there is a case for this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, says that the Bill will be emasculated. But such provisions did not emasculate any of the Bills concerned with other offences. As far as I know—perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us if I am wrong—in other instances there is a degree of impartial review of whether or not it is appropriate to go ahead.
  Lord Grabiner: Perhaps I may respond briefly to those points. I did say "magistrates' court" and the amendment refers to "a magistrate". I presume that what is intended is that the matter can be dealt with by a single magistrate, and I stand corrected accordingly. However, it does involve the judicial process. I do not know how one goes about that; I have not been in such
  820
  a place for many years. But I am sure that it takes up valuable time and is expensive. That may not be so for an individual case but, multiplied by the anticipated 900,000 figure, it comes to a lot of time and quite a lot of money.
  I did not say that the provision would emasculate the Bill; I said that it would emasculate the Clause 1 powers with which we are concerned in this amendment. My final point—and then I shall sit down—is that we are concerned about investigating officers who will, as I understand it, be nominated persons specially trained for the tasks involved in this legislation. They will be brand new powers, the use of which will require proper training and education.
  Earl Russell: I hope that the Committee will forgive me for taking up one more point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, but if I do not take it up now I shall certainly have to take it up afterwards.
  The noble Lord attempted to put on all fours the authorisation by a magistrate and judicial review. But there is a significant difference in that one of them happens before the event and the other happens after the event. Very often by the time information gets into the public domain the damage is already done and any attempt to restore it is too late.
  The Data Protection Commissioner mentioned the possibility of bribery. Let me suggest a possible case. It is not likely, but I am sure that the noble Lord will not say that it is impossible. Let us imagine a newspaper, in collusion with an investigating officer whom it has paid, wanting to look at the bank account of a Minister and to discover where he spent a specific night. It finds that he spent the night in a double room at a time when his wife was certainly elsewhere. That would be of considerable interest to the newspaper. It would spread widely around the media and cause a great deal of comment. In such a case judicial review after the event would be otiose and I would be surprised if the Minister resorted to it.
  Lord Grabiner: First, the example is a "homely" one. But what was absent was the existence of another party in the double room. By itself it would be entirely innocuous information. But that is beside the point and not much to do with social security fraud.
  The noble Earl talks about the information being available at large, but that is not the case. We are dealing with information which will be known, on the examples with which we are concerned, to the investigating officer and to the magistrate to whom the matter has been presented, or simply to the investigating officer alone. If the noble Earl is talking of circumstances where, improperly and through bribery and corruption, the individual investigating officer transfers that information to a third party, with the greatest respect I must point out that this amendment will not help in the slightest. The information will be bribed out of the investigating officer and passed on to a third party and nobody will go anywhere near a magistrates' court. If that is the

  821
  purpose, or part of the purpose, of the introduction of this provision, it will not prevent that sort of grossly improper behaviour.
  Lord Higgins: The person being bribed will not have the information because he would not have managed to obtain a magistrate's order.
  Lord Grabiner: As I understand the proposed amendment, the individual seeking to obtain the order has to satisfy the magistrate that he has reasonable grounds for wanting the order. So ex hypothesi he must have the information before he goes to the magistrate. He cannot go to the magistrate with a blank piece of paper. He must say, "These are the facts of the case. I reasonably believe that an offence has been committed by this individual and would like access to", whatever it may be. But he cannot do that unless he has the information to enable him to make the application in order to exercise the powers. That is the point.
  In this example, the individual would have the information. He would not need to go to the magistrate in order to exercise the power but, in return for payment, he would sell it to a third party. I believe that was the example posited.
  Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may take the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, back to an earlier remark he made on the importance of the training and experience of the individuals within the Department of Social Security, or other authorities, exercising these judgments. With respect, that is perhaps a little of a red herring because all public servants engaged in carrying out such activities should first have proper training in them, whatever their level, whether they are making decisions and exercising powers under the clauses of this Bill or undertaking more commonplace activities.
  Following on from that, in the light of the noble Lord's great experience and my lack of knowledge, can he say whether he is aware of any precedent of officials having similar powers to ask for information? There are many existing precedents where other authorities—for example, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue—are asked for decisions before those powers are taken.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It may be convenient for the Committee if I seek to address some of the points raised so far.
  These amendments seek to require DSS and local authority authorised officers to obtain an order from a magistrates' court, or a magistrate, in order to obtain any information from the organisations listed in new Section 109B(2A). I take this issue seriously and will try to give a careful reply. It is clearly a matter of concern to Members of the Committee. When people claim benefit they know that they are required to tell the truth. We shall make it clear that what we are told may be checked with third parties. If a person tells a lie
  822
  in the light of all that, we believe that we should have the right to check up on them. We also have a responsibility to the taxpayer to do so.
  I want to make three points. First—this point was made by my noble friend Lord Grabiner—if the DSS and local authorities had to obtain a court order every time they wanted to check the information provided by a claimant, it would significantly hamper their investigations. The process would certainly take too long to enable us to check information before we pay claimants. That would mean that we would have to let fraud into the system that could have been prevented. It will lead to serious delays in which relevant information could vanish and financial matters be re-arranged. We would be asking magistrates to judge not whether a fraud had been committed but whether there was sufficient evidence to collect further evidence to establish that a fraud has been committed. The delays could be huge.
  Perhaps I may give an example of a simple case. Someone moves to a university town and claims housing benefit. We suspect that that person is a student, but we do not know. Therefore, under the amendment we need to seek an order from a magistrate to enquire of UCAS, the university admission system. We then find that he is also claiming housing benefit at his local address. We check his address and find that it is in Norwich and that there he is an owner/occupier.
  In the course of that simple investigation, we need to go to UCAS, because he is a student. We then find that he is claiming housing benefit and need to check that with his landlord. We then need to go back to Norwich, where he is also claiming benefit and where we find that he is an owner/occupier. That would involve four visits to magistrates to process one simple case.
  Let us complicate the case and suppose that the claimant has now left Norwich, has moved to Cambridge to be a student and is subletting the house in Norwich to somebody who is also fiddling the benefits system. That would add another two or four visits to magistrates. It would require perhaps eight visits to magistrates for one pretty simple case. We cannot work the system like that. Perfectly properly, the noble Lord pressed my noble friend on how far we could go. However, we cannot neglect this point.
  We estimate that we should have to make around 900,000 inquiries per year of the private and public sectors. That would require 3,500 applications to magistrates every working day compared to the police average of around 270, which would be 15 times as many. The increase in workload would be significant. Magistrates have a caseload of about 4 million cases per year. The proposal would add an extra 25 per cent to the caseload of a single magistrate. Inevitably there would be delays in dealing with real cases on the streets of young thugs and so forth, about which we are all rightly concerned. All the cases we investigate are potential frauds. Only 6 per cent of offences recorded by police in March 2000 were fraud or forgery offences. My first point, therefore, is that the amendment would create serious delays.

  823
  My second point is that there would be a serious impact on the magistracy to deliver law and order in other areas of its work. My third point, which is a direct response I made to the noble Baroness, is that we do not seek exceptional powers. It is not true that other state bodies can obtain access to a person's bank details only after obtaining a court order. Other government departments have a huge range of powers. I could discuss, for example, Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue or the DTI. However, I shall take an example which is somewhat closer to the DSS in style; that is the Financial Services Authority and the powers given to it by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That was a general power to require information or documents which may reasonably be required in connection with the discharge of its functions under the Act. The FSA can write to a person asking for the production of information or documents within a reasonable time-scale or it can send an officer to whom it has given written authorisation. That person is required to provide that information or documents without delay and may also be required to take any reasonable steps the authority may specify to verify the information provided.
  I chose that example out of 20 I could give because the businesses concerned include banks, building societies, insurance companies, friendly societies, credit unions, Lloyds—I do not know why we have left that out of the DSS—investments and pension advisers, stockbrokers, professional firms, fund managers and derivatives traders. I could produce similar examples, though possibly not as full, of all other government bodies seeking similar powers without first needing to acquire judicial authorisation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned the police. He tried to suggest that we are asking for DSS investigators to enjoy greater powers than the police. That misses the point. The police need different powers because they are doing a different job. They have greater powers, certainly, than DSS investigators. They can arrest people on suspicion of committing an offence. With a warrant they can force entry to premises and carry out searches. They can remove goods that appear to be material evidence. DSS investigators do none of that. We have no plans to seek powers for them to be allowed to do so.
  The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked which I thought was the lesser evil. At the end of the day, benefit fraud costs between £2 billion and £4 billion each year. In comparison, credit, debit and charge card fraud losses in 1999 were less than £0.2 billion. The gross loss of cash in transit from armed robbery in 1999 was less than £0.01 billion compared to our £2 billion to £4 billion. Losses of theft and antiques is estimated at £⅓billion to £½ billion per year, and approximately £0.0035 billion worth of counterfeit currency was removed from circulation in 1999.
  At Second Reading I mentioned the assessment of benefit fraud by the National Criminal Intelligence Service. That organisation carried out an impact analysis in which it registered benefit fraud as high in the list of high-impact crimes and alongside drug trafficking, intellectual property theft and revenue
  824
  fraud. Members of the Committee, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave examples of that. As has been said, around 17 per cent of drug traffickers are also involved in social security fraud. The economic cost of all crime in this country is estimated at £50 billion per year. Social security fraud makes up around 4 to 8 per cent of that cost.
  I seek to persuade the Committee that the powers we seek are in no way out of the ordinary. They are exercised by other bodies, both government bodies and the Financial Services Authority. To follow the path of the amendment would mean unacceptable delays, with perhaps three, five or 10 visits to the magistracy to collect information before we could prosecute one simple case. The implications for the capacity of the magistracy to deal with other areas of street theft and the like would be seriously impaired.
  As my noble friend stated, these powers would not be exercised by anyone. Information will not be "floating around at large". There will be strong safeguards for the use of the powers. Only a handful of staff in each of the 13 areas of the DSS would he authorised to use the powers. They would be able to do so only within the terms of the code of practice, which we shall discuss later. All the staff would be thoroughly trained. Their use of the powers would be checked by senior managers, including their access to electronic information. If they misuse that power, disciplinary proceedings, including dismissal, would follow. As was said at Second Reading, there is the additional protection of the Data Protection Act and the Computer Misuse Act and the like.
  We need the powers to assemble the information to establish a case to bring before the courts. We have to go to the courts to get the powers to seek to establish the information. That is, above all, post hoc propter hoc, in which we must already have the information we seek in order to prove the case. That would seriously fetter us. It would produce delays and burdens upon the courts. Above all, we would be asked to produce to the magistracy the evidence we seek to establish. That would make it difficult to eradicate the fraud from the system, which all of us want.
  Finally, the powers will be exercised by those who have been professionally trained, and who will be properly supervised, and by a narrow, select group of relatively senior officials. I hope I have persuaded the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the powers will be exercised properly with discretion. Without those powers, swathes of fraud, of which we may have high suspicion, will go unchecked and unpunished to the cost of us all and to the defrauding of our welfare state.
  Lord Higgins: We shall consider carefully the points mentioned by the Minister. I believe there has been confusion about the wording of the amendment. As I pointed out, it does not refer to a court but to convincing a magistrate that it is appropriate I hat such an investigation should go forward. There appeared to be a little confusion in one respect; namely, whether in going to the court the investigating officer had the

  825
  information necessary to gain further information. Perhaps if the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, looks at Hansard tomorrow he will find—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How would an official persuade a magistrate that he had reasonable grounds unless he already had some of the information he was seeking?
  Lord Higgins: We shall come to the question of why he had information which justified investigating a particular individual. Clearly, if an official is going to a magistrate to obtain permission to do so, he will need to have some substantive information. However, if he does not need to go to a magistrate, he may go ahead without a justifiable case. For that reason, we argue that it is appropriate for him to go to a magistrate—not necessarily a magistrates' court because we do not want them to foul up their general procedure.
  The Minister added up the number of visits which might be necessary but I was not clear why, if an investigating officer had a reasonable basis for going ahead with inquiries about a particular individual—and she gave the example of the student—he needs to return to the magistrate time and time again. Presumably, he could obtain permission to approach all the various sources—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, not until the investigation had started would he know the knock-on consequences of that investigation and the levels of possible deception involved. When he first went to the magistrate, he merely thought that someone had moved to a university town and might well be a student, even though that person was claiming benefit to which he was not entitled. In obtaining the magistrate's permission to investigate that, in the course of his inquiries he uncovered the fact that there was a home in another town. In order to investigate whether the person was an owner/occupier, he needs a second permission from the magistrate. Then he discovers that the person is subletting and he needs to investigate that.
  All that information would be gathered over a period of time. However, under the amendment as posited, the investigating officer would need continually to return to the magistrate to obtain further consent to seek information from a new body because a fresh possibility of fraud had occurred.
  Lord Higgins: I am trying to envisage the circumstances which the noble Baroness outlined. It seems to me—I may be wrong—that the investigating official begins by saying, "I want to obtain information from a particular source". The noble
  826
  Baroness is saying that obtaining that information will direct that he should go to someone else along the line—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No.
  Lord Higgins: That is not what she is saying. I thought that it was.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry to labour the point. The example I gave was of someone who moves to a university town but is claiming housing benefit. As a result, the investigating officer wishes to discover whether that person is a student. In order to do so, he has to go to UCAS or to the university authorities and under the amendment he receives the authorisation to do so. In the process of searching for that information, the official discovers a home address different from the university town address. That means that he must return to the magistrate to obtain information about that home address. In the process of doing that, he discovers that the person is claiming housing benefit and there may be a suggestion from some source that the person may own the property. In that case, he has to return to the magistrate to discover whether the person owns the house and is therefore illicitly claiming housing benefit. So we go on.
  The point is that each of these steps could not have been predicted. The information thrown up at the previous stage set up the next step. One is putting together a jigsaw and does not know what the final shape of the picture will be. One has reasonable grounds for believing in the original offence but, under this amendment, when a simple case of fraud crops up one would have to revisit the magistrate to obtain permission to investigate.
  The result is that something which could have been sorted in a couple of days might take a month or more. By that time, the investigating official might have lost the person he was seeking to pin down in terms of fraudulent behaviour. It would be extremely difficult—extremely difficult—ever to pin down someone who was at all adept at manipulating the system.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: It is difficult to debate the matter in this way. None of the large number of representations we have received has dealt with it. There are two points to be made. First, it might be reasonable to suppose that the highly trained officials would foresee most of the consequences of the case which the Minister mentioned. Alternatively, if they originally had a prima facie case for obtaining approval to go to any of the sources of information specified in Clause 1—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is the noble Lord saying that all they need is reasonable grounds for access to a source, that they then do not need to go back to the magistrate and that they can have a lucky-dip at the rest? If so, he is conceding our argument.
  Lord Higgins: No, I do not believe that I am conceding the argument. Perhaps I may think about what the noble Baroness said in that context.

  827
  This has been a helpful debate in a number of respects. We shall need to consider carefully the extent to which arguments about delay are justified. We must also consider the Minister's argument about the extent to which such information is already obtained by government departments without the safeguard we are suggesting would be appropriate in this case. I should be surprised if the Inland Revenue could simply ask a bank for the information it required without any form of judicial authority whatever. But perhaps I may check up on that.
  I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. No doubt we shall need to consider whether it is appropriate to return to the matter at the Report stage.
  Lord Grabiner: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may clarify one point relating to the exchange which took place between us. It is probably better to have it in Hansard tomorrow rather than not at all. The exchange stemmed out of a point put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The example given was that of a dishonest investigating officer colluding with a newspaper and selling the information on. The point I was trying to make was that a sufficiently determined dishonest investigating officer would be able to obtain the necessary information without the need to go through the magistrates' court procedure, and effect his dishonest behaviour. I did not, and do not, believe that the proposed amendment could stop such behaviour.
  All one can say is that such behaviour is criminal under the existing legal rules and will be dealt with accordingly. However, the positing of that as an example of a case to provide a justification for the amendment is not right and I do not agree with it. I hope that I have sufficiently clarified the position.
  Lord Higgins: With great respect, I do not know that it is a particularly helpful example. Be that as it may, if we do not carry the amendment, the corrupt official will not have to go through the magistrates' court.
  We shall need to consider the Minister's remarks carefully before the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 1, leave out line 12.
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 relates to particular people from whom the department may request information. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 relate to banks and other similar financial organisations. It is unrelated to our recent broader debate but particular aspects are important as regards the banking industry. Indeed, the banks have made strong representations and expressed concern about the Government's proposals. They point out that they are in a different position from many of the other bodies described in Section 109B(2A) because banking transactions are subject to a duty of confidentiality which does not apply to, say, electricity suppliers. At the other end of the spectrum, lawyers, doctors and so on are subject to
  828
  a duty of confidentiality. My understanding is that, in the context of the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Government do not propose that the provisions of the Bill should breach confidentiality as far as concern such professionals.
  It may be that in a sense banks fall in the middle of the spectrum between the electricity industry, which, as far as one can see, has no great duty of confidentiality, and lawyers. As I understand the position in law, the leading authority on the subject is Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England [1924] 1 KB 461. That case establishes that a banker is under a contractual duty to keep confidential information gained from a customer's account. There are exceptions to that: where there is a disclosure under compulsion of law, which would clearly arise if we passed the Bill as it stands; where there is a duty to the public to disclose; where it is in the interests of the bank to require disclosure, although that appears to be rather strange; or where the disclosure is made with the express or implied consent of the customer.
  Therefore, at present the legal position of the bank is clear cut. If we adopt the Government's present proposals in the Bill without the amendment debated a few moments ago, bank customers will suspect that their information may be disclosed to the department, whether or not there is any wrongdoing on their part.
  As I understand it, at present where the police seek information to aid an investigation they must turn to a magistrate under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and to a judge in a case involving drug trafficking. I do not quote all the individual citations. They must go to court or to a judge if they are to investigate bank books and so on. In a case of suspected fraud they must go to a judge or general commissioner of the Inland Revenue who is independent of the staff who carry out the investigation. That raises a problem in the context of the earlier remarks of the noble Baroness. The Minister said that the Inland Revenue could obtain bank accounts. Without any judicial authority, my understanding from the banks is that that is not the case. Perhaps the noble Baroness can explain the authority to the Committee.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Obviously, if I mislead the noble Lord I shall write to him. I understand that the Inland Revenue can routinely require information from banks about interest earned by a customer's bank account. That information is required by the Inland Revenue in calculating the sums due.
  Lord Higgins: Is that only in regard to the interest?
  Lord Grabiner: Perhaps I may assist my noble friend and the noble Lord. My understanding—I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, knows more about this than all of us put together—is that any interest

  829
  earned on any account in excess of £15 a year is information to which the Inland Revenue is entitled by statute without the leave of any court.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I also understand that the Inland Revenue can require information about a landlord's properties and tenancies if he earns income from them.
  Lord Higgins: I believe that that is the case as far as concerns interest. However, that is rather different from obtaining a copy of an individual's bank statement.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: With the greatest respect, unless it is a particular kind of account one can work it out.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Nicol): I remind the Committee that the amendment has not yet been moved.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. We must clarify the situation. I do not believe that the position is as clear as the noble Baroness supposes. Otherwise, I do not see why, if these investigations are on all fours, a judge or general commissioner is required to give approval in the case of suspected tax fraud but not in the case of social security fraud. The two matters are not so different that it is inappropriate to say that the same level of restraint should be imposed. The question that arises is why information about those who are said to be guilty of social security fraud should be freely available but the obtaining of information about those who are involved in what may be a more serious tax fraud must be subject to the judicial process that I have just outlined. No doubt the noble Baroness will write to us in her usual courteous manner if that is not the case.
  As I understand it, there will be a considerable number of investigating officers in the 14 departmental areas. I also understand that 409 local authorities concerned with housing benefit will be required to obtain information if the Bill is enacted. Since it is understood that there will be a large number of routine investigations considerable costs will be imposed on the banking community, not only as far as concerns the customer but, in the context of a later debate, his or her family or relatives. The banks have expressed considerable concern in relation to their professional duty of confidentiality.
  The banks are also concerned, in the context of related amendments, that they may give false information, If fraudsters have given false information to the department they may well also give false information to the bank. The question is: to what extent are the banks responsible for the validity (if that is the right word) of the information that they are asked to provide? In particular, the banks are concerned that they are themselves subject to fraud on a significant scale in relation to credit cards and
  830
  banking generally. The question posed is: to what extent are they responsible for the accuracy of such information?
  A related question is the electronic communication of information from banks to the department. There is a worry that because of the convenience of obtaining information electronically—some of those involved with the Internet share the concern—it may be that its scope is broader than that which is necessary to carry out the investigation. In this context the question arises whether, if this is carried out by means of electronic communication, there will be an audit trail of the extent to which the investigation carried out by a particular officer has been authorised. My understanding is that it is the intention of the Government that in the case of a specific investigation by an officer there should be an audit trail to enable the department to ensure ex post, as opposed to ex ante, that it has been justified.
  I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure us on these points. There are other reactions from the banking association with regard to remarks made at Second Reading, but I do not believe that they are relevant to this particular amendment. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Crawley: Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 seek to remove banks and building societies from the list of organisations required to provide information. If we start from the proposition that most of the fraud we are talking about today stems from the hiding of income, assets or capital, the consequences of this group of amendments will severely restrict the effectiveness of the campaign that I am sure Members of the Committee are signed up to, which is to tackle the £2 billion fraud bill that the British taxpayer is landed with each year.
  As my noble friend Lord Grabiner pointed out in his report, information from banks and loan companies is already required by the DSS, but—and it is a very big "but"—that happens only if the claimant admits to having a bank account in the first place. Staff at the bank are then entitled to call for bank statements to check for any savings or signs of regular payments from a job or whatever financial pattern is relevant. However, if the claimant withholds that information at the start, there is at present no way that the Benefits Agency can know that the account exists.
  The Bill allows for information already held to be obtained from banks and other loan and credit companies without the reliance on the claimant's willingness or otherwise to divulge the full picture of his or her financial circumstances. That seems to me, as someone who is not a lawyer, to make a good deal of sense. We should look at the issue from the point of view of enabling the banks and loan companies to have the most effective route of tackling the enormous £2 billion and more annual fraud bill. I support the effective route put forward by the Bill because it is done in the context of a limited kind of inquiry, with many safeguards built into it, that focuses only on the situation of the claim itself.

  831
  The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that the banks are very concerned about the Bill. They have written to all of us involved in the Bill. But they have also—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will agree with me—stated in their letters to us that they are willing to work with the DSS to tackle the enormous problem of fraud. So it is important that we say also that the banks have been positive in their response to the Bill.
  Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness sits down, without wishing to dispute any of her argument, can she confirm that the figures for the total amount of fraud are estimates rather than facts?
  Baroness Crawley: Yes. I confirm that we talk about £2 billion as an estimate, but it is probably far more than that.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not entirely sure whether that was the point the noble Earl was seeking to establish. I am happy to confirm my noble friend's statement.
  The purpose of Clause 1 is to enable the DSS and local authorities administering housing benefit and council tax benefit to check information with independent sources where claimants are suspected of hiding their true circumstances; although of course if all claimants told the truth these provisions would never be necessary. It is precisely because those who have something to hide—hide because they lie—that we need information beyond that which the claimant is willing voluntarily to give us. That is the core of the Bill. It presumes, I suppose, a dose of original sin in those who are fraudulently cheating the system.
  The effect of the amendments would be to prevent the DSS and local authorities from obtaining that information we need most from the organisations that are most likely to hold it. The amendments remove banks, building societies, credit unions, organisations that accept deposits of money and organisations whose whole business, or a significant part of it, consists in the provision of secured or unsecured credit, from the proposed list of persons from whom information may be required. They also prevent the authorised officers from obtaining information from organisations whose whole business, or a significant part of it, consists in the provision of secured or unsecured credit.
  To amplify the point made by my noble friend, of the £840 million we estimate that the DSS lost last year through fraud in income support and JSA alone, £400 million of that—nearly half a billion pounds—was due to people lying about their earnings, other income, and capital. Other than from the claimant himself, who of course has a vested interest in lying about the matter, how do Members of the Committee propose to help the DSS to find out what the truth is about people's earnings, their other income and capital? Those who propose these amendments, if they accept the broad-brush policy of seeking to nail down fraud and then remove the major source of information from which we can obtain the evidence that someone is committing fraud, have a moral responsibility to tell the
  832
  Committee how that information can be obtained. I have heard not a word today of where that will come from. If not the banks and building societies, who will tell us what that person's capital, other income and earnings are?
  I could go on to talk about the organisations; I shall not. But our definition would enable authorised officers to make inquiries of a full range of organisations, including hire purchase, credit card and cheque-cashing shops. The definition of "organisations listed" would not cover organisations where the provision of credit was not a significant part of their business. I was not pressed on this matter by your Lordships, but it is right to put it on the record. For example, we would not be approaching local shops providing credit to loyal customers or companies that provided season ticket loans. That would be, in the words of the noble Earl on a previous amendment, a step far too far.
  Perhaps I may give the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, an assurance that if a bank gave us unknowingly incorrect information on what its responsibility might he in that situation—again I am happy to put it on the record—the bank would not be in any difficulty with the DSS obviously, or the Government, if it complied in good faith with a request made under these powers. It would not be the bank's fault if the customer had lied to it, as seems quite possible.
  Members of the Committee may also like some reassurances as to the type of information that we would not require. We only want information that is directly relevant to the circumstances of a benefit claim. So we would not want, for example, any information pertaining to medical history unless it was a medically-based benefit, such as one relating to a disability.
  Perhaps I may give an example, as that may help to clarify our thinking on this point. A woman could allege that her ex-partner had been claiming benefit while self-employed for many years. She has no evidence of this income, but we have no reason not to believe that she is giving us this information in good faith, as opposed to malice or whatever. She does know that he has several hire purchase agreements and a credit card. After all, if he was self-employed she might well have done his books for many years. An authorised officer under the Bill could check with the hire purchase and credit card company to find out what income, capital or assets had been declared in the applications for credit, and thereby obtain evidence of the fraud.
  If we lost that provision, we would lose a crucial and pivotal source of information. Worse, we could be encouraging a greater use of other services to evade detection. For example, benefit cheats might use a cheque-cashing shop rather than deposit cheques in a bank.
  For all these reasons, if a claimant lies—we must presume that someone committing fraud is lying—the only way we can find the correct information is by asking the organisations that the amendment excludes. If Members of the Committee can suggest any other

  833
  way to deal with the points of other income, other earnings or capital, I should be glad to hear it. But if they do not and are insistent on the amendment, they are suggesting to the taxpayer that the taxpayer should be happy to continue to subsidise at least £500 million worth of fraud per year, because they are denying the investigators the powers that they need. I hope the Committee will not pursue the amendment.
  Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may stress—I hope that I do not have to do so on every amendment—that with these amendments we are seeking to establish what is the case for the powers that the Government wish to have. I say at once that that does not mean that we are in any way condoning fraud. On the contrary, we are anxious that it should be prevented and that appropriate action should be taken.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How?
  Lord Higgins: I am coming to how. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Crawley, will know, the banks have made it clear that they are prepared to co-operate with the proposals. However, they are concerned about their duty of confidentiality. That is why they would certainly support the previous amendment. The two issues are related.
  I ask the noble Baroness to clarify one point in the example she quoted. Are we to understand that if an investigating officer takes the view, for whatever reason, that an individual may be engaging in social security fraud, he will establish whether that individual has a bank account? If that is so, will he ask every bank and every building society whether that is so?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. As the Bill is currently drafted, an investigating officer has to have reasonable grounds for believing that a benefit fraud or an offence against social security legislation has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed. Around £600 million of fraud a year arises primarily because people have undeclared earnings while drawing benefit. But there are other forms of fraud—for example, where someone is drawing money as a lone parent while cohabiting—which would not necessarily involve any interchange with a bank. That would be a different kind of fraud on the benefit system. It would be by virtue of the family relationship.
  Lord Higgins: I understand that very well but it does not relate to the point I was making. If the investigating officer suspects, for whatever reason, that someone may have a bank account, will he ask every bank and building society, "Do you have a bank account in the name of", whoever it may be?
  I have a second point to make before I seek to withdraw the amendment. The noble Baroness has now assured us that the banks are not liable if they pass to the department information which has been passed to them fraudulently. But what is the position if the bank happens to have inaccurate, incomplete or wrong
  834
  information and passes it to the department? Is the bank liable for the inconvenience if a prosecution arises as a result of the bank having passed on that inaccurate information?
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The first port of call would normally be CIFAS or a credit reference agency. It would establish the bank or building society account the individual handles or has access to. That is the route. In the normal course of events, one would not need to track 15, 20 or 40 different kinds of banks to see whether any of them had the individual as a customer.
  On the noble Lord's second point, my understanding is that an organisation would be liable under the law only if a fraud had been committed against us; that is, that it knowingly gave us incorrect, incomplete or misleading information.
  Lord Higgins: I take the noble Baroness's second point, which she expressed very clearly. As to the first one, we shall need on subsequent amendments to consider the situation with regard to CIFAS. If I understand her correctly, she is saying that if the department's investigator goes to CIFAS, he can simply say, "Does Mr Bloggs have any account with any financial institution?", and CIFAS will be able to say, "Yes, he does have an account with the following financial institutions".
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It would depend on the situation. We expect that the DSS will make around 250,000 inquiries to banks and building societies in a year and that local authorities may make a further 125,000. We also expect that we will be making around 200,000 inquiries of credit references agencies and that local authorities will make around 100,000. I could go on to refer to other organisations. If, in the example I gave, the woman knew that the bank her former partner normally used was "X", it might well be appropriate for the DSS to go directly to that bank. Where we did not have that information, or where it seemed likely that there was more than one bank, CIFAS might be the appropriate place to go.
  Lord Higgins: I was asking a very simple question. Is the noble Baroness saying that if the department goes to CIFAS, CIFAS can tell it whether an individual has any account with a financial institution; or does the department need to go to every individual bank? Does CIFAS have a central data bank of every person who holds an account or is it necessary to go to all the individual institutions?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord. I am receiving conflicting advice.
  Earl Russell: If the Committee could be detained for just a few moments, perhaps that might help the noble Baroness.
  Lord Higgins: On the other hand, it may delay the proceedings considerably. I am happy for the noble

  835
  Baroness to write to me as this is a not unimportant point. We simply do not know the facts. I am happy to await the letter. We can resume the matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
  Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 1, leave out lines 16 and 17.
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 relates to insurance companies. The amendment is very much in the spirit of the previous amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Higgins. It seeks clarification on the concerns expressed by insurance companies. While, like the banking industry, the insurance industry fully supports the purpose behind the Bill, it has some concerns that the DSS has not wholly appreciated the work required to meet requests for information. The regulatory impact assessment assumes that requests are dealt with by individuals. In fact they are almost always dealt with by multiple parties. Although there may be a single initial point of contact, requests will always need to be referred to the legal department to approve release of the information and to establish the validity of the inquirer and his or her authority to ask for the details. In addition, the information needs to be compiled and checked. The view of the insurance industry is that the time which would need to be spent is closer to 60 minutes for simple queries and 90 minutes for more complex ones. In view of that, the RIA seriously underestimates the potential costs.
  Since more than one member of staff, some highly qualified, may be involved, the average hourly cost could be over £75 per hour. It is inequitable that insurers should not be compensated for doing the same work as credit reference agencies and others who will be paid. I look forward to the Minister's clarification of the issue of compensation for the essential work that the insurance industry will be expected to undertake for the DSS.
  I understand that discussions have taken place between the Minister's department and the insurance industry on the subject of reciprocal co-operation by the DSS in providing information to insurers to help them to combat fraud. It would appear that the DSS is not willing to reciprocate. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment seeks to remove insurance companies from the list of organisations which would be required to provide information to help the DSS and local authorities to fight fraud and error. This, too, would be a weakening of the proposed new powers and would leave a serious gap in our new information-gathering resources.
  Insurance companies hold a great deal of information about individuals. If individuals are committing benefit fraud, we need to have access to that information. Such information may include, for example, vehicle insurance which might suggest that someone is using a vehicle on a commercial basis, perhaps as a taxi driver. We might also discover that
  836
  someone owned a high-performance car. How could that person afford to own and run such a vehicle while at the same time being in receipt of benefits? Fire and household insurances could suggest undisclosed assets and a lifestyle not commensurate with living on benefit. We might find employers' liability insurance, which would indicate that someone was running a business while in receipt of benefit.
  We might discover policies relating to health or unemployment contingencies. If someone was paying large premiums, we might suspect that they were in receipt of an extremely high income, especially if those payments were disproportionate to their benefit income. One example of where insurance payments should be taken into account is when calculating means-tested benefits. In such cases, we need to cross-check information with insurers where we believe that a person may be receiving undeclared insurance payments.
  In other cases, the benefit system and insurers are providing benefits or paying claims for the same contingency. For example, it is possible to insure against loss of earnings due to unemployment, ill health or disability; the benefit system also provides for these contingencies. Again, therefore, sometimes we need to double-check with insurers what we have been told. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this kind of information is entirely relevant to the kind of benefit claims the suitability of which we are seeking to establish. We would not ask about a customer's medical history unless it concerned a disability benefit, because it would not be relevant to the conditions of normal benefit entitlement.
  The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked about costs. He stated that it was his belief that we may have underestimated the costs involved. As regards the published RIA increased costs, as a result of the responses we received to the consultation exercise, we have moved from our original estimate of £16 per hour and have increased it to £30 per hour. He also asked why insurance companies would not be paid. We are asking for companies to provide information which they already hold in the same way as banks and building societies. That point was made by my noble friend Lady Crawley. In our view, that is different from credit reference agencies, which make their living not from the sale of policies and so forth, but from providing information. That is the distinction that we are drawing here.
  We know that insurers would also like to obtain information from the DSS because we make payments in respect of the contingencies against which they insure. We discussed this in our consultation paper, but the responses to our consultation did not provide strong support for the proposition. For that reason, we have decided not to proceed with it.
  We believe that information provided by insurers is important and that we need to include it in the Bill. We are holding discussions with the financial industry more widely as regards giving government information—for example, confirmation that someone has died or details of a bogus national

  837
  insurance number—which may be helpful. However, we do not envisage a complete exchange of information. We would not support such a practice. Indeed, we feel that in some cases we might impinge on the terms of the Data Protection Act.
  Lord Astor of Hever: Am I right to assume that the door is not closed on this point?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is absolutely correct. The fact that we are continuing to hold discussions and that we will be producing a draft code of practice will allow such areas to be explored further. However, I would not wish to raise the noble Lord's hopes too high We certainly seek to be helpful here, but also we are mindful of our duty to protect information.
  For example, someone may have a child from another relationship who may not be known to the partner in their current relationship. If a full exchange of information were in place, the circumstances might then be made known to the insurance company and thus might be circulated back. We, too, have a duty to maintain confidentiality. As I have said, we wish to be helpful. It is not in our interest to see people defrauding the insurance system or the DSS.
  In the light of the explanations in relation to a whole array of benefits that I have sought to establish, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, in particular for addressing head on the two questions I put to her. I understand the need for the DSS to check with the insurance industry. Indeed, I made that clear in my opening remarks. The industry accepts this and will co-operate with the DSS.
  I was surprised at the figure of £30 per hour quoted by the noble Baroness, with which I believe the insurance would probably disagree. However, in the light of her comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 1, leave out lines 18 and 19.
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5, I believe that it would be appropriate to consider at the same time to Amendment No. 6. This amendment addresses the position of credit agencies and those concerned with fraud detection. We discussed this matter at Second Reading and had an interesting exchange during which I suggested that the fact that a credit agency had received an inquiry from a DSS inspector, presumably convinced that someone was engaged in fraud—they would not otherwise make the inquiry—might not do any good to the credit rating of the individual concerned if he were guilty or, more particularly, if he were innocent.
  In subsequent discussions, the noble Baroness was kind enough to say that it was her understanding that this would not arise because the fact that an inquiry had been made would not leave a footprint on the record of the credit rating agency. Quite by chance I came across an individual who, under the terms of the relevant legislation, had recently asked to see what a credit rating agency had been saying about him. He discovered not so much that the odd footprint remained of bodies which had made inquiries, but that the record had been positively trampled to death; in other words, a vast mass of footprints appeared on the information submitted to him by the credit rating agency. Presumably, among the various footprints would be the footprint of the Department for Social Security.
  I may have been misinformed on this matter, but I do not believe that to be the case. Perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm whether there is any risk that an individual could be penalised as a result of the department making an inquiry of a credit rating agency.
  Given that I am not familiar with this area—possibly that is the case also for other noble Lords—will the noble Baroness put in the Library a copy of a typical response which the department receives in answer to a query regarding a credit rating?
  Perhaps I may put one further question to the Minister. If someone has either a bad or a good credit rating, is that supposed to be in some way an indication of fraud? If they are in receipt of income support and they have a magnificent credit rating, at some point a slight suspicion might be aroused about it. However, I am not clear exactly how such inquiries are likely to produce information which the Government believe that inspectors would find helpful.
  Another point should be raised here, although perhaps it is not wholly relevant to the amendment. If an individual is entitled to see what a credit rating agency has said about their status, which I understand is the case, will the individual be entitled to see the more comprehensive data which may be obtained by a government department as a result of its inquiries? A further problem that we should consider—we discussed this earlier— that someone who has engaged in fraud may well provide incorrect information to the credit rating agency. Indeed, that is likely to be the case. Given that, the information then received by the Government would not be as accurate as one might hope. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify these points. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: Amendment No. 6 directs our attention to the words in the Bill entitling the Government to get information from,
  "any body the principal activity of which is to facilitate the exchange of information for the purpose of preventing or detecting fraud".
  I have two queries about this, not altogether unrelated to each other. First, I am not entirely clear what it means. Secondly, I wonder whether its application is

  839
  rather too wide. If we know exactly what is intended, it might be rather easier to achieve drafting which clearly expresses the Government's meaning.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Grabiner: Perhaps I may deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. When conducting inquiries which led to the production of my report, I also considered footprints. This is a point we discussed briefly on Second Reading. In the course of preparing the report, I interviewed a senior official from Experian, which is a major provider of the information we are discussing. The point that concerned me—exactly the point mentioned by the noble Lord a moment ago—was whether a subsequent inquiry of, say, Experian would reveal the fact that the DSS had left its heavy footprint. That would obviously have a profound impact upon the decision of the subsequent potential credit provider as to whether or not he gives credit to the individual. It was explained to me—I am sure it can be independently verified, if necessary—that it need not leave a footprint.
  I agree that this is an important consideration. If the noble Lord were to view the information that is held by such companies—he should be under no misapprehension as to the quality and quantity of this information; it is fabulous—he would be horrified at how much information is available on a credit card when presented in a simple credit card transaction. For example, I recently presented a credit card to a garage proprietor. He was able to tell me my personal address from the information available on the face of his screen. That rather scared me. This kind of information is vast and is freely available outside. I say "freely"; you have to pay for it.
  But, to return to the point, the information held by companies of this kind is like, so to speak, the contents of a black box. The providers of the information have to satisfy the information commissioner that they are behaving in relation to the contents of that black box in a fashion which is entirely consistent with the requirements of the data protection legislation. The commissioner supervises in a very strict way the providers' behaviour and the way that they run their daily business.
  One of the things that I was told could be provided was a tailored-made package to meet your requirements. You decide what you want to purchase and you go along to the provider and buy a tailored-made package. Here we are talking about a fairly low level of information—for example, verifying the existence of a bank account, or the name or address of a person. It is possible to negotiate a package which will ensure that a subsequent intruder into the information available in the black box will not be told that on a previous occasion a footfall has been left by the DSS.
  This point needs to be absolutely confirmed, but my understanding from inquiries is that such a package is obtainable; that it is possible to preserve the integrity,
  840
  privacy and confidentiality of the individual by ensuring that that knowledge cannot be transmitted, so to speak, outside the black, box to a third party.
  Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may respond on the two points made by the noble Lord before the Minister replies. She can then cover them.
  As to the position of the credit card in a petrol station, the noble Baroness, in somewhat exotic terms, said at Second Reading that you would be appalled at the information which people can get if you put up on the screen what is available on the card. I did not mention this during our discussions on the last amendment—it did not seem relevant—but the banks have written back to me, in almost furious terms, pointing out that this is totally wrong. The noble Lord seems to be in the same position. If you put a credit card in at a petrol station, all that should come up is whether the payment is authorised or not. I have it in black and white from the British Banking Association that that is the position.
  Lord Grabiner: The BP garage proprietor—I suspect that he was not the proprietor but a mere employee—simply said to me, as I presented him the card and he put it through the machine, "Is your address…"—I do not need to repeat it for the benefit of Hansard—and he gave me my address; it was absolutely correct. That came up on the face of his screen.
  Lord Higgins: I am tempted to read out what else the banks said about the noble Baroness's Second Reading speech, but I shall refrain from doing so.
  We need to check up on the facts of the matter. There is clearly a considerable difference of opinion between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the one hand, and the British Banking Association on the other, as to what actually comes up on a screen in a petrol station when you present your credit card. Short of us all going off to the nearest petrol station and presenting a credit card, I am not sure how we can solve the issue immediately. No doubt we shall manage to do so.
  The trouble with this argument is that I have now forgotten the second point made by the noble Lord.
  Lord Grabiner: I cannot remember it either, so it does not really matter. But perhaps I may make this point. In a sense, it does not really matter if the address comes up. What has to be appreciated is that probably such transactions are carried out 200,000 or 300,000 times a day. The decision on whether or not to grant credit in respect of a particular transaction is the effect of a positive reaction from having put in the card. That is because a vast amount of information is immediately, in effect, interrogated and a positive or negative response is given. The essential point is that the information is already there, albeit in the private sector, which many of the provisions and amendments

  841
  we are discussing illustrate. The legislation is designed to allow access to information which is already in the private sector and available at a price.
  Lord Higgins: The second point made by the noble Lord was in regard to footprints. Again there seems to be a considerable difference of opinion. I am not clear whether the Government are arguing that there will be no footprints because the footprints are normally not recorded, or whether they are saying that if the DSS makes an inquiry it will ask for the footprint not to be there.
  My understanding is that if you ask to see your credit rating, one of the pieces of information you get back is a list of all the people who have inquired as to what is your credit rating.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may address that point in a moment. These amendments seek to remove credit reference agencies from the list of organisations who would be required to provide information. As I said on the two previous groups of amendments, this would be a seriously damaging step as we envisage the agencies being our first port of call in many inquiries. If someone has a credit card, then going through the credit reference agency leads us to his bank. If he does not have that, we may need to go to the bank directly.
  The amendments also seek to remove,
  "any body the principal activity of which is to facilitate the exchange of information for the purposes of preventing or detecting fraud",
  from the list of organisations which would be required to provide information.
  Perhaps I may deal first with the issue of credit agencies. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made two substantive points: first, that a person's credit rating could be harmed by the fact that the DSS had made inquiries about that person—in other words, an assumption about how credit ratings operate; and, secondly, that the DSS in particular would be leaving a footfall and that the situation should be clarified.
  As I understand it, credit reference agencies do not award credit ratings; it is the financial institutions using their services who do that. I have assured the House that we will ensure that these organisations—the banks and so on—which use the credit reference agencies cannot identify whether or not the DSS made an inquiry when the department itself, in turn, accessed credit agency data. There is, therefore, no question of a person's credit rating being affected by our using these powers.
  There may be some supplementary concerns about whether the information held is incorrect— refer back to our previous discussions—but, again, no one piece of information convicts a person of fraud. Any incorrect information would soon be uncovered—it would be inconsistent—and it would be treated sensitively and securely destroyed.
  Again there is a concern about people knowing the information. We debated this point in relation to the previous amendment. Only an authorised officer may
  842
  obtain on-line information that relates to an identified person where there are reasonable grounds to do so. Any inquiry that would not be allowed in writing under Section 109B will not be allowed under these provisions. Such inquiries will have to be made in accordance with a code of practice that we shall subsequently discuss. Authorised officers will be required to document their grounds for inquiries. That documentation would, in turn, be subject to routine checking by managers.
  Concerns have been expressed about the amount of reliable data that agencies may hold. It has been suggested that it could lead us, via the card issuer, to a concealed bank account and so on. We need the help of the agencies to defeat the £2 million or so annual loss to public funds. Credit reference agencies are a useful gateway to information about a claimant's financial circumstances in order to determine the amount of fraud.
  As regards the question about leaving a "footprint", banks that go to a credit reference agency leave a footprint behind, so any other bank or organisation would know that Barclays, Lloyds or whichever organisation has interrogated the credit reference agency. We have established with the agencies that their system will not divulge our inquiries to any subsequent inquirer. We shall place an example of a typical credit reference agency in the Library, so that the noble Lord may satisfy himself on the details. Equifax and Experian are the two major ones. I have had a quick look at some of the information provided by one of those. It makes it clear that the credit agencies themselves do not determine credit standing. It is the organisations that do that, on the basis of the information provided by the credit reference agency.
  In regard to Amendment No. 6, perhaps I may confirm that we are talking about CIFAS. No other bodies are known at present. However, for procedural reasons it could not be named on the face of the Bill; otherwise, a question of hybridity would arise. That is why the reference in the Bill is worded in this way.
  I hope that I have addressed the two main concerns of the noble Lord: whether this provision will affect someone's credit standing and whether, in asking for the information, the department will leave a footprint. The answer is no on both counts. As a result, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Higgins: As always, the noble Baroness is very helpful. We look forward to reading the example—no doubt anonymous—which will be placed in the Library to enable us to see what information is received from the credit agencies. Clearly, this is an important point.
  It would seem that the Government have done a specific deal with the agencies—the Minister nods and the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, who is expert in these matters, shakes his head—to the effect that the department's footprints will be "erased from the snow". So the problem that I raised at Second Reading does not arise. The Minister nods to indicate that that is the case.

  843
  In exchange for part of this information the department will no doubt make a payment to these organisations. We shall come to the question of payment in relation to subsequent amendments. As I understand it, the Government are making the credit rating agencies and those concerned with fraud a special case: they are to be paid, whereas the Government are treating other organisations which will equally incur costs in the same way as they are treated in other pieces of legislation. It unusual to pay a particular organisation for its services in this way and not to pay others which incur equal cost.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I addressed this matter earlier. The point is that banks and insurance companies hold this information anyway for their own use, and we are seeking access to it, whereas the credit reference agencies' reason for existing is the provision of such information. Therefore, such payment does not seem unreasonable. Had we not been willing to pay them, I am sure the noble Lord would have been equally forthright in his criticism.
  Lord Higgins: Either you pay them all, or you do not pay them all.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: They are not the same. Surely the noble Lord can make a distinction between an insurance company or bank and a credit reference agency.
  Lord Higgins: Yes, I do not dispute that there is a distinction. I merely wonder whether this approach is justified. Credit rating agencies have all the information readily to hand, in the same way as a bank does.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: But they provide that information—unlike banks, which hold it as ancillary to other priority purposes.
  Lord Higgins: I understand that very well. We look forward to seeing what the noble Baroness's example reveals, and on the point that was raised earlier. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 7:
  Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 1 to 3.
  The noble Lord said: In line with other amendments, this seeks to probe the position with particular regard to,
  "any person carrying on a business the whole or a significant part of which consists in the provision to members of the public of a service for transferring money from place to place".
  I am not quite clear what kind of organisation the Government have in mind. Since subsequent clauses make provision for international exchanges of information, is the provision particularly concerned
  844
  with organisations of that kind? I simply do not recognise the description. Perhaps the noble Baroness can help us.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall try. The effect of the amendment would be to remove money transfer companies from the list of organisations required to provide information about individuals.
  Most people use banks to transfer money and we should be able to obtain information from them. But there are other companies which transmit money and which would not be so covered, such as Western Union. This is a money transmission company that enables a person to send money to someone within the UK or abroad for a service charge. Senders can transfer the money by handing in cash, by credit card or by telephoning the companies. The recipients can collect the funds from the companies' agents by proving their identity.
  Given that the noble Lord simply asked about the context of this provision, I hope I have answered his question. We obviously need such information to identify people who are colluding in organised international fraud and to track the movements of stolen benefit in order to recover that money when benefit cheats are prosecuted.
  For example, in one operation, people who were involved in making multiple fraudulent benefit claims—including a member of the DSS staff—were observed using money transmission companies to send money abroad. That is why we need to bring them in under this remit. If the amendment were accepted, we should be unable to obtain such information; what is more, if it were an exempt territory, one could see a growth in the use of such services to send money to banks abroad so as to evade detection. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's question and that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. This seems to be a strong case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 8:
  Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 4 to 8.
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
  The water, gas and electricity industries also recognise the significance of social security fraud and the potential role to be played by private sector companies, including utility suppliers in efforts to tackle this form of crime. However, they have concerns about some aspects of the Bill—specifically, potential costs, data protection aspects and the impact on customer relations.
  Utility companies, and especially electricity companies, as almost every household has an electricity meter, will be affected by the large costs associated with the Bill. Although the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make payments to utility

  845
  companies for the bulk of information they will be asked to provide, the Secretary of State may make payments only where he considers this reasonable; but he need not do so if he does not think it appropriate. This is very unsatisfactory and unclear. It places these private companies in an uncertain position over the recovery of the costs.
  The companies are also concerned about the way in which this will affect relations with their customers. Electricity companies are working extremely hard to introduce initiatives designed to combat fuel poverty. In so doing, they often deal with sensitive customer groups. The industry believes that the requirement for such companies to hand over information to the Government about those customers places a strain on electricity suppliers, who are trying to do their very best for vulnerable customer groups.
  On data protection, the industry feels that the Government may be seeking on-line access to information held by the electricity suppliers. Can the noble Baroness tell the Committee whether the Government believe that this will raise specific data protection problems for the electricity industry? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to those two points. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords perhaps I may respond first to the noble Lord's second point relating to data protection. I have received an assurance to the effect that the answer to that question is no. No data protection issues are raised for the electricity companies. However, given that this is the Committee stage, it may be worth outlining why we need this information. These amendments seek to remove the power to obtain information from water companies and gas and electricity suppliers. Fraud is committed by people lying about where they live—for example, claiming housing benefit for a property that is actually empty. Members of the Committee will know from ample discussion in this Chamber about housing benefit fraud how often systematic frauds arise as regards properties where people are not living. Fraud is also committed by people lying about their identity.
  Utilities, including water companies, can provide information on levels of consumption. No consumption may mean no resident at a property; for example, if we suspect that a gang of organised criminals are using a number of empty addresses to claim benefit from, information from the utility companies could tell us if it was likely that anyone was living there. Such companies can also provide information on who they think lives in a property which we can cross check with our own records. Therefore, they can help us combat those types of fraud.
  Water companies also have information on how bills are paid. For example, if we were to ask about the bank account used to make payments by direct debit, this may lead us to identify undeclared income in those accounts. The type of information that we would require from gas and electric companies would be
  846
  much the same, and would help us to detect the same types of offence—that is, people not living at the address from which they are claiming benefit; people lying about their identity; people not declaring savings or capital. In the case of gas, we do not see gas suppliers as a major source of information in this respect. However, they may still hold information about bank accounts that would be extremely useful.
  Therefore, we can obtain information about residency fraud. We may also get information about what other forms of income people may have. If a utility company tells us that our customer is not the registered user at an address, that might suggest either that he or she is not living at that specific address or that he or she is living with an undeclared partner who is working and paying the domestic bills. Indeed, I could go further.
  The noble Lord, Lord, Astor, also said that he thought this provision was unfair because of the bulk issue as regards the utilities. Given the likely cost of extracting the data, it is difficult to see why it is appropriate to make payment. This is just a large amount of bulk information.
  With that explanation—namely, that giving the information is not contrary to the Data Protection Act and the fact that we do not believe it is appropriate to make such payments, and bearing in mind that it is information particularly about residency to which these companies have unique access—I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. I quite accept, as does the industry, the need for the DSS to have such information. I was disappointed with the Minister's response on the recovery of costs, but I am grateful that there will not be any specific data protection problems for the electricity industry. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
  Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 11:
  Clause I. page 2, leave out lines 13 to 15.
  The noble Lord said: Should the Bill receive Royal Assent in its current form, there is concern in the telecommunications industry at the imposition of what it believes to be an unreasonable burden on companies. Although I understand that the Government would be prepared to meet some of the costs to the telecommunications companies when using services, such as directory enquiries, for which companies already charge, these payments would not be sufficient to cover the majority of the costs that would fall on them.
  As the companies expect to have to deal with up to 90,000 enquiries per year over the whole sector, they believe that this Bill will have serious resource implications for them. They feel that those implications go beyond any reasonable expenses that they should be obliged to bear as good corporate citizens.
  In today's House of Lords Official Report, in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Northesk, the Government recognise that Internet service providers (ISPs) and communications service providers (CSPs) do bear substantial costs for providing data to law enforcement agencies and should, therefore, be entitled to enter into cost recovery agreements. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has accepted that a requirement to provide communications data places operational and financial burdens on the CSP. In the light of that response, can the noble Baroness clarify the Government's position on compensating the communications sector for the data that it provides?
  In particular, I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify why the telecommunications services should be treated differently from the ISPs, if in fact telecommunications services do fall into this category of CSPs mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. If they do, it seems extraordinary to allow them to recover their costs under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, only to prevent them from doing so under this Bill, the aim of which is also to facilitate improved law enforcement.
  We hope that the Government will eventually agree with themselves that these companies should be entitled to some sort of reimbursement for the prospective costs that they will shoulder as a result of this Bill. It is important that we do not take for granted those British businesses that have legitimate concerns about how such costs will affect their businesses when drafting legislation which will have to rely heavily on their co-operation for its effectiveness. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment now before the Committee would have the effect of removing providers of telecommunications services from the list of organisations required to provide information to help combat fraud. I am delighted to, as it were, read into the record that BT said in the consultation exercise that it would wish,
  "to co-operate with legitimate and justified requests from the DSS to supply information".
  I believe that to be a most helpful and positive response.
  Perhaps I may begin by outlining why we need this information. I shall then return to the point raised here, and also to the question of utilities in terms of costs. I realise that that point is of obvious concern to the noble Lord.
  Why do we need this information? A telecommunications provider would be able to provide a range of information on an individual. For example, it might have information on the level of usage and on the means by which bills are paid. If the usage was exceptionally high, that might suggest that someone could be operating a business from his or her address. Billing information might also show that someone other than the householder was responsible for the account, which might, in turn, suggest that there was an undeclared person in the household.
  848
  All that information might help to establish the true circumstances of a benefit claim and thus ensure that the correct amount of benefit was in payment. However, we would not ask for information that does not help us to do this—for example, information about the content of telephone calls, or of electronic mail. We are not seeking information about what we call "traffic data".
  In his report entitled The Informal Economy, the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, mentioned the value of being able to "reverse search" the telephone directory. On Second Reading, I mentioned the scenario of the window cleaner advertising his services in the newsagent's window and giving only a telephone number. A further benefit of billing information in organised fraud cases would be that we might be able to put together a picture of his activity and, if necessary, that of any others with whom he is working on that basis. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will agree that the information that telecommunications suppliers hold is vital to our fight against fraud.
  The noble Lord, perfectly properly, pressed me on the question of costs. If I mislead him, I shall obviously elucidate my response by way of correspondence. My understanding is that we are not proposing to pay telecommunications companies for every piece of information that they may give us. We propose to pay them only for certain types of information that they already provide for payment; for example, directory enquiries. However, if we ask them for details of what address they hold on their records for a customer, or billing information, we shall not pay for that service. So there is some payment but not for the full range of information that they hold. Similarly, in the case of the utilities, we do not expect to pay them for information about individuals. We will obviously reimburse them for bulk information and such reasonable costs as the Secretary of State may determine.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful for that response. Of course I understand all the reasons for requiring the information. The Minister did not respond to my question why telecommunications services should be treated differently from Internet service providers. Perhaps she will reply to me in a letter as the industry takes that point very seriously.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We have no plans at present to obtain information from Internet service providers. However, as this is a complex issue, I shall write to the noble Lord.
  Lord Astor of Hever: With the greatest respect, that was not my question. I asked why the telecommunications services should be treated differently from Internet service providers in relation to cost.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the noble Lord rightly identified, this is a complicated issue because BT is also an Internet service provider. These are not

  849
  separate categories; there is considerable overlap. It may be useful to set that out in a letter to the noble Lord, which I shall also place in the Library.
  Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful for that response, as I am sure will be BT. I have had a series of telephone conversations with BT today on this matter. It is an area that concerns them. In the light of that response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 2, leave out lines 16 and 17.
  The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 12 and, with the leave of the Committee, to speak to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. I suppose I should declare an interest as the father of two daughters who are studying, or are meant to be studying, at two separate universities. I understand that they are occasionally there!
  We believe that the inclusion of educational establishments in the list of persons who will be bound by law under the Bill to deliver personal information about individuals to the DSS is unnecessary and potentially too intrusive. It will also place an additional workload, and time constraint, on the already pressurised teaching profession and redirect vital educational funds into resources required to meet the demands of inquiries.
  It would seem that much of Clause 1 has been designed to allow officials to check whether an individual's expenditure is as they claim when they apply for benefits, or whether, in fact, they are making a fraudulent claim. School and university records, however, have no record of students' income or expenditure and therefore should be exempt from the Bill.
  We cannot see how it can be necessary to put an extra burden of responsibility on educational institutions, particularly teachers, to provide the Government with private records on demand, and then refrain from advising that individual that they were under suspicion. Given all the other financial information that will be made available to officials under the Bill, it seems highly intrusive and inappropriate for this particular source of very personal information to be at the Government's fingertips. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: I rise—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope I may reply before the noble Earl speaks as I may obviate his concerns. There may be a profound misunderstanding here of what we are seeking to do. All we are seeking to establish is whether someone in higher education is a student. If they are a student, they are not eligible to claim benefit. We are not interested in, nor would we be able to seek, nor shall we seek, information about exam grades or tutors' comments, however much the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, as a father might like
  850
  to know that, and however much I as a former university teacher might feel that it ought to be shared with the parents of students in some cases. All we seek to do with this information is essentially to establish whether someone has the status of a student. The persons who will tell us that are not the universities as such but, primarily, UCAS. That is the reason we seek that information. I could give a much longer reply but that may obviate the need to explore the issue further. If it does not, I shall, of course, seek to help the Committee further.
  Earl Russell: I intervene precisely to the point that the Minister has been concerned about; namely, the question whether people are actually students. The Minister who is learned in both languages I think understands something of the difficulties of communication between universities and government agencies, especially the DSS.
  I remember on one occasion being called in for help by my departmental secretary to answer a detailed request for information. I forget where it came from; I think it may well have been the CSA. She said, "These questions do not mean anything in our terms. What shall I do with them?". We went over them for about half an hour and I finally said to her, "All you can do is set out the facts of this person's situation and you have to ask them to decide what answer to the question that adds up to". We could not make head or tail of it.
  I shall not go into the matter in detail because the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will remember the debate on the student social security regulations, and most of the points had been made by the Social Security Advisory Committee far better than I could ever make them. The basic difficulty, especially in the humanities, is that the DSS assumes that being a student means being in full-time attendance sitting in classes. In my field a great deal of it—it ought to be up to three-quarters—means sitting at home seriously reading books. Until that is understood, we cannot give meaningful answers to the questions the DSS sends us. Academics can always think of six or seven meanings to a question. So we shall be sending back a great many detailed, lengthy and learned replies which will take up people's time and not give information which we would have been happy to give if it had been asked in a form in which we could answer it.
  There is a further problem of intermission and that is so well dealt with by the Social Security Advisory Committee that I do not need to go into it any further. Because the Minister is learned in both languages, perhaps she is the ideal person to provide a solution to a question which in the past has seemed insoluble. If she is able to do anything about this, the university world as a whole would be profoundly grateful.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I rather suspect the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to tempt me down the road of social security support for students. I accept that there can be a problem of definition as to what counts as a full-time student and a part-time student given the 16 hours rule and so on. I recognise that where much study may be done at home there can be

  851
  difficulties of definition. I am happy to refer those queries to my noble friend Lady Blackstone who is the Minister responsible for education. However, I hope that the noble Earl will allow me tonight not to engage in a debate about social security support for students.
  What we seek here is simply the power to apply to the Student Loans Company or UCAS, or other relevant bodies, to find out whether someone who is claiming benefit also has the status of a student, or has been drawing student loan income or other incomes in such a way that impinges on his or her benefit claims. I think the Committee will understand the need for that information. We do not seek anything else that is private or confidential. If the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will permit me, I would prefer not to be tempted down the path of a general debate on student support and social security tonight.
  Earl Russell: I thank the Minister warmly. She said everything that I hoped to hear. I assure her that I was not tempting her down the path of that general debate. That debate remains to be had but this is neither the time nor the place for it. I thank the Minister warmly.
  Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for her clarification of the point. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the definition of a student. My two daughters are supposedly students although they are not always sitting in a class full-time or, indeed, working at home. In the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 2, leave out lines 22 and 23.
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 15 appears towards the end of the series of amendments which are concerned with individual organisations. Amendment No. 15 is somewhat different in as much as it relates to the part of the Bill which is concerned with getting information from agents or servants of the aforementioned list of persons or organisations.
  Our concern is the level at which the information is likely to be obtained. One presumes that the information is being obtained by the inspector from the organisation itself—the electricity or gas industry, or banks—rather than by the servant. That suggests that the obligation on an employee to provide the information to the person in government is different from that of the organisation by which he is employed: that he has some personal responsibility to produce the information. He may run into trouble with the business employing him if it does not want the information disclosed. The Government could have gone to the business rather than to the employee.
  I understand that a problem arose with regard to the Electronic Communications Act. It was seen to place an unfair burden on employees to disclose information which they might not have. I understand that the first version of that Bill went back to the draftsman because one of the major objections was that the onus was
  852
  placed on employees to disclose information to which at junior level they had only partial access. It will be helpful to ensure that we do not run into the same problem. Having recognised that problem, the Government then took a different line.
  The problem arises as to whether the agent of a commercial organisation is bound by some contractual or other relationship to the person employing him as an agent not to pass on information when the information can be obtained from the principal. What information is likely to be obtained from the agent which cannot be obtained from the principal? Alternatively, is it in some sense a whistle-blowing operation—the agent knows that the principal is fraudulent and the Government wish to ask whether it is true that his principal is engaged in fraud? It is not entirely clear from the somewhat simple wording of the Bill. In the light of experience of the previous legislation, perhaps the Minister will clarify the position.
  6.45 p.m.
  Earl Russell: I ask for a clearer definition of what is implied by the words in the Bill. Is there any restriction in the way "agent" is defined which makes it clear who will be covered by the clause? I remember debates on IR35 during the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. There seemed a confusion of relationships between people who were or were not agents or employees. Will exactly who is covered by the clause he clear?
  My other concern relates to diffusion. In our meeting, the Minister gave me reassurances on diffusion which were extremely welcome. I think that it is agreed that as information spreads among more people, the risk of wider disclosure increases in geometrical progression in line with the number of people who have the information. If more and more agents—related people, people in connected jobs, people who have done a single job on contract for a government—become involved and provide information, a series of "onion layers" may arise. If not, there may be difficulty in getting the requisite information.
  It is a difficult problem to get round, but I should like to know exactly what the Bill means.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The issue is important for the security of a number of people. Therefore, I shall give a careful answer.
  This amendment seeks to prevent authorised officers obtaining information from the servants and agents of the persons and bodies that can be required to provide information about identified individuals under the clause.
  Perhaps I may set out who servants and agents are. Servants and agents can be the subcontractors of organisations. If a subcontractor held the information we needed, it would make sense to go to him as the servant or agent of the primary body rather than to the primary body itself. Servants are also the employees of a company. Putting it crudely, servants can be agents but also employees whereas an agent is a person

  853
  authorised to act on behalf of another. According to Black's legal dictionary—I defer to my noble friend Lord Grabiner—a "servant" is a person employed by another to do work under the control and directions of the employer. In the same legal dictionary, an "agent" is defined as one who is authorised to act for or in place of another; a representative. That tends to be the distinction.
  We need this provision to ensure that there is someone in the company to whom we can direct inquiries and make responsible for providing the information needed to identify benefit fraud. Generally, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested, we would approach a company for information, and many organisations would want to nominate a central point for such inquiries either within the corporate body or within an organisation that works for them. Where this was the case, we would not direct our inquiries to anyone else. We would make this clear in the code of practice that would be published before implementing these provisions.
  However, some organisations will not want to nominate a central point. If we were then unable to identify a way to direct our inquiries to the corporate body, we might need to direct our inquiries to an employee of the organisation who would be able to answer the inquiry.
  The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, queried whether it could, therefore, be our intention to prosecute individual employees who do not provide information when required. In other words, how exposed are they? In the vast majority of cases, our inquiries will be made to the corporate body and it would be the corporate body which would be held to account for any failure to comply with the legislation.
  There are only two situations in which we would prosecute an individual for failing to provide information under these provisions: where they themselves were the corporate body, or, very exceptionally, if an individual failed to provide information and would not seek a corporate backing to do so, perhaps because they had a personal interest in the case. In these circumstances, it would be right to hold the individual to account and not the corporate body.
  I must stress that we do not expect to need to exercise the powers in this way. We are interested in obtaining information to fight fraud, and not in prosecuting those who work in the private and education sectors. But we need this provision to ensure that the powers work and to ensure that people take responsibility for failing to meet any legal obligations they impose. This will usually ensure that any decisions about compliance are taken corporately.
  If anyone is worried about their employees being prosecuted for not providing information, the answer is that employees will not be prosecuted if they had the employer's corporate backing when they took the decision to refuse to provide information. I hope that that addresses the noble Lord's concerns. If it does not, it might be sensible to follow this with an exchange of
  854
  correspondence. It is technical, but it is important to get the matter right and for the situation, including the point about whistle-blowers, to be clarified.
  Given the information and the promise to follow up the matter by correspondence if the noble Lord wishes, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Higgins: I find that a somewhat worrying answer. I did not fully understand the implications. Perhaps one should look back on the arguments deployed in the earlier debates on the e-commerce Bill. Not being a lawyer, I am not clear whether a subcontractor is an agent.
  Lord Grabiner: This point is something of a chestnut. It presents itself frequently to courts and tribunals. The whole of our employment legislation rests upon the answer to the question, "Is X an employee?" If X turns out to be an employee, applying the control tests—the point made by the Minister—that person will come within the legislation. The alternative conclusion is that the person will be an independent contractor or sub-contractor.
  The essential distinction is that an employee works for somebody, under their control, whereas an independent contractor or agent sells their services for a fee. On the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I suspect that a subcontractor would be an independent contractor or agent.
  The distinction requires a factual inquiry. The company secretary is almost bound to be an employee of the company and would count as a servant. A subcontractor would sell his services to the company. For example, a contractor who sold employees—in the sense that he was their employer and he provided their services to the company—would be an independent contractor to the company supplying labour only. He would therefore count as an agent rather than a servant.
  Lord Higgins: I am sure that the House is most grateful to the noble Lord for that helpful clarification. I wonder whether there is a lacuna in the Bill, because a subcontractor who may have information relevant to an inquiry may not be covered. Perhaps we ought to consider that point, but let us not pursue it now.
  It would be helpful to have some elucidation of the position from the Minister. The noble Lord said that some of those points are legal chestnuts. They are not chestnuts that I had previously cooked or consumed, so I am in a bad position on the issue. If the Government approach an individual in a decentralised part of an organisation, they will still be asking for the information from the organisation. The fact that the individual is not on site does not seem necessary. Using the word "servant" opens up the possibility of a particular individual being clobbered by an over-enthusiastic inspector. In its representations, the Bradford and Bingley Building Society quoted the example of an inspector who had demanded information from an individual who was not entitled to give it.

  855
  We look forward to receiving the letter that the Minister is going to send us. Let us take it from there.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy to clarify the issue through correspondence. To reassure the noble Lord, our solicitors cannot remember a single case in which they have prosecuted an individual under the current powers for refusing to provide information. We are talking about a very rare occurrence, although that does not mean that it should not be clarified.
  Baroness Noakes: Why is it necessary to have a power to ask for information from a servant or an agent? The information required is held by the company or other organisation. The request should always be made to the company. The fact that it may be difficult to find the right name to put on the letter is not relevant. The identity of the company or organisation from which the information is required will be known. By inserting this power in the Bill, the Government are suggesting that they might try to get information that is not held corporately. That means that any employee of one of the organisations listed could be asked for information held by them, not in a corporate sense, but in a personal sense. That is a dangerous extension of the Government's ability to get information, when the ability to approach the organisations does not need them to go beyond establishing the right to get the information.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I entirely take that point. We shall try to ensure that those issues are covered in the code of practice. We always expect to address our inquiries to the company. Only when we cannot get the information—because the company is decentralised or there are agent arrangements—would we expect to go down to the servant or the agent. The provision is a fallback for cases when the company to which we make the initial inquiry is, perfectly properly, unable to respond to our request for information. Provided that that person has the backing of their company for their action—whether or not they reveal the information—that employee will be protected.
  If there are questions beyond that, I shall be happy to seek to answer them in correspondence.
  Lord Higgins: We are clear that we need to be a little careful. The Minister has said that the department does not recall any employee being prosecuted for not providing information. On the other hand, it is possible that, for one reason or another, possibly maliciously, employees have provided information that they ought not to have provided. We look forward to receiving the Minister's letter, which will spell that out. Some care in drafting is needed. We may need to consider whether the position of sub-contractors is fully covered by the Bill and whether the word "servant" ought to be in the Bill. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
  ("(o) any government department or agency").
  The noble Lord said: This is different from the previous amendments, which all had a certain similarity about them. This one would add to the list of organisations that may provide information on fraud to the Department of Social Security.
  As a result of tabling the amendment, I have incurred the wrath of Liberty on the ground that it goes much too far, so I propose it with some schizophrenia. It may well go too far in the sense that 20 or 30 years ago there were genuine Chinese walls between one department and another. In particular, the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise were highly determined that the information that they held on individuals should be treated as confidential and should not be translated to other departments. Alas, those Chinese walls have become less and less effective, particularly since the Treasury has taken over large chunks of the Department of Social Security.
  The other side of the amendment—I now put on my other hat, if that is not mixing my metaphors too much—is to ensure that there is, in the ghastly jargon, joined-up government. There needs to be an adequate exchange of information between the DSS and other departments that may have information that is relevant to the detection of fraud. We have to consider that, not least in the context of the exchange of information between computers, given the Department of Social Security's unfortunate record on computers.
  Perhaps the Minister could give us an idea of the extent to which the Government intend to exchange information between one department and another in the course of pursuing social security fraud and how much of that is likely to be done electronically. She referred earlier to the question of whether someone had a large car. Will the department ask the DVLA for information about car registrations? If so, will that information be linked in a computerised or electronic form? Similarly, for example, although perhaps unlikely in the context of social security fraud, land registry records may reveal property purchases.
  Other than in areas where an exchange of information is not appropriate, it would be helpful to be reasonably clear that the Government believe that information transfers between government departments will enable them to pursue the objectives of the Bill.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Grabiner: By way of information and in response to the points just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, perhaps I may say that I dealt with this point very fully in my report. I do not believe that any subsequent relevant statutory amendments have been made. The noble Lord may find it helpful to look at paragraph 5.13 of the report, down to and including paragraph 5.18, which covers less than a page and a half.

  857
  That section of the report includes a table showing the current state of the transfer of information in relation to the matters with which we are now concerned between the relevant government departments. Those departments are confined to Customs & Excise, the Inland Revenue and the DSS. Perhaps I may say that the noble Lord will find a full summary of the current position in a form which is rather more clear and less complex than the legislation which produces that result.
  My only additional point is that I reached the conclusion that the table reveals that there are no obvious gaps in the current legislation. That is why I did not make a specific recommendation and why, I suspect, the Bill does not contain, for example, the provision which is the subject of the amendment which we are now discussing. I hope that those paragraphs and, in particular, the table will clarify matters.
  Earl Russell: I must confess that I share Liberty's misgivings that the amendment is perhaps a little wide in its drafting. I wonder whether it covers, for example, the Probation Service. I can think of circumstances in which I would not want that service to have to disclose such information. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment seeks to add other government departments and agencies to the list of bodies from which authorised officers could require information. I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord Grabiner said. The DSS already has powers to obtain information from relevant government departments and agencies in order to address social security fraud and error. Those provisions were introduced by the previous administration under the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997.
  Therefore, we work with other departments, including the DVLA, to obtain information in relation to, for example, people starting work, claiming tax credits and entering prison. Information is generally obtained in bulk and data-matched with social security records in order to identify inconsistencies which are to be pursued. In the first three-quarters of this year, those data matches identified nearly 135,000 cases for investigation and almost £24 million of overpaid benefit. The department has the same relationship with local authorities.
  Therefore, we do not need the power which the amendment seeks to introduce. Indeed, if the power were granted, it could allow not only the DSS but local authorities to acquire information from the security services, the Foreign Office, the MoD, the Home Office and the Department of Health, all of which have highly sensitive files. Therefore, I do not believe that it would be wise to follow that path. As my noble friend rightly said in his report, we do not need the power. We require information from the private sector, and that is what the Bill seeks to obtain.
  Lord Higgins: Liberty will be happier with the response of the noble Baroness to this amendment
  858
  than it will with her response to the previous one. Once again, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, whose excellent report, as he rightly points out, deals with this problem. I was not quite clear to what extent there was compatibility with regard to computers. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, said that his diagram covered the Treasury and the Inland Revenue—that is, the two revenue departments. However, I was not clear from the Minister's reply whether it covered the DVLA.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I said that the DVLA was included.
  Lord Higgins: However, I gather that it does not cover a number of other areas which the noble Baroness specified. In addition, I am not entirely clear whether the exchange of information on the scale which she mentioned takes place on an electronic basis or whether—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is on a data-matching basis.
  Lord Higgins: I understand; it is data matching on an electronic basis. Given the schizophrenic approach which I have taken to this amendment, I rapidly beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 17:
  Clause 1, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
  ("(2AA) Any authorised officer wishing to obtain information under this section shall make an application to the person holding it through that section of the Department of Social Security responsible for the investigation of fraud.").
  The noble Lord said: We have also tabled Amendment No. 18, which is the mirror image of Amendment No. 17. I am not sure whether one should call this amendment the "single exit provision" and the other amendment the "single entry provision", or whether it should be the other way round. However, essentially we are saying—I consider it to be important—that inquiries by the department should be made centrally rather than that the department should have a whole range of investigating officers who make inquiries to the increased cost and trouble of the various organisations specified in the earlier amendments which we have been discussing.
  I believe that it would be helpful to know exactly what the Minister proposes to do about that. We have already pointed out that the department has a considerable number of regional offices and an even larger number of—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I confess to having totally misunderstood the push of his amendment. My understanding was that he was anxious to ensure that all local authority inquiries came through the DSS and that, therefore, there would be no direct access.

  859
  If that is not what he seeks to achieve through this amendment—certainly, everything that he has said so far suggests that he is not going along that line—I am not sure whether the fault lies with us or with the drafting. However, that was our understanding, and I wonder whether the noble Lord would prefer to return to this issue on Report. We certainly envisaged a push in a very different direction from the one which he has specified. I am happy to explore the issue of local authorities and the DSS, but our lawyers' reading of the amendment took us in a different direction from that which the noble Lord is pursuing.
  Lord Higgins: I must confess that the amendment is a poor thing. It was drafted by me and therefore may not meet the high technical standards that the department requires. Having said that, I considered that what it sought to achieve was clear. It states:
  "Any authorised officer"
  we are clear who they are—
  "wishing to obtain information under this section"—
  that is, Clause 1—
  "shall make an application to the person holding it"—
  banks, building societies or whatever—
  "through that section of the Department of Social Security responsible for the investigation of fraud".
  Therefore, the information should be sought through the department. That may be information from the department itself, from one of its regional offices, or, as the noble Baroness supposes, from local authorities.
  We seek to suggest through the amendment that the inconvenience caused to the mostly unpaid organisations, with which we dealt earlier, should be as minimal as possible. Clearly, that is likely to be the case if the department has a central organisation which is responsible for the investigation of fraud. That organisation would then put the requests to the individual companies or other organisations from which it wished to obtain the information. That is the amendment's simple purpose.
  Clearly, two categories are involved: government departments and local authorities. We might consider whether it was appropriate for local authorities to act in the specified manner; otherwise, the electricity industry, for example, would have a mass of inquiries from 409—I believe that that is the right figure—local authorities seeking to prevent housing benefit fraud which felt that they must approach the industry. Such a shotgun effect on the electricity industry would be likely to cause a great deal more trouble than would otherwise be the case.
  If the noble Baroness has a totally different interpretation of the amendment, she will no doubt let us know, and we can take our debate from there. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am afraid to say that I do have a different interpretation. Our understanding is that the amendment would prevent local authorities from making any direct inquiries of the information providers listed in the Bill. Instead, local authorities would be obliged to channel all their
  860
  inquiries through the Department of Social Security. The noble Lord's opening remarks primarily concerned other government departments and regional offices of government. Our point is not that the amendment is technically defective; it may or may not be. We simply misunderstood where the noble Lord was coming from.
  The noble Lord moved on—I should not dream of suggesting whether or not he did so as a result of my prompting—to discuss local authorities. Local authorities need the relevant powers. They have a statutory duty to carry out the secure administration of the housing benefit and council tax benefit schemes. That includes investigating fraud against those benefits. Local authority investigators are properly trained. In its report published today, the Audit Commission acknowledges the progress made by local authorities in combating fraud. It recognises—I stress this is the Audit Commission, not us—that improved fraud prevention measures have led to a 30 per cent reduction in detected fraud.
  I understand the noble Lord's argument: he wishes to reduce the implications for those bodies that receive requests for information. However, we are also concerned to track fraud. We estimate that housing benefit fraud costs £600 million a year. That represents an unacceptable drain on the public purse and we must do all that we can to tackle it. We need and want to give powers to the DSS and local authority authorised officers so that we can tackle benefit fraud wherever we find it. Much of that fraud will occur at a local level and will be specific to an individual local authority.
  We recognise that there may be concerns about the performance of some local authorities in carrying out those duties, and we have stipulated in Clause 2 that local authorities may have online access to information providers only with the express consent of the Secretary of State. Different requirements apply to the making of a written request, the relevant provisions for which are contained in Clause 1. The provisions in Clause 2 will assure us that proper and acceptable management controls are in place with regard to the use of online access. Inquiries to those information providers that provide their information online through the DSS will have to be routed until they gain the Secretary of State's authority. 'To require them to route all inquiries through the DSS would be an unnecessary administrative burden for both parties.
  The effect of the amendment on local authorities would be to create an extra stage in the process of information gathering that would create unnecessary delays in resolving benefit entitlement, especially with regard to housing benefit, which is one of the three major areas of fraud. The other areas involve undeclared earnings although one is working and cohabiting while claiming lone-parent benefits.
  There would be a considerable risk of reducing the efficiency of DSS fraud investigators because they would inevitably have to read through the case referred from local authorities to establish the nature of the inquiry and to whom it should be addressed. They would also have to receive and pass back the

  861
  replies received—somewhat like a post-box—to the local authority, but there would be no parallel saving for local authorities. Local authorities would still generate the same number of inquiries but would simply be prevented from dealing with them in an efficient way.
  I suggest to the noble Lord that the amendment would create a substantial duplication of effort and extra cost. Each time there is a hand on, if I may put it that way, the possibility for error and fraud increases, and the amendment might multiply that effect. It would make the task of tackling fraud and error more complex. Moreover, it would not afford any more protection to businesses. I hope that the noble Lord will review the matter and withdraw the amendment.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: There is no difference between the noble Baroness and myself with regard to the need to combat fraud. The question is simply whether that can be done at minimum cost. I sought to achieve that end in the amendment. The amendment covers both angles; it is neutral about whether the department or local authorities acting through the department should concentrate their efforts in that regard. We shall later discuss relevant amendments on local authorities.
  The noble Baroness drew attention to various recent reports on local authorities. Last week, an interesting distinction between Wandsworth and Camden emerged. I make no political point; I merely note the difference between local authorities. We can go into that matter later when we discuss local authorities.
  The noble Baroness will know that local authorities are concerned about the fact that the costs of the operation will be borne by local authorities even though the money is that of central government. Again, we shall discuss that in more detail later.
  I shall consider the comments of the noble Baroness very carefully. Clearly, one does not want to introduce an extra layer. However, one may be able to achieve economies by concentrating applications. There may be a less close link, if I may put it that way, between the inquiries being made by local authorities and local organisations. I have some concern about confidentiality in that regard.
  In view of the reply of the noble Baroness, I shall see what I can do by way of redrafting the amendment to achieve its objective more efficiently. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
  ("(2AB) Requests for information made to any of the persons specified in paragraphs (a) to (m) above shall be made to a central department in the organisation concerned.").
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to be the mirror image of that which we have just discussed. Again, I have to confess that I drafted it myself, so it may not achieve its intended objectives. On the other hand, it may do.
  A considerable number of the specified organisations referred to in the amendment have expressed the concern that they do not want their various branches and organisations to be constantly diverted from their normal—and, one hopes, profitable—operations by having to respond to requests from the department that may take up time, incur costs and distract them from what they should be doing. Nearly all of those organisations would prefer to have any applications for information put through a central contact point so that its staff would become somewhat expert in the matter and would be able to provide satisfactory answers to the investigations carried out by the department. That is essentially the object of the exercise.
  The proposal has considerable and widespread support and appears to be a sensible way forward. It would also avoid the problem that we discussed earlier about whether applications should be made to individuals or servants of a company rather than to the company itself.
  The amendment has much to be said for it. It may require a degree of organisation in a company. On the other hand, those dealing with requests would also become much more expert than someone in a branch office who may not be familiar with the matter and who may not even be sure whether he is allowed to divulge the relevant information. He might be worried about the Data Protection Act 1998 and might say to an inspector, "I shall have to check the request with head office". It would be better if the application were made to the head office in the first place. That would avoid any doubts that an individual might have at the local level about whether he should provide the information and what information he was entitled to provide. I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the Government accepted this amendment, the noble Lord would find himself the object of quite a lot of complaint from business. The effect of the amendment is to direct investigators to contact a central point in any organisation from whom they are seeking information. It removes the flexibility for organisations to decide for themselves as to how they would prefer our inquiries to be managed.
  We feel it would be foolish of us to stipulate how businesses should organise themselves. In any given case we will contact the organisation and will be happy for them to refer us to whoever they feel is best placed to deal with our inquiries. It may be a central point or it may be someone with local knowledge but, either way, we will be happy to deal with the person or the department that has been specified.
  We will seek to be as unobtrusive as possible. We will not ask for anything that is unreasonable or not readily available, as I hope our code of practice makes clear. So though the amendment seeks to place a restriction on investigators, in reality it places a

  863
  restriction on business. In the light of that, despite the fact that the noble Lord drafted the amendment, he may not wish to pursue its ownership too far.
  Lord Higgins: I understand the point the noble Baroness is making. But can we be clear about one thing?
  If the organisation concerned—let us say the electricity company, the gas company or, more particularly perhaps, the bank—felt that it would like all the requests for information to be addressed to a specific central point, will that be accepted? My understanding was, despite what the noble Baroness has just said, that a number of organisations would prefer to have a central point approached where those concerned are specialised; they are familiar with the legal position and so forth, rather than local branches dealing with something with which they are not familiar.
  If the noble Baroness can give me an assurance that if an organisation asks that all inquiries should be addressed to a central point, that will be accepted and facilitated, then I shall withdraw the amendment. I suspect Hansard does not reflect the nods and winks taking place.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I did actually say yes, though I said it from a sedentary position. I am happy to stand up and say yes.
  Lord Higgins: On that basis I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 19 is accepted, I cannot call Amendment No. 20.
  Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 2, line 24, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2D) below,").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 19, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37. These are probing amendments to clarify an area of concern felt by the utility industries.
  The effect of the amendment would be to remove subsection (2D) from the Bill, which places the utility industries in particular in an entirely inconsistent position. A problem for the utility industries occurs in subsection (2D), which exempts the utility industries from the application of the important safeguards in subsections (2B) and (2C).
  The reasoning behind this distinction may well be that the Government want to make bulk requests for information from the utility companies which may cover information, for example, on the consumption of electricity from a vast number of addresses within a specific area. The Government want that information, presumably, because it will enable authorising officers to match that information against other data in order to identify potential cases of fraud.
  Clearly the safeguards set down in subsections (2B) and (2C) requiring grounds for suspicion against an individual would be difficult to satisfy in respect of requests for bulk information. That is why the Government want to remove utilities from the protection of that section.
  The important limitations provided by subsections (2B) and (2C) from widescale requests is thus removed by subsection (2D) and could place an even heavier burden on the utility companies. That burden could fall more heavily on certain companies due to the different areas of the country in which their customers are based and therefore their being subject to a greater number of requests for information. The burden, therefore, could have an effect on the level playing field of competition between utility companies.
  An additional concern is that the utilities may still, like other organisations, be subject to individual requests for information relating to specific individuals. Even if the distinction between bulk and individual requests for information can be maintained, it is not clear from the wording of subsection (2D) that it could not also be used to request information relating to the specific premises with which a person is connected. There is thus an inconsistency in respect of information requested from utility companies and that is surely not what the Government intended. I shall be grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government have not addressed that inconsistency.
  Finally, authorising officers have been much mentioned tonight. Perhaps I can clarify the Minister's reply to the first amendment when I thought I heard her say that they might only be relatively senior officers. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: These amendments seek to remove new subsection (2D) from the Bill, which would remove our capacity to obtain information from utility companies about patterns of consumption of water, gas and electricity at domestic premises. We seem to be repeating ourselves. We tried to group some of these amendments, perhaps unsuccessfully.
  We know that data matching is a very successful tool in combating fraud and error. An example would be where we found that two different women were claiming for the same child on separate income support claims and that led to uncovering a multiple scam with £1,000 a week being claimed fraudulently.
  So data matching is a practice endorsed by the Data Protection Commissioner who provided a foreword to our Data Matching Code of Practice. It has a well-tried history of throwing up the inconsistencies which lead one into further investigation. The new power would enable us to obtain information in bulk from utility companies to match against our social security records, so that abnormal patterns of consumption at addresses where benefit was in payment would be revealed. As I say, we have explored this issue and it should have been grouped with earlier amendments.
  When we consider asking a utility company for bulk data, we will do so in order to find addresses with abnormal levels of consumption. We will know what

  865
  we are looking for. We are not seeking, for example, to harass people who may be using a lot of fuel caring for a sick or elderly relative. We will be consulting a utility company to ensure that our estimates of abnormal consumption are realistic and that will probably change from supplier to supplier. We will then pay the company to search for records that meet the criteria we set, a payment that will cover the cost of writing specialist computer software or the purchase of extra hardware necessary to comply. That data would then be put onto disk and transferred to DSS under secure conditions as set out in data matching codes of practice. When we receive the information we will match it against our own records looking for inconsistencies.
  I do not know whether that explanation meets the concerns of the noble Lord. If so, I shall bring my remarks to a close. If he feels I can give him further information, I shall be happy to attempt to do so.
  Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I agree that the amendments should probably have been grouped with the earlier ones concerning utilities. This is a technical point. I shall go back to the utility industries and study what the Minister said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

  Passive Smoking at Work
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they will respond to the Health and Safety Commission's draft Approved Code of Practice and Guidance on Passive Smoking at Work.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by expressing my appreciation to noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this short debate. I believe that by the end of the hour my noble friend Lord Whitty will have heard a number of powerful speeches in support of the draft approved code of practice issued by the Health and Safety Commission on passive smoking at work.
  There is overwhelming support in the country among most employers, virtually all trade unions and in both Houses of Parliament for new measures to protect employees from the effects of passive smoking. Even many heavy smokers accept the desirability of ensuring a smoke-free environment at work.
  The Office for National Statistics carried out a survey which showed that 89 per cent of the public favour restrictions on smoking at work, including some 69 per cent of current smokers. Despite that, there are still 3 million non-smokers who are frequently or continuously exposed to second-hand smoke. For many, it is not just an irritation; it can literally be a matter of life and death. The Government's scientific committee on tobacco and health concluded that,
  "long term exposure of non-smokers to environmental tobacco smoke caused an increased risk of lung cancer which, in those living with smokers, is in the region of 20 to 30 per cent".
  I am a patron of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. Roy Castle did not smoke but contracted lung cancer as a result of working in the smoky atmosphere of clubs around the country.
  The scientific committee concluded that passive smoking also causes heart disease and respiratory illness, as well as cancer. From that committee, the issue passed to the Health and Safety Commission, which considered what more could be done. The Government's excellent White Paper, Smoking Kills, proposed that there should be an approved code of practice, which the Health and Safety Commission produced last year after lengthy and thorough consultation from July to October 1999, in which over 400 of 485 respondents backed the code. Taking account of views expressed in the consultation, the commission sent a carefully formulated and reasonable proposal to Ministers on 5th September last year. It is that we are debating.
  The code gives most employees the right to work in a smoke-free environment and the expectation that their employers will do what they can to reduce or eliminate smoke exposure. It is understood that there are particular sorts of establishments, such as prisons and offshore oil rigs, where exemptions may have to apply. The hospitality industry presents a special problem. I shall say more about that in a moment.
  The code gives practical meaning to the Health and Safety at Work Act as it should be applied. It works rather like the Highway Code. Failure to follow it will not be an offence in itself but its recommendations will strengthen the hand of employees taking legal action if they believe their health is not being sufficiently protected.
  When the code is implemented it will mean that for most people smoking in the workplace, other than in specially designated areas if the employer chooses to provide them, will be a thing of the past. It will make a considerable contribution to improving health and a much more pleasant environment for those who do not wish to breathe other people's tobacco smoke. As I said, there is huge popular support for the code. A call for its immediate implementation is the subject of an Early Day Motion in another place and has already attracted 130 signatures.
  Every organisation which advises the Government on health and employment issues is in favour, particularly the Department of Health whose contribution to tackling the harm that the tobacco

  867
  industry and its products inflict on the nation's health has been outstanding. In common with many noble Lords, I look forward to receiving and passing the Bill to end tobacco advertising and sponsorship, which is now in Committee in another place.
  The consultative document of the Health and Safety Commission included a regulatory impact assessment, which is required for new regulations and approved codes of practice. The original version contained estimates which showed that total costs outweighed total benefits, but those did not include health benefits from stopping smoking and reducing deaths from lung cancer. As those would take some while to work through, the period covered by the regulatory impact assessment was extended from 10 years to 25 years. As a result, the estimated total benefits to society will be between £9.1 billion and £21.1 billion, while the estimated costs are between £2.8 billion and £3.3 billion.
  Clearly, when carried out in conjunction with other measures the Government are taking to reduce tobacco consumption, that measure will produce huge benefits for the health of our people. So why the delay? From the inquiries I have made in the past few days it is clear that the problem lies with the hospitality industry, which is clearly being aided and abetted by the tobacco lobby. Between them they are attempting to block or water down the approved code.
  I understand why cigarette manufacturers go on trying to stem the tide against tobacco smoking and oppose measures which stop them promoting their products to young people. We must remember that they are killing 120,000 people a year in the United Kingdom and have to replace the customers who die with young smokers. But why do those who represent pubs, clubs and restaurants stand in the way of measures which will not only improve the environment for everyone in their premises and attract people like me who hate going into a pub if the atmosphere is heavy with tobacco smoke, but which will also make the working environment for the staff healthier and more pleasant? They argue that they are already doing their bit by introducing what they call a "public places charter" in which non-smoking is accepted as the norm and the provision of smoke-free places is promised. By 2002 50 per cent of venues are supposed to comply with the charter, which is voluntary.
  They have a long way to go. We are already into the second month of 2001 and just 1 per cent are charter-compliant. The public places charter is about giving the customers of the hospitality industry the opportunity to have a drink or meal in a smoke-free environment. The approved code of practice on passive smoking is about protecting employees. The two, therefore, should go together. It is not reasonable for workers in restaurants and bars to have to rely on the compliance of their employers with the voluntary charter, particularly as so many such employees are poorly paid, non-unionised and unable to take their bosses to task if they are not being treated properly. At the very least they have the right to expect that a bar where smoking is permitted is properly ventilated and
  868
  that they do not have to breathe the smoke of customers who would otherwise puff away over them where they are working.
  I hope that the Government will not give way to the hospitality industry and allow their workers to be denied the same rights and protection that the rest of the working population will derive from the approved code of practice.
  Finally, I want to say a brief word about the conditions under which employees work in your Lordships' House and the application of the approved code of practice here. On 23rd October last year in a Starred Question I asked how it was envisaged that the House authorities would comply with the approved code of practice and whether we stood by the statement on page 34 of the House of Lords Staff Handbook that,
  "staff are entitled to work in a smoke-free atmosphere".
  The then Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, said in reply:
  "It is indeed the policy of the House, as an employer, that staff of the House should be entitled to work in a smoke-free atmosphere if they want to do so. That policy has been agreed by the Whitley Committee of the House of Lords and is … set out in the staff handbook".
  Since the matter was last looked at by your Lordships, public attitudes towards passive smoking, particularly as they relate to places of employment and the hospitality industry, have altered significantly. I understand that the Refreshment Sub-Committee and the Library and Computers Sub-Committee of your Lordships' House are currently considering a number of proposals which will improve conditions for our staff and for all Members of the House who prefer to work in a smoke-free environment.
  We look forward to the outcome as far as it affects your Lordships' House. But even more important, for our welfare and that of our staff, is the need to see that the Approved Code of Practice and Guidance on Passive Smoking at Work is adopted by the Government and implemented across the country. I hope that my noble friend Lord Whitty will have positive comments to make on these matters when he replies.
  7.40 p.m.
  Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for introducing the debate. I strongly support the Approved Code of Practice and Guidance on Passive Smoking at Work and hope that Ministers will adopt it. It is, of course, not new law; it clarifies existing law, and careful consultation has taken place. Consultation is also recommended as part of a workplace's adoption of an approved code. I shall discuss that later.
  In 1604, that early health educator, James I, described tobacco as,
  "harmful to the braine, daungerous to the lungs, and in the Macke, stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomlesse".

  869
  In 1832, the poet, Goethe, said:
  "Smokers poison the air for miles around and suffocate responsible citizens who do not deign to defend themselves by retaliating in kind".
  Since those times, law enforcement relating to, for example, transport, and health education programmes, have raised awareness and changed opinion and behaviour in relation to smoking. However, action is still needed.
  Most smokers want to give up. Most non-smokers do not want to inhale other people's smoke. Public attitudes to smoking are clear in relation to smoking at work, in restaurants and in public places, even among smokers. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, 89 per cent of people want smoking restricted.
  I shall not go into the adverse health consequences of smoking in detail—for example, cancer, heart disease, stroke, infertility, erectile dysfunction and respiratory diseases—because they have been discussed and will no doubt be discussed further.
  It is significant that a passive smoker takes in I per cent of the smoke which an active smoker inhales. Passive smoking is dangerous and people should not be put at risk. The effects on clothes, furnishings, books and so forth are unpleasant and costly. Absenteeism and illness among smokers has a cost for employers. A study in Scotland estimated this to be as high as £33 million during 1995.
  I am particularly concerned about young people who may have no choice about avoiding passive smoking; for example, in schools, youth clubs and community centres. Perhaps passive smoking can encourage young people to become smokers, although I have no evidence for this. Employers have a duty to help employees to avoid passive smoking. Under the law of negligence, they are in danger of being sued or taken to a tribunal if they do not respect this.
  In some cases, smoking policies at work are not strong enough to protect employees. In 1999, a coalition of organisations recommended a process for implementing a code of practice in the workplace. In summary, there are five steps: consultation and negotiation with the workforce; time to prepare, implement and monitor a policy; assessment of costs involved and publicity for the policy; rearrangement of staff working areas; and providing help for those who want to stop smoking. That seems to me to be fair and democratic. It is about where and when people smoke, not about whether they choose to smoke. It is not a ban on smoking.
  As I said at the beginning of my contribution, I hope that the approved code of practice will be adopted. It would benefit smokers and non-smokers alike.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I was tempted by the noble Baroness's quotation from James I to refer to that well-known anti-smoking zealot, Adolf Hitler, but I shall refrain from doing so. I must declare an interest as a supporter of the Freedom Organisation for the
  870
  Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, otherwise known as FOREST. However, I should speak as I do even if I had no connection with that organisation.
  I must also state that no more than 10 per cent of my extended family and my friends smoke nowadays, so I am well aware of the sensitivities of non-smokers. Indeed, as a decidedly light smoker, I dislike a very smoky atmosphere.
  I must confess that I expected the document we are debating, which I saw only last night, to be as intolerant, absolutist, exaggerated and health-fascistic as most of the stuff put out by the anti-smoking lobby. So it was a pleasant surprise to find something relatively liberal, which I am sure would please the champion cigarette consumer in your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, were he in his place. The document is liberal; it is cautious in its interpretation of statistics; and it is open to all points of view. However, it is not without fault, as I hope to show.
  One cannot assess the health risks, if any, in passive smoking until the risks in active smoking have been judged correctly. For reasons which I have given on at least three or four previous occasions—there is no time to do so in the five allotted minutes tonight—I contend that the estimate of 120,000 smoking-related deaths annually is highly suspect. A few years ago, the Government gave us a figure of 50,000, so it is curious that it should have risen 2.4 times in such a short time. Incidentally, a full-page article in today's press claims that 100,000 people die each year from consuming too much salt in their diet. That is an interesting claim to contemplate.
  No one would deny that heavy smoking is dangerous. Two good friends of ours, both barely into their 60s, died recently; one from emphysema and one from lung cancer. Both women smoked 60-plus cigarettes a day, as people tended to do 50 years ago. Thankfully, that is no longer the case. Against that, we should remember Mme Jeanne Calment, the Provencal lady who lived to the age of 119—or was it 121? —and who smoked two cigarettes a day, of course accompanied by plenty of wine, until she was 110. Mme Calment may have been lucky, but when one compares her two cigarettes a day with two cigarettes a year, which is equivalent to what a non-smoker in a smoking household passively inhales in the course of that year—that is shown by Dr Nilsson, a Swedish toxicologist—things are put into perspective.
  Commendably, the report does not try to link passive smoking with either lung cancer or heart disease but it does suggest a link with bronchitis and asthma. The only problem with that theory is that the incidence of asthma is increasing while the incidence of smoking is sharply decreasing. There is a much closer correlation between asthma and exhaust emissions from petrol and diesel engines.
  Luckily, there is one matter on which we can all agree; that is, the conclusion at paragraph 27 that tobacco smoke causes discomfort and irritation. On the assumption that that means "excessive" tobacco smoke, no one will deny that. However, solution (a) in

  871
  paragraph 34—that is, the complete ban on smoking at work—is both illiberal and unnecessary when options (c) and (d) are available. Perhaps I may comment briefly on option (d); that is, the provision of adequate ventilation. It need cost no more than £900 to have a modern air-cleaning system, employing extractor fans and charcoal filters, installed in an office or small pub of 100 cubic metres or thereabouts. That is the direction in which we should be travelling.
  There is one other much cheaper improvement that involves no wiring or machinery. It is common practice in the Indian subcontinent and South East Asia for ashtrays to contain a little sand or, more usually, water to ensure that when a cigarette is stubbed out it stays out. It is smouldering cigarettes that produce the nastiest smoke, as I am sure noble Lords have found. Moreover, the ashtrays are much easier to clean since they contain no tarry residues that must be scraped off. I believe that if your Lordships' House experimented with it for a trial period noble Lords would be pleasantly surprised by the improvement in the atmosphere, in every sense of the word.
  7.50 p.m.
  Baroness Gale: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner for initiating this important debate. Passive smoking kills. There is overwhelming evidence that people who are exposed to cigarette smoke but do not smoke themselves are in danger of contracting many illnesses that can lead to death. As to your Lordships' House, I was absolutely shocked when I used the Library for the first time and discovered that smoking was allowed. I do not know how many libraries in the country allow smoking, but there cannot be many. I have never smoked, and I do not wish to inhale other people's smoke. When I use the Library and find myself next to a noble Lord who smokes I must remove myself, which is extremely annoying. While I can remove myself, the staff in the Library cannot; they must carry on working there. That applies to all other areas in which staff work.
  For a number of years scientific evidence has been available to show that exposure to second-hand smoke causes diseases, worsens existing problems and in some cases may prove fatal. I am particularly concerned about the health of women staff in the House. Of the 200 women employed in your Lordships' House, many are of child-bearing age. Nowadays, even some noble Baronesses are young enough to become pregnant. Passive smoking has a harmful effect on pregnant women. This is extremely worrying. For example, a mother's exposure to passive smoking has been associated with lower birth weight, a higher risk of perinatal mortality and spontaneous abortions or miscarriage.
  New research carried out by the University of Bristol has shown that female fertility is reduced by passive smoking. That study of pregnancy and childhood found that if a non-smoking woman was exposed to passive smoking at home or in the workplace the chances that she would take more than 12 months to conceive were increased by 14 per cent.
  872
  It is now well known that women who smoke while trying to get pregnant decrease their chances of conceiving.
  The results of the research show that women who want to conceive should avoid all places where smoking is allowed. How can a woman member of staff in your Lordships' House do that? We have an obligation to provide a safe environment for all staff, men and women, but especially women of child-bearing age. I believe that the Health and Safety Commission's code of practice should be implemented. Given all the evidence available on the dangers of smoking, including passive smoking, I cannot understand why it is taking so long to implement a policy that is acceptable to staff and Peers.
  I am aware that over the past few years different committees have looked at this issue and some recommendations have been implemented. Small changes in smoking policy have been made hut, while they are welcome, they are not enough. Smoking kills. However, people who smoke do so in the knowledge that they endanger their health. Passive smokers cannot always avoid the situation.
  My preference is for a total ban on smoking throughout the whole House. I welcome the day when as I drive into the car park I see huddles of noble Lords puffing away merrily. I doubt whether that day will ever arrive. While I await that great day, I welcome a much more positive approach to the serious matter of passive smoking for the sake of the staff and Members of your Lordships' House. I look forward to the day, in the not too distant future, when a positive policy based on the code of practice is implemented.
  7.55 p.m.
  Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for tabling this Unstarred Question and allowing noble Lords to debate this extremely important issue. I declare two interests. I am a former member of the Health and Safety Commission and served on that body at the time of the drafting of the ACOP, and an official of MSF, part of whose membership includes the former Tobacco Workers Union which has a proud history of promoting its members' interests and gaining good conditions of work for them.
  Smoking is an emotive issue. The Health and Safety Commission had a number of long and detailed debates before issuing the first consultative paper in July 1999. The resultant draft approved code of practice was drawn up after detailed consideration and discussion. The Health and Safety Commission worked very hard on the wording of the draft ACOP. I led on behalf of the TUC, and Rex Symonds, a splendid commissioner, led on behalf of the CBI. Rex Symonds was very aware of the attitude and fears of the hospitality industry about the ACOP, and he impressed those upon the commission. He and I spent long periods producing a wording which would be acceptable to both sides of industry. By 5th September 2000 we had achieved it.

  873
  The ACOP is much milder than many wanted, but as currently worded it can still be effective. At that time it satisfied both sides of industry. When the draft ACOP was launched on 5th September 2000, Bill Callaghan, chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, said:
  "We carefully considered the different options, including continuing with a voluntary approach, before deciding that the best way of protecting the three million people still exposed to environmental tobacco smoke was through an ACOP".
  Many employers have already taken steps to stop smoking in workplaces and so protect non-smoking workers. The effects of this can be witnessed daily as we travel around London. The sight of smoking workers huddled together outside their places of work is a familiar one. I, too, am not sure that it will ever happen here. However, I do not believe that that should be necessary. Surely a well ventilated room inside the building can be found to allow those who are addicted to cigarettes to satisfy their habit rather than have them exposed to London's inclement weather at all times of the year.
  As a non-smoker I have been lucky in my employment: I have not been exposed to passive smoking in my workplaces; indeed, my former employer, Clive Jenkins, was a fanatical anti-smoker. The first notices that I ever read about the dangers of passive smoking were in my union's head office. Therefore, the extent to which smoking was allowed in your Lordships' House came as an unpleasant shock to me.
  It has already been said that passive smoking is dangerous, particularly so for young children. Having a grandson with acute asthma brings that danger home to me in a stark way. Passive smoking also has non-health effects. I try to avoid smoky places because I do not wish my clothes, hair, car or home to smell of smoke. I expect smokers get used to it, but I never shall.
  The Government's delay in responding to the draft ACOP is very disappointing. Following an initial burst of great enthusiasm for action to be taken over smoking, there has been an ominous silence. Knowing the Ministers who were involved in the first discussions about taking swift action, I am sure that they have not changed their minds, but why the delay? Is it that the "big boys" in the hospitality industry have rejoined the debate? Can it be that government departments are at variance over the ACOP? Are the demands of the ACOP, which merely asks employers to take reasonably practicable steps to protect their staff, still too much? Is it still hoped that some kind of watered-down compromise can be reached over the already mild suggestions in the ACOP? I look forward to hearing from the Minister the reasons for the delay.
  Finally, at the beginning of my speech I referred to those working in the tobacco industry. As an ex-trade union official, I am well aware that what we are debating today will affect jobs in the tobacco industry. I urge the Government to remember that in their
  874
  deliberations. Any action on smoking will mean job losses. The irony is that many of the workers affected will be non-smokers.
  The Government have estimated that a 2.5 per cent reduction in tobacco consumption will result in approximately 1,700 job losses. Thanks to the efforts of the Tobacco Workers' Union over the years, those will be skilled and well paid jobs. Additionally, they may be in areas where other work is unavailable; for example, in the North East—in Darlington and Spennymoor. So if actions of this kind are taken, it is incumbent on us all to approach in a constructive manner any measures which will reduce tobacco consumption and to seek to provide alternative employment for any who lose their jobs.
  8 p.m.
  Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Faulkner has initiated this short debate tonight.
  The effects of passive smoking on health are well documented, despite the denials of many smokers. I only wish that it was not necessary for me to have to reiterate them. However, it seems that the slow progress of the Government in responding to the HSC's recommendations compels me to.
  The Government are committed to reducing smoking across the board because they recognise the damage smoking does to people, especially children. Ministers have introduced a raft of measures aimed at reducing smoking which I wholeheartedly welcome; public health campaigns to encourage smokers to stop; nicotine replacement therapy on prescription; and a new helpline to support pregnant mothers who want to give up, to name but a few. In addition, of course, the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill is currently making its way on to the statute book, or so I hope. It greatly troubles me, therefore, that, in the face of all these wonderful measures, the Government appear to be dragging their heels on responding to the HSC's approved code of practice on passive smoking at work.
  I feel that this is an appropriate time to declare an interest. As some of your Lordships may know, I developed asthma some six years ago, a debilitating long-term condition that affects the airways and causes symptoms of coughing, wheezing, a tight chest and increasing difficulty in breathing. The National Asthma Campaign, an independent charity, estimates that I am one of 3.4 million people in this country with asthma. That figure is rising rapidly. It is for that reason that I wanted to speak today, to highlight the effects of passive smoke inhalation on asthmatics and to urge the Government to make the ACOP a reality as soon as possible.
  The National Asthma Campaign believes, and I agree with it, that people with asthma have a right to breathe air that is free from the triggers that exacerbate their symptoms. One such trigger—other people's tobacco smoke—has a detrimental effect on as many as 80 per cent of people with asthma. At this stage I feel obliged to give one—I promise that it is only one—personal example within your Lordships' House which

  875
  may be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Some time ago I was walking along the Library corridor. I passed the open door to the Library where someone was smoking a cigar. I inhaled the smoke once, and, despite taking the appropriate medication immediately, I had a serious asthma attack. The first opportunity to measure my breathing ability was some five hours after that one inhalation of smoke, at which time it was more than 30 per cent below my morning reading. I will never know what the reading was when I was unwell; it was probably very low indeed.
  The following day I measured the number of steps I had managed to walk before becoming very ill—only 15 paces. That is one reason why the HSC-recommended code is such a significant step towards improving the lives of the 3 million non-smokers, including people with asthma, who are still exposed to tobacco smoke at work. It is impossible to overestimate the positive impact the code will have on employees' health and quality of working life. There are some appalling stories of people having to compromise their health for fear of losing their jobs. For example, a middle-aged man was recently forced to leave his job as a greenkeeper because his colleagues refused to stop smoking when they took their breaks in the confines of a portakabin. He has not worked since.
  There has been some suggestion that elements of the Government are determined to block the code and that is the reason it is taking so long for the Government to respond to the HSC. I would ask those Members who see the code as nothing more than bureaucracy or an infringement of smokers' civil liberties: what about my right, and that of other people with asthma and other respiratory conditions, to go about my business free from the threat of an asthma attack brought on by those of my colleagues who refuse to confine their smoking to outside the workplace? Why should it be me who has to take precautions to avoid tobacco smoke at work by having to shut myself away at my desk, smoke-free, for most of the day? I will digress slightly to make the observation that those public houses that have either banned or curtailed smoking have increased their takings.
  The issue of passive smoking is a plain and simple one for the majority of people with asthma, whether it is at work or in any other public place; if we are in a smoky environment the impact on our symptoms is clearly visible and often immediate, as it is with me. People with asthma should not be forced to choose between unemployment and their health. I ask for the sake of the one in seven children with asthma—the workforce of the future—that the Government do not allow the code to be blocked by a tiny minority and that they make their response to the HSC known immediately.
  My final comment will be my definition of a no smoking area. It is an area where smoke can frequently be present, but smokers are not allowed to be.
  8.5 p.m.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for giving us a
  876
  welcome chance to press the Government to take action on passive smoking. The last debate we had on the subject was in November 1998. As I recall, it was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. We had high hopes of action on passive smoking in the workplace. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, described the chronology very cogently. We had the White Paper Smoking Kills at the end of that year. The ACOP emerged in July 1999 with a period of consultation until October. As the noble Lord described, the consultation demonstrated huge support for an approved code of practice on passive smoking.
  The Health Select Committee commended the code in its report on the tobacco industry and the health risks of smoking in June 2000. The Health and Safety Commission approved the new ACOP later that year.
  But from the Government there has been a thundering public silence on the subject, other than a statement in December by the Minister with responsibility for public health that the Government are still considering their response. Certain clues emerged in the Independent in December. But why should this be? Why are we waiting for action two years after the White Paper on smoking? Has the health risk diminished? The answer seems to be no.
  The Health Select Committee report concentrated heavily on the health evidence. As your Lordships have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, passive smokers are at greater risk in terms of lung cancer, heart disease, and strokes and respiratory disease in particular. There may be some disagreement about the extent to which the risk has increased, but certainly there can be no dispute that it has. Now we have the recent evidence conducted by Sarah McGhee, of the University of Hong Kong, among 10,000 police officers in Hong Kong about exposure to passive smoking and the effect on respiratory symptoms.
  Has the character of the code changed? The answer is no. The code is not compulsory. It is not legally binding. It does not constitute an absolute ban on smoking in the workplace. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, used the word "liberal" in describing the code. What higher term of praise could I possibly envisage? As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, businesses must simply do what is reasonably practicable to control environmental tobacco smoke. Furthermore, it does not impose a total ban on pubs and clubs. In so far as they are affected, they will have two years to implement any changes needed to comply with the code. In the meantime they will be covered by the public places charter. Action will mainly take the form of installing extra ventilation. Certain noble Lords in the previous debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has done in this debate, described how this was already under way in the hospitality industry.
  Is environmental tobacco smoke a problem still? It is. A recent Consumers Association survey used in evidence to the Select Committee found three-quarters of respondents said that they were exposed to passive smoke in home, place of work, or places visited socially.

  877
  Is restricting smoking unpopular with the public? Absolutely not. Surveys show an overwhelming majority in favour of restrictions on smoking. Will the approved code of practice be a major burden on business? This is where some of the rather contentious figures put forward in the regulatory impact statement come into play. When I looked at the statement, my mind boggled. It seemed to be one of the most wildly exaggerated RIAs I had seen for a very long time. It seemed to be designed to kill the code of practice. I do not know where it emanated from. Even if one takes the figures of a FOREST supporter, such as those of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the cost of ventilation in the hospitality industry seems to have been wildly exaggerated.
  What is my conclusion? The fact is that people should be entitled to avoid the dangers attached to other people's tobacco smoke. Without the appropriate codes, particularly at the workplace—
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on from the regulatory impact assessment, he may not be aware that the commission conducted a second study after representations were made following publication of the first draft. It then extended the timescale over which it saw the benefits flowing to the nation—because of the length of time that it takes for diseases such as lung cancer and heart disease to take effect as a result of passive smoking. If the noble Lord looks at those figures, he will see that the benefits that come from the interaction of the code are substantial and completely outweigh the costs.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I entirely accept that. But the costs were not altered; the benefits may have been. The costs were still wildly out of line. Is it too much to ask that employees should be entitled to smoke-free work areas with good ventilation. I suggest that the Minister has a few questions to answer. What precisely are the Government's intentions? Will they re-examine as a matter of urgency the compliance costs and benefits? What further research is being undertaken about the impact of passive smoking? If they have reservations, what alternative proposals do they have?
  There is a very strong whiff of government on the run about this code and its treatment and there is certainly a cloud of suspicion on these Benches. I hope that the Minister can dispel it in his reply.
  8.12 p.m.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for introducing this debate so ably and by declaring my interest as a non-smoker. I am in fact a non-smoker who detests tobacco smoke, having done so since the age of 11 when I tried my first and only cigarette at the bottom of the garden. Both my parents, on the other hand, were smokers, and I like to believe that I have always been tolerant of those who may wish to light up, even if I never choose to do so myself.
  878
  However, the extent to which I am prepared to remain tolerant has perhaps waned in recent years, with my growing tendency to bronchitis and with the emergence of new scientific data on the effects of passive smoking. The first document on passive smoking that I read in any depth was the relevant section of the report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, published three years ago. Many of the conclusions from that report were picked up in the Government's subsequent White Paper, Smoking Kills. There are some uncompromising messages there about the risks to non-smokers of inhaling environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS, if they live with a smoker. In the specific context of the workplace, the three messages of particular relevance are those relating to asthma, ischaemic heart disease and lung cancer.
  Here it is worth making the obvious but key point that, unlike, say, an evening out, where you can choose whether or not to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, time spent in the workplace is rather different. The element of choice is largely, if not wholly, absent. Furthermore, if you are exposed to tobacco smoke at work, you may well be exposed to it for a substantial proportion of the day and therefore, by extension, for a significant proportion of your lifetime. The risks associated with passive smoking in the workplace are therefore ones to be taken very seriously.
  As has been said by many noble Lords, there is wide support among employees for smoking restrictions in the workplace. The HSE mentions in its proposal that more than 3 million are estimated currently to be exposed to ETS at work. However, the key judgment to be made here is whether any further statutory action, as proposed by the HSE, is proportionate to the risk and to the cost. As the HSE concedes, we do not really know with any precision what the risks are of developing diseases such as cancer or heart disease from passive smoking at work. The risks from passive smoking are in any case dependent on the quantum of exposure to tobacco smoke. The risk to the health of people who already suffer from asthma or bronchitis is certainly much more clear cut. But already, under the law as it stands, employers have a duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all employees. For that reason I believe that the HSE is right to reject the option of yet more legislation. In so far as there are employees at risk, it is a question of making the existing law work better.
  The proposal of the HSE for an approved code of practice has obvious attractions. One of them is that it would provide clear guidance to employers without being overly prescriptive. Like the Highway Code, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, pointed out, it could be used in evidence in a prosecution without its

  879
  provisions being mandatory in themselves for employers. In that sense I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that it could be described as "liberal".
  Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may say, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made the same point, that I said "relatively liberal", not "absolutely liberal".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I am about to qualify what I have just said, so I think that I would probably agree with the noble Lord.
  We must be absolutely sure that a new statutory code of practice, with all its attendant implications, is warranted. The code would be compulsory in the sense that a breach of it would lead almost automatically to a conviction in any health and safety prosecution. That aspect of it means that it is right to talk in terms of the burdens on business that it would impose. The costs of the code are estimated by the HSE at between £3.1 billion and £8.9 billion over 10 years, which is between two and four times larger than the estimated value of the benefits over the same period. Even if the benefits look somewhat rosier over the longer term, costs of that order, especially in a climate of deregulation, need to be justified.
  Paragraph 27 of the HSE proposal says that the main thrust of a code of practice would relate to ways of avoiding discomfort and irritation to employees—in other words, to welfare issues as distinct from health issues. Any benefits to health would be taken as following on from improvements to welfare. I find that statement troubling. It has all the look about it of a sledgehammer descending on a nut. Given that the benefits to health form only a proportion of the total quantifiable benefits of introducing a code, because about half the benefits relate to safety and productivity, the Government should be cautious about imposing the kind of cost burdens that would flow from this recommendation. Spending money to achieve better productivity should be a management decision, not a decision imposed by government. The benefits to safety and welfare, as quantified by the HSE, rest, as I read them, on some fairly tenuous assumptions, not the least of which is that the introduction of a code of practice which explicitly allows for the continuation of some smoking in parts of the workplace would result in a reduction of about 80 per cent of fires. If the Minister can enlighten me on why the HSE should have assumed so optimistic a figure as that, I should be grateful.
  My conclusion, given that I was interrupted, is very brief. With all due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I am not yet convinced that the case for a code of practice has yet been made, although the case for it may in time prove unanswerable if further evidence emerges.
  8.18 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner for initiating this debate. It is an
  880
  issue which raises considerable passions, some of which, although not all, have been heard in the Chamber today. It is still a fairly controversial issue, in terms of both assessment of the evidence and what needs to be done about it.
  I declare my own interest. I was a smoker. I usually say that I gave up 30 years ago. What I actually mean is that I gave up buying cigarettes 30 years ago and then spent several decades cadging cigarettes from other people. But now I am a non-smoker and, by and large, I have been through the same process as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and have become less tolerant as time has gone on.
  It should be recognised that a significant minority of the population still smoke. The interests of that minority should be borne in mind, and well as those of everyone else. In general, the case for action has been established and the issue before us is how to make workplaces less smoke prone and people less subject to continuous exposure to smoke. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, we need to take a proportionate approach to this.
  The Question refers to the Health and Safety Commission's proposal for an approved code of practice (ACOP). The Government have received an indication from the commission that it favours the introduction of an ACOP to help employers to comply with what is, of course, a pre-existing law regarding their obligations to the health and welfare of their employees. The present status is that the commission has yet to put formal advice to the Government. The Government are currently considering initial advice in relation to the proposal put forward on 5th September. We are still considering that advice because the issue is rather more complicated than may have been suggested by some noble Lords this evening. ft may be helpful if I set out some of the background to the issue.
  Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, all employers have the same duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and welfare of their employees at work. Section 2(2)(e) of the Act requires them to provide a working environment for staff which is,
  "adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work".
  The HSE has already issued guidance on passive smoking at work in its booklet, Passive Smoking at Work.
  The Department of Health White Paper, Smoking Kills, issued in 1998, committed the HSE to consult on whether to introduce an approved code of practice. That consultative paper was issued in July 1999. The consultation exercise was completed in October 1999. The HSC then followed that through and put forward proposals to consult on a number of options, including an approved code of practice. Other options put forward in the consultation included new regulations, revising existing guidance, and enforcing the law more strictly. The outcome of the consultation, of which the Government have been informed, showed support for more action to be taken. The majority of respondents supported the proposal for an ACOP.

  881
  In reaching its decision, the HSC took into account a wide range of opinion, including the views of small businesses and a wide range of representations from the hospitality industry. The chair of the commission has informed me that the commission was particularly concerned about the possible costs of implementing the proposed ACOP in the hospitality sector. As a result, the HSC itself is minded to recommend special transitional arrangements for the hospitality industry, which already has its own voluntary code of practice, the Public Places Charter, although that is directed primarily at the public and customers. We have already recognised in the proposals put forward by the HSC that special conditions and considerations need to be applied in the hospitality sector.
  Problems are faced by small firms in general. Again, cost comes into this and I shall turn to that element later. However, particular difficulties are encountered by small firms in the hospitality sector where, by definition, on the one hand workers are probably more exposed because customers tend to go out for a smoke as well as for entertainment, but on the other hand, employers would have to face disproportionate costs in order to overcome the effects of smoke to the extent that has already been achieved in many factory and office workplaces.
  The key issue is the protection of the 3 million people who are exposed to smoke at work. However, it is also a question of protecting employers, because a pre-existing duty is in place. Employers need to indicate that they have taken reasonable steps to protect their workers in order to protect themselves from potential enforcement action or, more likely, civil action against them. An ACOP would undoubtedly assist in that, as would the implementation of an effective and rigorous voluntary agreement such as the Public Places Charter.
  As regards the question of science, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I think that it is clear that smoking has an effect not only in relation to bronchial diseases and asthma, but also to cancer. The Department of Health's White Paper indicates a 20 to 30 per cent greater chance of developing cancer after prolonged exposure to smoke. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out that this is a question of "how much" rather than "whether" exposure leads to disease.
  The noble Lord, Lord Monson, remarked that the introduction of the ACOP indicated a relatively liberal approach. That is indeed the case, in that it tries to devise options for different circumstances. The same might be said of the Public Places Charter, which would apply in the hospitality sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, emphasised in particular the dangers to young people.
  My noble friend Lady Gale referred to the exposure of young women of child-bearing age. Much of what my noble friend referred to is probably a matter for the House authorities rather than for me, at least under the present circumstances. Nevertheless, a general issue of concern has been raised here and we do take seriously
  882
  the issue of pregnant women and their exposure to tobacco smoke. The proposed ACOP does not directly and specifically deal with this issue because the risks to such workers are covered by other specific legislation, in particular the Management and Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which implement the European directive on pregnant workers. The regulations require employers to assess such risks and then to take appropriate action. That point is therefore already covered.
  It is true that the Government have taken some time and are continuing to take time to consider fully the implications of the proposed ACOP, in particular as regards its impact in the hospitality sector. The commission's proposal is aimed mainly at the workplace. In the hospitality sector, of course, it is predominantly customers whose smoke may most affect workers. The Public Places Charter, to which I have referred, and to which the HSC recommendation refers, is a charter drawn up by many of the larger employers in the hospitality trade. It advocates the use of written smoking policies, air cleaning and filtration, ventilation, and training. It is directed at protecting customers as well as employees.
  The HSC has therefore suggested that where the charter applies, compliance with it will count as complying with the proposed ACOP for a transitional period of two years. That would mean that any employer who has introduced a policy complying with the charter will be exempt from the provisions of the ACOP, provided that the needs of employees were also addressed in line with the provisions of the charter.
  The Government are considering that as a possible way of bringing protection into the hospitality sector. I should stress, however, that this should not be seen in any way as a form of discrimination against hospitality workers. It is simply a different way of introducing standards in the sector and one that would secure the support of the industry. The questions that remain are how rapidly, at what cost and under what requirements would the hospitality industry be required to introduce both the voluntary code and to attain ACOP standards.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government propose to monitor the implementation of the Public Places Charter, given that it is a voluntary code? Is he satisfied with the progress that has already been made, given that it is supposed to be in place in 50 per cent of establishments by 2002?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have not yet reached 2002. Considerable progress has been made, although it should be said that it has been achieved mainly among the larger establishments and employers. It is my hope that, were we to reach an understanding with the hospitality sector in this area, that progress will extend to smaller premises and employers.
  The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the latest regulatory impact assessment. The latest version of the assessment continues to indicate that

  883
  fairly substantial costs will arise. It is also clear that a disproportionate part of those costs would have to be borne by the hospitality sector. Indeed, more than 70 per cent of the set-up costs would fall on the hospitality sector, and a disproportionate amount of that on the smaller businesses and premises within that sector. More than 50 per cent of the recurring costs will also fall on that sector.
  Of course, those are not necessarily additional costs over and above the costs of complying with the Public Places Charter—the additional costs may be somewhat less than that—but the cost falls disproportionately on the hospitality sector whether one talks about gross or net costs. That has to be taken into account.
  We are addressing the question of how both smaller businesses and the hospitality sector as a whole should meet adequate standards. Nevertheless, the Government accept that the benefits of doing something in this area are significant in terms of protection of workers. We need to assess the real benefits and the real costs. The Government are continuing to do that in discussions with representatives of industry as whole, the hospitality sector and the Health and Safety Commission.

  Social Security Fraud Bill [H.L.]
  8.31 p.m.
  House again in Committee on Clause 1.
  Lord Grabiner Lord Grabiner moved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 2, line 24, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (2C) and").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 20 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 38. I shall speak in support of Amendment No. 32 and say something about Amendment No. 29. For the purpose of Amendments Nos. 20, 22 and 38, it would be helpful for Members of the Committee to have handy a copy of the Bill, otherwise what I say will be essentially gibberish. Amendments Nos. 20 and 38 are consequential to Amendment No. 22.
  The amendments fall into two categories: technical and substantive. Perhaps I may speak first to the technical element. The amendments seek to clarify or simplify the drafting which currently incorporates the expression in subsection (2B),
  "for obtaining any information except in so far as—
  "(a) the information is information relating to a particular person".
  The short point I wish to make is that there is some unnecessary repetition in those words.
  We are then introduced to the concept of when it is legitimate to make someone the subject of an inquiry by subsection (2B)(b), where it states:
  "it appears to the authorised officer that it is legitimate to make that person the subject of an inquiry".
  The structure of the present drafting is that subsection (2C) goes on to define legitimacy by reference to the existence of reasonable grounds for
  884
  believing one or other of the matters listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d). I believe—again this is a technical point—that the concept of legitimacy here is otiose.
  We can and should dispense with the repetition of the word "information"; and we can also abandon the concept of legitimacy because it is fully covered by the pre-condition that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the identified person is or may be doing any of the things listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Those are the technical matters. They are essentially designed to shorten and clarify the existing drafting.
  Leaving aside the technicalities, the more important substantive point is that the effect of these amendments will be to emphasise the importance of the need to identify a particular person by name or description. That expression does not appear in the current drafting. But it does appear in the suggested amendment and, therefore, if accepted, the particular person would have to be identified by name or description.
  I hope that such an amendment will make it clear beyond doubt that these provisions are not designed to be generally intrusive. On the contrary, they are intended to be highly specific and precise. That is all I wish to say by way of introduction in respect of those amendments.
  Perhaps I may now turn to the related amendment, Amendment No. 32, which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Astor of Hever. The thrust of the amendment is to the effect that subsection (2C)(c) should be deleted. I should say, with some regret, that I was too late to add my name in support of the amendment.
  At Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, expressed reservations about subsection (2C)(c). In summary, two concerns were put forward. First, that when deciding on the relevant class or description of persons, the authorised officer might, consciously or otherwise, take into account considerations which are impermissible, in particular in relation to one or other of the matters listed in Article 14 of the convention, such as sex, race, colour and so on.
  The second concern was not expressed at Second Reading in quite this way, but I think what it came to was that the concept behind paragraph (c) was vague and imprecise. I believe that the conceptual justification for the retention of paragraph (c) can he supported. An obvious example of something falling within that paragraph is the class consisting of previous offenders. It may well be reasonable to conclude that persons previously convicted of benefit fraud are statistically more likely to re-offend and that investigators should therefore have this proposed power. It would enable them to conduct investigations and to detect wrongdoing at an early stage without being hamstrung by the current powers, 'which, I suggest, are inadequate. No doubt it is possible to think of other examples.
  I acknowledge the real concerns which were expressed by noble Lords on all sides at Second Reading about the possibility that people may end up being categorised on a capricious or unlawful basis. Any categorisation which involves or takes into account an inadmissible factor would be offensive as being incompatible with Article 14 of the convention, and it would certainly, in my view, be judicially reviewable. Furthermore, any doubts there may be about this point could, of course, be clarified by the code of practice and by the proper training of authorised officers.
  Having said that, I have a nagging reservation about paragraph (c). The structure of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2C) leads me to the view that you get to paragraph (c) in a case where neither paragraphs (a) nor (b) applies. It follows that, for the purposes of paragraph (c), the person in question, ex hypothesi, has not contravened, is not contravening and is not likely in the future to contravene the social security legislation. That is the starting-point for the analysis of paragraph (c). If those were the circumstances—and I certainly think that such circumstances could arise under the provision in subsection (2C)(c)—there must be some real doubt as to whether paragraph (c) is strictly necessary in order to deal with the problem.
  "Necessity" is the test under the Human Rights Act. The argument is nicely balanced. The exercise of the power would lead only to the ability to obtain information; it would not lead automatically to a prosecution. Still less would it lead inevitably to a conviction. On the whole, I believe that the Bill would be improved if this provision were deleted. Certainly, for what it is worth, my nagging concern would disappear. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give careful consideration to the suggested amendment, which has my support.
  I turn finally to Amendment No. 29 standing in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Some criticism has been directed at the formula, to be found in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), that a person,
  "is likely to contravene … the relevant social security legislation",
  or, as the case may be, "commit a benefit offence".
  Looked at from the point of view of the person concerned, it seems to me that the language of the Bill provides strong protection. First, there must be "reasonable grounds for believing", which are the words that lead into the relevant provisions. Secondly, the words "likely to" mean "more likely than not"—that is, more than 50 per cent; or, as a lawyer would put it, and I suppose I am in that sense qualified to put it this way, "on the balance of probabilities".
  The answer to the question of whether that provision can be satisfied is essentially fact-driven. It depends entirely on the information that is available to the person making the judgment. The language is abstract, but the answer to the question, "Was there a sufficient basis for making the request for the information?" depends entirely on the information which was then available to the investigating officer.
  It may be possible to find a different formula, and it is not beyond the wit of man to do so. However, I should be surprised if it turned out to be a better one from the point of view of the person who is the subject of the inquiry. I also emphasise the importance in this context of Section 29 of the Data Protection Act. In judging the reasonableness of this proposed legislation and whether or not it is human rights compatible, legislators are entitled—indeed, I would say, bound—to have regard to the fact that anticipating, preventing and detecting fraud is important and necessary, and we should not shrink from this point. Subject to the possibility that the language may be improved, the current drafting of these provisions produces a fair and balanced result. I beg to move.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: Once again, the Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord for his assistance in relation to the Bill. I suppose that in a real sense he should be regarded as its "father" whereas we are in the role of "midwife" rather than anything else. Obviously, we must put considerable weight on the noble Lord's remarks.
  I was under the impression that Amendment No. 32, standing in my name and that of my noble friend, was to be grouped with this set of amendments. The groupings list that I have in front of me seems to have it separated. But I entirely agree—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is grouped on the list that I have.
  Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness has a more updated list. I am entirely happy that it should be grouped; that is appropriate. As the noble Lord pointed out, he has tabled a series of amendments on specific points which are designed to improve the drafting—although, I think I am right in saying that to some extent, in improving the drafting, the amendments narrow the provisions of the clause to individuals rather than to any wider group. So this is not purely a drafting matter. It may well be that this is helpful in the context of whether the provision contravenes the Human Rights Act and so on. As I said at the beginning, there is bound to be a thread running through all our debates—either human rights or data protection.
  We have no wish to prolong proceedings or to have tedious repetition. Therefore, it will probably be helpful to the Committee if we deal with the broad issue of human rights when we come to debate whether the clause shall stand part. We have heard some powerful representations on that point. But it is clearly relevant in relation to this set of clauses, and particularly in relation to Amendment No. 32.
  Concern was expressed at Second Reading about the provision in the clause stating:
  "it is legitimate to make a person the subject of an inquiry if there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is or may be … (c) a person belonging to any description of persons who are more likely than others to fall within paragraph (a) or (b) above".

  887
  The concern was that the provision might be open to problems—for example, on grounds of race and so on—and would then fall contrary to Article 14 of the Human Rights Act. So there obviously is a problem in relation to discrimination on grounds of race or any other basis.
  There is also a more general concern. At Second Reading the noble Baroness cited the example of window cleaners. She seemed rather preoccupied with window cleaners in relation to an earlier amendment. Why all window cleaners should be stigmatised in this way, I do not understand. No doubt the Minister will produce other examples, but at present it seems that she is endeavouring to enter a rather specialist field! It seems to me that the subsection is objectionable. That is also the widespread view outside this Chamber.
  The noble Lord raised the question of whether the paragraph is likely to contravene the provisions. He rightly pointed out that this may reasonably be interpreted to mean a more than 50 per cent chance. I have the gravest doubts as to whether there is a more than 50 per chance of window cleaners engaging in social security fraud; however, it is a serious point. The question of the words "or is likely to" give legitimate cause for concern.
  The noble Lord raised other important aspects. We have received representations from a number of outside groups that the subsection could be used routinely and arbitrarily in circumstances where there is no reasonable suspicion of fraudulent activity or criminal conduct, and that such powers should be restricted to cases where there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed. For all these reasons, there is a strong case for arguing that paragraph (c) should he deleted from subsection (2C).
  A further point raised by the noble Lord related to previous convictions. This brings us to the question of whether it is a person who has contravened—as against "is likely to contravene"—the social security regulations. The preoccupation there is that we must consider whether past offences should be taken into account when deciding whether or not a further offence is likely to" be perpetrated. Indeed, we come to this point later with the, "two strikes and you are out" argument. None the less, it is a point that we need to consider carefully.
  Overall, I believe this to be an important amendment. It would not be appropriate to vote on it tonight, but my feeling is that the noble Baroness would be wise to accept that new subsection (2C)(c) is objectionable on a number of counts. It is not really necessary for the correct functioning of the Bill. Indeed, that was borne out by the noble Lord's remarks on proposing the amendments and supporting, as I understand it, Amendment No. 32. On that basis, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will be able to accept the amendment. That would save us a good deal of time on Report.
  Earl Russell: We are dealing with a new subsection (2C) to the administration Act, which, I believe I am right in saying, attracted as much unfavourable
  888
  comment on Second Reading as the whole of the rest of the Bill put together. I support Amendments Nos. 20 and 22, tabled in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Grabiner. I am most grateful to him for his support for Amendment No. 32 to which my noble friend Lord Goodhart and I, as well as the two noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, have attached our names. I can only apologise to the noble Lord for depriving him of the opportunity of adding his name, which I should have been very happy to see there.
  The noble Lord explained the case against paragraph (c) with such wonderful lucidity that I can only wish that I shall be able to express it as clearly when we reach Third Reading. However, my misgivings extend a little wider than that. Essentially, they come under two headings. I do not believe that I have any objection to the Minister's policy intention, as we discovered that in the briefing meeting and on Second Reading. The Government are attempting to do something that I do not wish to stop them from doing. My concern is with the words with which it is expressed.
  In general terms, my concern falls under two headings. The first is that defining people as members of a class—that is, any class, even window cleaners—is not a prima face ground for suspicion, at least not a judicial prima face ground for suspicion. As soon as you identify people by a class, you are judging them on something other than their own nature, their own character and their own record of what they have done. For that reason, among many others, I was delighted by what the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, said about Amendment No. 32.
  My other concern is that I feel a profound misgiving about any legislative drafting that defines what it is looking for by reference to the future rather than to the past. I believe that the Minister will understand why the section of my notes bearing on the whole of new subsection (2C) is headed, "The man most likely to". The concept recurs over and over again. As soon as you start talking about people who are "likely to" do certain things, you are into the area of prophecy. As every gambler and every weather-forecaster knows, prophecy is an extremely risky activity. But the point that emerges through listening carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, and to the Minister, is that these projections that people are "likely to" do something normally rest on something solid that those people have done.
  Therefore, rather than using the prophecy as the defining feature of the Bill, it seems to me that it might be wiser to move away from the prophecy and return to the solid thing that the person has done that gave rise to the prophecy in the first place. The effect would be the same, but, conceptually, I would find it a great deal more acceptable. I hope that the Minister will understand why. Legislation, investigation and detection—which is what this is essentially—must rest on some genuine ground of suspicion, which focuses on the actual behaviour of that individual. As the words, "likely to" are being invoked because of something that the person has done, if we return to that activity we shall do rather better.

  889
  I had a first stab at making a draft to deal with the issue by way of Amendment No. 29, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. It proposes to strike out all of these "likelies" and to authorise an investigation if there is reasonable ground for suspicion that the person has committed, or intends to commit, a benefit offence. I hope that the notion of intention covers the same ground that is invoked by the words "likely to". I believe that it does so in a slightly more concrete and, therefore, slightly better justiciable way. It is an amateur piece of drafting, to which I am not wedded. I shall listen carefully to any suggestions that the Minister makes for its improvement. However, it must be fastened on what the person has done. To me, that is the one essential element.
  If we had that ground and included the concept of intention, it seems to me that the subordinate paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) would no longer be necessary. We could then have the advantage that would please the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, of keeping down the growing prolixity of the statute book. Other things being equal, that is a good objective. There is, perhaps, some policy intention behind paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) that I have missed and for which we still need words to express. If the Minister says so, I shall listen most carefully to what she has to say. I would be interested in trying to make a further draft to try to meet the Minister on that point.
  However, as far as I can see, Amendment No. 29 authorises investigation into all those whom the department wants to investigate. If that is not good enough, I shall be very interested to hear why not. With an open mind, I am ready to play it from there.
  Lord Goodhart: Perhaps I may briefly follow my noble friend Lord Russell. I believe that there is another problem with the use of the word, "likely" in that there is an ambiguity about it. Does it mean that you are prophesying something about the future, which I believe is the way that both the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, and my noble friend have interpreted the word? It could also mean that you are looking not at someone who is likely at some future time to commit and offence, but at someone who is likely to be committing an offence now; and, indeed, if you investigate that fact, you will find that he is committing an offence. It seems to me that the Bill is perhaps directed at the second of those meanings. If you are simply looking at someone who has a propensity to commit an offence and may commit it in the future, you are unlikely to find any useful information now because, by definition, he is not committing an offence.
  Alternatively, if you are looking at someone who is the sort of person "likely to" commit that offence and if, by looking through the facts, you may find that he is committing it now, there would be some logic behind the provision. However, at the same time, that particular logic seems to me to lead to exactly the same problem that arises with new subsection (2C)(c); in
  890
  other words, you are investigating someone not because you have actual reason to believe that he is committing an offence, but simply because he is the sort of person who might be committing an offence. Indeed, if you look into the matter, you may find that he is committing an offence—
  Lord Higgins: I am experiencing some difficulty in following what the noble Lord is saying. I believe that we agreed earlier that the word "likely" might well mean more than 50 per cent. However, the noble Lord is suggesting that it is likely that someone is contravening the rules, which is surely the same thing. To say that someone is likely to be doing it now is surely the same as doing it now. I am having difficulty understanding the distinction that the noble Lord is seeking to make by way of an alternative interpretation of the word "likely".
  The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a similar point about the problem with forecasting such matters. It seems to me that to say that someone intends to do something also poses a problem with regard to forecasting.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Grabiner: I respectfully agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has just said. Apparently my noble friend Lady Hollis does not. We shall see how matters turn out. If the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right, the words "or is likely to" add nothing to the words "is contravening". "Contravened" is the past tense; "is contravening" is the current tense; "is likely to contravene" is surely a futuristic prediction. Certainly that is how I read it. I believe that that is certainly the way that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, reads it. That was what I tried to say when I spoke earlier.
  I believe that "is likely to" contains the element of prophesying which is the point that the noble Earl made. However, I am not sure that the words "intends to" or "is intending to", or whatever the language is, are anything more than an exercise in prophesying for the future. However, as I say, at the end of the day it is a question of language that everyone is comfortable with.
  Lord Goodhart: I hope that I may finish what I was in the middle of saying. The point is that if one uses "likely" in the sense of prophesying, then, more or less by definition, one will not be able to get any useful information because if the person is not doing it now but is likely to do it in the future, none of the information one can get from the various bodies will be of any use as they will not prove that he is committing any offence. The only point of getting information from those bodies is to give one evidence to support one's belief that the person is contravening a measure now.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There may be some inconsistency; for example, the two NI numbers that were mentioned at Second Reading which require an explanation. If the explanation is satisfactory, clearly

  891
  the person is not likely to be committing an offence. But prima facie holding down two NI numbers suggests that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person may be using those two numbers to commit an offence. We seek prevention rather than an after the event cure.
  Lord Goodhart: In that case, rather than using the word "likely", is it not better to say that he "is intending to commit"? It may be a matter of better drafting. If a person has a present intention, that is a different matter. There may be evidence that a person is now doing something which is preparatory to the commission of an offence. But, if one is simply talking in terms of someone who is likely to commit an offence, then it seems to me one returns to the problem of looking at someone and saying, "He is likely to commit an offence in the future because he has committed an offence or several offences in the past". I could accept the word "intending", but it seems to me that as present drafted the reference to someone who "is likely to commit" an offence is deeply unsatisfactory.
  Earl Russell: I hope that I may return to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Lord. Lord Grabiner. Both of them suggested that the intention is as much in relation to the future as the words "likely to". I recall an article by the late F W Maitland with the delightful title of The Early History of Malice Aforethought. Malice aforethought, mens rea, is a well recognised concept in the criminal law. The guilty intention is, if proved, a present fact. Here I think is the crucial distinction. If we can prove that there is a serious possibility that a person has an actual intention of committing a crime, we are proving that there is something in his behaviour—as my noble friend Lord Goodhart suggested, in his preparations or in his state of mind—which is evidence of an actual settled intention to commit a crime. That is something which the law is well used to investigating in court. Because it is, it has worked out a series of practical tests for doing that and it knows how to set about it. I am not aware that the law has any similar machinery for working out who is likely to do this, that and the other. When I think of the disagreement between my noble friend Lord Goodhart and the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, both, I should have thought, people of great expertise in the construing of parliamentary statute, thinking of the case of Pepper v Hart, I wonder whether anyone reading our debates would be any the wiser about how to construe the words "likely to" and whether that is perhaps another reason for taking them out.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We have been having a lovely time. I hope that I shall not be seen as spoiling that. We are dealing with Amendments Nos. 20, 22, 29, 32 and 38. I shall start with Amendment No. 22 and then speak to the consequential amendments. The key change in the amendment is to expand on the term "particular person" by providing that that person must be identified by name or description. Behind that
  892
  lies a concern expressed on Amendment No. 32 which is the link with the question of fishing and the need to identify more narrowly.
  Where we know the real name of a suspect—that occurs in the majority of cases—we would identify them by name. However, there are also instances where a person lies about who he or she is. For example, organised gangs manufacture many different identities in order to claim as much benefit as possible in false names. In those cases we may need to identify suspects about whom we are inquiring by using other information. Generally, this would be the address where the person was living. I think that the use of the term "by name or description" which my noble friend has suggested admirably sets out our needs and I am therefore content to accept his amendment. I also hope that the Committee will bear that in mind when we discuss later the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that we amend the term "particular" to "specified". The other changes the amendment makes seem to express the provisions differently but do not alter them in any substantive way. Amendments Nos. 20 and 38 are, of course, consequential to Amendment No. 22 and of course I am happy to accept those.
  I now come to Amendment No. 32. There is clearly concern about the inclusion of the power to obtain information on people who are in groups which are more likely than others to commit fraud. I begin by explaining our thinking behind the provision. As the Committee knows, social security fraud is costing us over £2 billion a year, which is more than it costs to run the entire department. We have done a lot. We are measuring fraud in a systematic way. We have set targets. We have new checks. We have data matching. As a result, fraud is coming down. The latest figures show that fraud in income support and JSA has reduced from 9 per cent to 8.4 per cent. That is a tiny percentage but encompasses large numbers. Those figures were published in November of last year. The measurement exercises that we referred to at Second Reading—almost like a risk analysis—tell us a great deal about the type of person who commits fraud against the social security system. We know that fraud by people working and making claims costs over £300 million a year. We know that people lying about their family circumstances, usually because they are cohabiting but say that they are not, costs over £200 million a year. We know that income support claimants who have committed fraud previously are 70 per cent more likely—a statistic given by my noble friend—than others again to commit fraudulent income support claims. We know that claimants of income-related JSA are more likely than claimants of any other benefit to commit fraud. We know that lone parents who have recently separated from their partners are at greater risk than other lone parents of committing fraud.
  Lord Higgins: Do we have any corresponding figures on working families' tax credit?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is not a benefit; it is a tax credit. At present I have no evidence either way

  893
  on fraudulent claims. What evidence I have seen suggests that there have been some concerns about childcare arrangements. It is in part based on the information sent by the employer back to the Inland Revenue. However, if the noble Lord wishes me to pursue the point on another occasion I am happy to do so. I return to the substantive point. I appreciate that the noble Lord cannot resist attempting to turn the WFTC into a benefit rather than a credit!
  We need to make this information work for us. We want to use it to target our inquiries on those who are most likely to commit fraud—essentially, an analysis of risk. That is what lies behind the conclusion of the provision at new subsection (2C)(c)—the power to obtain information on a person who is in a group more likely than others to commit fraud.
  The debate today has raised significant concerns, highlighted originally by my noble friend Lord Grabiner, about how this power could be used. There is significant concern that this power could be used to target people on criteria such as race, sex, disability, sexual orientation and so on—concerns which were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, at Second Reading. I assured him then, as I do today, that that is not our intention; nor would it be possible under these powers because race, sex or sexual orientation, or the fact that an individual has red hair, wears glasses, or anything else, does not increase the propensity to commit fraud.
  However, having said that, I do not make light of the Committee's concerns. It is true that the vast majority of lone parents are women. Although we would not select lone parenthood alone as a criterion for using these powers, I can see that the fact that most lone parents are women might cause concern. Listening to today's debate, I have wondered whether there is a different way which would allow us to make use of the information about the risk of fraud but which does not generate the kind of concerns raised. To that end I found the points raised by my noble friend Lord Grabiner and others extremely helpful. My noble friend knows a great deal about the problems we are facing and the need to have research information as the basis for targeting fraudulent activity.
  Having listened to my noble friend's remarks, and those of other noble Lords, I am minded to consider removing the power to obtain information on those in groups more likely than others to commit fraud. I refer to new subsection (2C)(c). My noble friend believes that we can address our concerns in other ways. However, I should like to reflect further on the consequences of removing this power before coming back with a final decision because there are "read across" areas in other parts of the Bill. I refer, for example, to the use of reverse searching of telephone directories as a means of fighting fraud. I may need to make other more specific provisions to cover other types of inquiry.
  894
  I take on board the Committee's concerns. I shall do my utmost to meet them by a government amendment on Report. Giving that undertaking in good faith, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will be able to withdraw Amendment No. 32.
  Amendment No. 29 seeks to address three issues. I shall take each in turn. First, the noble Earl seeks to explore whether we should retain the words "is likely to" in paragraphs (a) and (b) of what will be new subsection (2C). We have had an elegant discussion about the futuristic prophesying nature of the phrase. I shall try to give an example of an instance where we obtain information which leads us to believe that a person is intending to commit fraud—he is about to commit fraud. We want to prevent that. Where we come across such information, we need to be able to act on it. For example, if we found forged identity documents at an address receiving benefit payments, we would need to conduct checks into the forged identities to establish whether any of them were being used to obtain benefit. Another example would be where a person was reported to be about to do something—to start work, or commence education. Clearly we would ask him about it. However, if he denied it and we had reasonable grounds for not believing him, we could check with the prospective employer or UCAS to verify his story. If we found that he was lying, we could stop his benefit from the time the job or course commenced.
  The key point is when we come across information which leads us reasonably to believe that the person is more likely than not to commit fraud. That is why we have selected the words "is likely to" in this context. Having said that, I am attracted instead to the concept of injecting intent into the provision, as argued by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. All the examples that I have given clearly indicate some idea of intent. However, again I should like to take time to reflect on the best way of capturing that concept in the provision. If the noble Earl will agree not to press his amendment, I shall undertake to return in good faith on Report with a new form of words that I hope will meet his concerns about intent.
  The second aspect of the noble Earl's amendment explores the provision relating to groups, which I dealt with on Amendment No. 32. I shall not repeat my comments. I have said that I shall reflect on the issue and see whether I can come back to meet those concerns.
  Finally, the amendment raises questions about information on family members. The noble Earl did not speak to that. Given that the issue may more properly be raised in a later group of amendments—his is almost a portfolio amendment—I shall come back to it later.
  I have promised to reconsider the wording of the provision to inject the concept of intent rather than likelihood to commit fraud. I shall also consider removing the power to obtain information on people in groups that are more likely than others to commit fraud and I have accepted the drafting changes

  895
  proposed by my noble friend Lord Grabiner, which would also narrow the provisions. In the light of all that, I hope that your Lordships might feel content.
  9.15 p.m.
  Earl Russell: I thank the Minister most warmly for everything that she has said. I entirely accept the need to reflect, probably at some leisure, on the drafting. The problems are complicated and with the best will in the world, which the Minister has offered us, they are not easily solved. Of course I accept the delay.
  I am delighted by the Minister's comments about Amendment No. 32. I am also very much encouraged on Amendment No. 29. I hope that any draft on which we might hypothetically agree will cover all the examples that the Minister gave. That is not what we have been talking about. It is simply a matter of the wording and the concept. In hope and gratitude, I shall wait for Report.
  Lord Higgins: We are certainly making progress. In that context, your Lordships are likely to improve the Bill, particularly given what the Minister has said.
  I have some difficulty with the issue of intent. Let us assume that the department has some evidence that a particular individual intends to commit an offence. As a result, it argues that it should get more information. There is then a problem. The department may approach the individual and say, "We think you are going to commit an offence", in which case we hope that the department will prevent him from doing so, but he may be rather surprised. The alternative is that the department does nothing and waits until he does it, in which case the department is probably an accessory. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, shakes his head. Whatever the right technical expression is for condoning an offence someone is about to commit, I merely throw that into the general argument for the noble Baroness to consider between now and Report.
  I am very pleased with what the Minister said on Amendment No. 32. We look forward to seeing what she can produce between now and Report. In the light of what she has said, I shall not move my amendment when we come to it.
  Lord Grabiner: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for accepting Amendments Nos. 20, 22 and 38. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who spoke in support of those amendments.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 2, line 25, leave out ("officer") and insert ("inspector duly authorised in accordance with the code of conduct set out by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Act").
  The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. The term "authorised officer" makes no suggestion of any qualification, training or guidance as to conduct. In view of the sensitivity of the issues to be dealt with, anyone conducting an investigation under the Bill ought to be qualified in all those respects. The Government have
  896
  yet to publish their code of conduct. We shall come to that issue later. We may be able to deal with the problem in that way.
  There is also some concern that officers who are put in that position will have no duty to put right any damage caused by the suspicions that they may have created with third parties. We referred to that point earlier with regard to credit agencies.
  Concern has also been expressed—we have received representations from outside organisations—about whether any other area exists—for example. under the Financial Services Act—in which people who are as unqualified as that are entitled to act as this legislation would enable them to act.
  A further point arises. As I understand it, the authorised persons will either be in the department or in local government. Given the incidence of housing and other benefit fraud and the number of reports of fraudulent operations elsewhere, I believe that we should be clear as to exactly what type of person will be authorised under the legislation. That is particularly the case with regard to some local authorities where recent reports suggest that they are not behaving as we would wish. In essence, we are saying that we should be clear as to what we intend.
  Finally, can the Minister tell us at what level, either in local government or in the Civil Service, the group of people who implement the Act will be? One always has difficulty with Civil Service grades. They tend to change and it is not always possible to be certain what the grades mean. If the noble Baroness can give an indication of the levels of qualification and payment, for want of a better way of putting it, which are likely to apply to those people, that would help to reassure us.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. One of his amendments refers to a code of conduct; the other to a code of practice. Is that simply a drafting slip or are there different intentions behind the two amendments?
  Lord Higgins: No; it is a drafting slip.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This part of the debate is, in effect, the opening debate on the code of practice. The main import of the amendment is not the reference to the,
  "inspector duly authorised",
  but to,
  "authorised in accordance with the code of conduct",
  which we now understand to be the code of practice set out by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Act. Therefore, I understood the push of the amendment to be the pursuit of our thinking on the code of practice and the implications of that.
  With regard to the noble Lord's point about the level of the officials within the DSS, I understand that they would be of at least executive officer grade. However, clearly their managers would be

  897
  considerably more senior than that and would be experienced officials. I am unable to give the local authority equivalent, but my guess is that the officials would be at either SO2 grade—that is, senior officer 2—or principal officer 1. I would have to seek further advice on the read-across grades but, if my memory of local government is correct, senior officer 2 grade would be approximately the same level. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that matter.
  Again, for the most part, we are talking about people who have already developed skills in fraud investigation in exactly the same way as an experienced police fraud squad might include constables and sergeants as well as detective chief inspectors. Therefore, we are discussing people who are very experienced but who, none the less, would be under careful management by even more senior officials.
  I believe that the general point behind the amendment is the importance of the code of practice. We have always intended that the information-gathering provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 would be subject to the code. The code would cover such issues as what would and would not be reasonable under the powers, who would be able to make inquiries, the time allowed for organisations to answer inquiries, what action should be taken if organisations were having difficulty in answering questions, and the types of information that each organisation could provide.
  A code of practice would provide a clear guide to authorised officers, setting out the limitations of their powers and the standards of behaviour expected of them when conducting their inquiries. We also believe that the code would be helpful to data providers. In addition, it would help data subjects to understand what would become of their information.
  When my right honourable friend in the other place, Mr Rooker, and I briefed Peers on the provisions in the Bill a few days ago, we gave an undertaking that the department would produce a draft code of practice for the consideration of noble Lords before the Bill reaches its Report stage. That code is under discussion with the relevant businesses, and I hope to honour that commitment.
  I hope that I have addressed the noble Lord's broad concerns. If I have missed any, I hope that he will pursue them in a later debate.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She quite rightly said that this matter is one aspect of our debate on the code of practice. If it is the Government's intention to deal with it in the code of practice, we need not discuss it in this debate. I hope that that is the Government's intention.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That means that it may be sensible for our debate on the code of practice to wait until the draft code is available to noble Lords.
  898
  Far be it from me to suggest that the noble Lord might not want to move absolutely every amendment tonight, but the thought might have occurred to him.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply.
  Baroness Noakes: Before my noble friend concludes his remarks, I want to ask a question about authorised officers, whom the noble Baroness said would be executive officers. They constitute a large band of people in the Civil Service, and they are accustomed to taking a large number of administrative decisions. I think I also heard her say that they would be subject to supervision. Will that supervision be covered by the code of practice? She talked about standards of behaviour and conduct in the code of practice, but she did not say how those relatively junior people—they are not senior in the general scheme of things—would be supervised before they carried out their responsibilities under the legislation.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sure the noble Baroness will recall that I said that in the 13 local areas of the Benefits Agency there would be only a limited number of executive officers—I do not want to specify an exact number or to say whether we are concerned with five, 15 or 25—who will be specially trained to do the work. As I said earlier, that is why we have put such emphasis on training. Those officers will be supervised but the way in which an executive officer is supervised is not normally part of a code of practice. The code is a document that is available for those who seek information, those who receive information and those who are the subject of that information. It does not deal with the internal management practices of the DSS.
  Baroness Noakes: I accept what the noble Baroness says, but the executive officer level is not very senior and those who are on the receiving end of the requests for information need some assurance that they are getting a considered and mature reflection of the requirements of the DSS in fighting fraud. That is why I seek from her an assurance that those trained executive officers—I am sure that they will be trained—will have some form of more senior supervision before they issue what may be onerous requests under the legislation.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Baroness obviously has considerable experience of other public sector organisations. I am sure that she knows that in the Civil Service—certainly in local offices—executive officers are quite senior officials who take responsibility for decision-making. They decide whether a benefit claim is valid and put forward papers for decisions about prosecutions. We ask and expect a lot of our executive officers in terms of the scope of their authority and delegated powers. However, we expect them to be properly trained and we will expect them to be properly supervised.

  899
  I earlier gave assurances to the Committee about the way in which the use of passwords to get access to electronic information could be checked by senior officials to ensure that the information obtained is not misused or used in an inappropriate way. That will be part of internal DSS procedure. It is certainly not in the interests of the DSS to allow inappropriate behaviour.
  The noble Baroness will also know that the DSS already has very experienced staff in the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. We shall add to their numbers in local offices and we shall work with local authorities in that regard. The noble Baroness does not need to worry about this. I have seen the work EOs do in other fields and they carry high degrees of responsibility competently and capably exercised.
  9.30 p.m.
  Baroness Noakes: But in the past EOs would not typically have been given these sorts of powers to impose burdens on business. It is in that context that I have a particular worry. I accept that they are casework officers; that is substantially what they are used for within the Civil Service. But I am particularly concerned that a single decision of a single executive officer, however well trained, could impose significant costs, especially when the Bill has limited proposals for reimbursement of costs to those providing information. There should be some further safeguard. If it is not in the code of practice I am at a loss as to how we can satisfy ourselves that it will exist.
  Lord Higgins: I am a little mystified. I understand the points being made by my noble friend and they are important. But the amendment states,
  "inspector duly authorised in accordance with the code of [practice] set out by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Act".
  I understood the Minister to say in reply that that was something which would be covered in the code of practice. However, in answer to the intervention of my noble friend, she appears to be saying that it is something which will be done administratively and not in the code of practice. I am confused.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are making an issue out of something which does not exist. EO inspectors already have powers to demand access to employers' records. So the powers that these EOs have under the Bill are analogous to powers they already have in other areas of their work. I am saying that of course they will be monitored and supervised. But one does not put into a code of practice the internal monitoring arrangements of senior staff over junior staff. That is simply not appropriate for a code of practice. What is appropriate is the standard to which the EOs will be expected to work; what stringency will be applied to their examination; what reasonable grounds they will have for pursuing a certain direction; what access they may be expecting and what help and support they will be expecting from the organisation. That is what we are talking about; not internal management of a
  900
  particular section. I have never seen a code of practice in my life containing that kind of thing. I am puzzled that I should be asked about it.
  Lord Higgins: There is still, I fear, a certain amount of confusion. We shall need to consider to what extent it will be appropriate to incorporate something in the code of practice with regard to qualifications and so forth.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am perfectly willing to take away and consider this matter to try to reassure the Committee that if there are complaints or concerns by data-providing bodies there is a more senior official to whom they can go over the head of the EO. If that will address the substance of the noble Baroness's point, I am willing to take it away and think about it. But I do not want to start specifying line management, diagrams, salary rates and so forth; they are not part of the code of practice. If that is helpful, I am perfectly willing to do that.
  Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that and look forward to that reassurance.
  Lord Higgins: In that case we are all grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Grabiner Lord Grabiner moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 2, line 26, leave out from ("shall") to ("is") in line 34 and insert ("be exercisable for the purpose only of obtaining information relating to a particular person identified (by name or description) by the officer.
  (2C') An authorised officer shall not, in exercise of those powers require any information from any person by virtue of his falling within subsection (2A) above unless it appears to that officer that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the identified person to whom it relates").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 2, line 27, at end insert—
  ("( ) the information is information that has already been collected and retained in the normal course of business;").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 23 stands in my name and that of my noble friend. It is an extremely simple amendment compared with anything else we have been discussing. It merely suggests that the information that can be demanded by the authorised official seeking to obtain information to prevent fraud should be that which is collected in the normal course of a business. I hope that the noble Baroness ca n simply stand up and say, "Yes, we agree to the amendment. There is no question of asking those particular organisations to produce custom-built data", if that is the right expression, "for the purpose of the inquiries". I shall settle for "customised", if the Minister prefers. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes; we do not expect businesses to go out of their way to get information for

  901
  us. Where we ask them to perform a unique data-processing function, for example a reverse search of the telephone directory, or to provide data in bulk, we have already said that we shall pay for it. In this case the information is already available and collected as part of a company's normal business.
  We shall make use of such information as organisations are able to provide. We shall not make unreasonable demands on retention or that they somehow recreate data that has been erased or destroyed. If the information is not available, we shall look elsewhere or do without. I hope that the noble Lord is pleased with that reply.
  Lord Higgins: Perhaps I misheard the noble Baroness. I thought that she accepted the amendment.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, I said that I hoped that the noble Lord was well pleased and that he does not need to move the amendment. I was giving the noble Lord an assurance that the amendment will not be necessary because we shall not be asking businesses for information that they do not hold.
  Lord Higgins: I thought that it would be better to put it on the face of the Bill. None the less, given that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24:
  Page 2, line 28, leave out ("particular").
  The noble Lord said: I shall not move Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 but, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 41, 50 and 55.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy for Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not to be moved. We have already discussed the matter substantively and I understand what the noble Lord wants to do. Perhaps I may suggest that we postpone the discussion until we reach Amendments No. 41, when he can move and speak to the amendment substantively.
  [Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
  ("(2BA) Requests for information shall not require the person providing the information to inform an authorised officer of any future change in the information provided.").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 27 is straightforward. As with the previous amendment, which the noble Baroness accepted in principle and on which she gave an undertaking, I hope that she can accept it. It seems important to us to minimise the burden on business as far as possible. In our view it would be extremely onerous if, having provided the authorised inspector with a particular set of information, there was any obligation on him to update it from day to day. It would require a
  902
  considerable operation for that to be done without contravening the Act or failing to provide information for which the department had asked. I hope that the Minister can accept this simple and important amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Desai: I apologise to the Committee. I arrived a little late and I am confused. I thought that we had accepted Amendment No. 22, which removes several lines. If we had, is it still in order to move Amendment No. 27?
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The amendment was debated at some length in the noble Lord's absence, but he has no way of knowing that. Does the noble Lord wish to speak to the amendment?
  Lord Desai: No, I was just a little puzzled.
  Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask one question about the meaning of the amendment before the Committee. It refers to information in the future. We come back to the question of intention, the future and the present. My example is that of a certain unmarried woman, shall we say a Miss Smith, who has informed the bank that she will, in the next few weeks, become Mrs Snodgrass. That could be material information to someone who wants to investigate a bank account.
  Becoming Mrs Snodgrass is in the future but the expression of a clear intention to do so is in the present. Does the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, intend to prohibit the gathering of that information or not?
  Lord Higgins: The sad case of Mrs Snodgrass obviously needs careful consideration. Whether she is entitled to various benefits for married women is an even more partisan question. I take the point that the noble Earl made and do not doubt that the Minister has an appropriate answer.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Returning to the substantive amendment, I assure noble Lords that we would not ask companies to inform us of future changes in the information that they had given to us. That will be made plain in our code of practice and administrative guidance to staff. It is unnecessary to put it on the face of the Bill and I hope that in the light of that assurance the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment. And I duck Mrs Snodgrass!
  Lord Higgins: In the light of that reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
  Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 30:
  Page 2, line 35, leave out (", is contravening or is likely to contravene") and insert ("or is contravening").
  The noble Lord said: I rise to speak in the briefest possible terms to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. They are crucial amendments relating to fishing expeditions.

  903
  However, I accept that the subject has been debated at length tonight. We want to consider carefully the points that have been made as they relate to these amendments. Accordingly, and with the leave of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who have put their names to the amendments, I shall not move them.
  [Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 2, leave out lines 42 to 44.
  The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment and relates to the controversial Amendment No. 32, which was not moved in the light of the points made and undertakings given by the Minister. There are four paragraphs in subsection (2C) of the new section which appears in Clause 1 and we have dealt with the first two. Paragraph (d) provides that it is legitimate to make a person the subject of an inquiry if there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is or may be,
  "a person who (within the meaning of Part VII of the Contributions and Benefits Act) is a member of the family of a person falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above".
  We have already dealt with the case of someone falling into the category of paragraph (d), who is related to a person in paragraph (c). We hope that category (c) will disappear. Therefore, the question is whether it is appropriate to have paragraph (d) in relation to paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (a) deals with,
  "a person who has contravened, is contravening or is likely to contravene provisions of the … legislation".
  We have discussed the wording of that provision and have doubts about it. Paragraph (b) deals with
  "a person who has committed, or is committing or is likely to commit a benefit offence".
  The question is whether a member of the family of a person in either of those two categories ought also to be the subject of an inquiry. Unlike those dealt with in paragraphs (a) and (b), these people are not (to use the department's language) customers but simply members of the same family.
  We have a number of doubts about this provision, not least the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner; namely, that in the context of human rights legislation it is important that the individual should be clearly identified. I do not believe that paragraph (d) clearly defines anyone. We shall come to the question of human rights in the debate on clause stand part. However, it is doubtful whether the particular provision is appropriate, although the extent to which it is objectionable will be ameliorated if we eliminate paragraph (c).
  9.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder whether the noble Lord has reflected on my earlier remarks about the three main forms of benefit fraud: first, fraud associated with claiming while in work; secondly, fraud related to housing benefit in various forms; and,
  904
  thirdly, fraud which arises when two people live together but one claims as if she is a single parent. That is one of the most substantial areas of benefit fraud. The amendment seeks to prevent authorised officers from making inquiries about a claimant's family or people who are suspected of living with the person who claims benefit as a single person. We need to obtain information about a claimant's family because that individual's circumstances affect entitlement to benefit which, as the noble Lord is aware, is household-assessed. Therefore, one needs information about members of the household; it cannot be done in any other way.
  The whole range of income-related benefits are household-based. Therefore, one needs to know about the component parts of the household and the family; one cannot escape that. For example, last year £18 million of income support and JSA was overpaid because claimants had not declared their partners' earnings. In addition, £216 million of IS and JSA was overpaid last year because people claimed as single people when they were living with someone as husband or wife. We need to be able to obtain information about possible, or suspected, partners in order to prove that they are living with single claimants. For example, if we suspected that a single claimant lived with someone we might check with the claimant's utility providers to see whether the suspected partner paid the utility bills, or check with the bank to see whether or not he or she had a joint account.
  I could go on. The definition of "family" is quite tight. However, given that a considerable amount of benefit fraud is based on fraudulent and inaccurate information about household income, relationships and members of that household, we must have these provisions in the Bill. I very much hope that, with that explanation about income-related benefits in particular, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Higgins: I well understand the extent to which fraud arises in the circumstances outlined by the noble Baroness. None the less, perhaps I may clarify one point. The paragraph reads:
  "a person who (within the meaning of Part VII of the Contributions and Benefits Act) is a member of the family".
  I regret that I do not have with me Part VII of that Act. As the noble Baroness rightly points out, it is a question of the definition of "household", in which case I am not clear why the paragraph does not read,
  "is a member of the household of a person falling within that Act".
  There are also other problems. If it is a family it may well have nothing to do with cohabitation; the person may be a cousin, sister and so on. No doubt the noble Baroness will correct me if that is not the case. It may be that in one sense there is a relationship but the second person concerned does not live in the same household. Perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify those particular points. I agree that this is an

  905
  important issue. My objections to it are much ameliorated by the possibility that paragraph (c) will no longer apply.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It was not meant to be—if I can put it this way—a fishing trip way of getting at information. It was actually about where the offence is constituted by relationship of one person with another. That is why one needs that information.
  The concept of family is the absolutely bog-standard one in DSS law. It includes married or unmarried couples in the same household and any of their children or dependants living in that household. It also covers a single person—for example, a lone parent—and any of his or her children or dependants living in that household.
  The provision would not enable authorised officers to obtain information about a claimant's brother living at the same address as a claimant. Nor would it enable them to obtain information about a claimant's separated partner unless he or she was suspected of living with the claimant as husband and wife. So it is the absolutely standard definition in terms of income support, JSA, and so on, of "couple and dependant children or other dependants".
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful for that explanation. Presumably it could still include the teenage daughter of a member—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the teenage daughter or someone below the age of 16, or even possibly below the age of 19, is in full-time education and the claimant was receiving income support or JSA for that child, certainly yes. It might be that that child of 16 or 17 was actually in work but he or she was still claiming benefit for that child.
  Earl Russell: The definition of a family is embedded in social security law right back to the National Assistance Act 1948. It is deep in the case law and in the terminology of the subject. It would be extremely difficult to uproot it if we thought it desirable, which, personally, I do not.
  Lord Higgins: In the light of all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 34:
  Clause 1, page 2, line 44, at end insert—
  ("( ) It shall not be legitimate to make a person the subject of an inquiry on the basis of a spot check or any automated form of selection.").
  The noble Lord said: We wish to ensure that all investigations into individual cases are initiated on appropriate grounds for suspicion and not via any random trawling through innocent persons' information.
  The amendment seeks to probe how far the Government are prepared to use the legislation to intrude on innocent activity and individuals. We are
  906
  concerned that, should individual local authorities or authorised bodies fail to meet those fraud reduction targets set for them, they will find other ways indiscriminately to discover perpetrators of fraud. These may include spot checks of the kind the amendment prevents. While these checks might catch some criminals, it would be at too high a cost to the rights of innocent individuals.
  Although we are in favour of setting targets, it is vital for them to be meaningful and not abused. It is important to determine the limit to which officials may exercise their powers and to provide some protection for the rights of individuals. Where there is no suspicion, evidence or history of criminal activity, the Government should not allow for random, unsubstantiated fishing trips to take place. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: I am not capable of forming a final decision on the amendment at the moment because I very much hope that the re-drafting of new subsection (2C) will make perfectly plain that it is unnecessary. But were it proved to be necessary I would then support it with alacrity.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is another amendment that could usefully be grouped back with the other discussion. The amendment would prevent us from making inquiries of people selected on the basis of spot checks or through any automated form of selection. It would prevent us using the powers in two ways. First, it would prevent us making inquiries about people selected on a random basis. There is nothing in the Bill that would allow us to make inquiries about a person selected at random. We need reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has committed fraud either now or in the past, or, following my undertaking, intends to commit fraud.
  Secondly, the amendment prevents us from making inquiries of people identified by an automated process. The only instance where we would be able to do so is where we have made inquiries of people under new Section (2C)(c) who were disproportionately likely to commit fraud. Any other suspicions of fraud would be in response to some evidence, such as a tip-off from a former partner, a workmate or a person's behaviour, and this could not be automated. So on those grounds, too, the amendment is unnecessary.
  New subsection (2C) states that we need "reasonable grounds" for making such inquiries. "Reasonable grounds" are not covered by random checks, spot checks or anything else. Our decisions have to be based on objective evidence; that is, reasonable grounds for having a well-founded belief. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Astor of Hever: In the light of the firm assurances given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
  ("( ) Nothing in this Act shall authorise an inquiry which contravenes any provision of the Data Protection Act 1998.").
  The noble Lord said: It is not my intention to go over the same points I made in moving Amendment No. 1 some considerable time ago. However, it is clear that the representations made by the Data Protection Commissioner were very strong indeed. I have difficulty in recalling representations expressed in such very strong terms from anyone in that kind of position against a proposal from the Government. Clearly, the commissioner is worried about the conflict between the legislation on which her role is based and the proposals in the Bill.
  Following the response of the commissioner to the consultation exercise, I presume that discussions have taken place on this set of issues either with officials or, as I would have thought more likely, with Ministers. However, we do not find on the Marshalled List any government amendment to meet the serious concerns expressed by the commissioner. Therefore, it is quite probable—I shall leave on one side whether it is a 50 per cent probability or higher—or quite likely even, that the Act under which the commissioner holds her authority and the Bill now before the Committee are in conflict in various respects. The commissioner has set out the issues very cogently. Therefore, as there are always problems if there is a conflict between one piece of legislation and another, it is important that we should be clear whether, if such a conflict were to arise, does arise, is intended to arise or is likely to arise, the provisions of the Bill or the legislation providing the powers for the Data Protection Commissioner's operations will prevail.
  It is a reasonable precaution to ensure that in future we do not find the courts having a real problem in deciding which of two pieces of legislation is the more important. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: I should be grateful for a little advice. At some stage we need to discuss the question of data protection. I had intended to do so during the debate on Clause 1 stand part. Would it be for the greater convenience of the Committee if we were to do so now and get it all over with in one debate?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As long as the noble Earl does not repeat his remarks when we reach Clause 1 stand part.
  10 p.m.
  Earl Russell: That is agreed.
  We need to take into account the disincentive effect on people who may be thinking of depositing their data in a place where they may be looked at. We have seen this with the poll tax, the census and the electoral register. The Minister is well aware that the Government are interested in trying to persuade more people in receipt of benefit to make use of bank accounts in one form or another. It could well be that the prospect of having their data, which they have
  908
  deposited on an understanding of confidence, shared with government in one form or another may have a disincentive effect. That needs to be taken into account in our calculations.
  Under the Data Protection Act, we have a series of criteria which should be taken into account, on which I shall touch briefly. There is the question of transparency. When one gives data to a bank or other institution, an undertaking of confidentiality is agreed and one needs some understanding of exactly who will have access to that data. I appreciate that a later Act of Parliament can override an earlier duty of confidentiality. Proverbially, an Act of Parliament may do whatever it likes, but it does not follow that an Act of Parliament should do whatever it likes. If it does have such a deterrent effect, it may be worth considering how far it should go in doing that under the criterion of fairness.
  The Minister's comments on subsection (20(c) encourage me to say that there will be no need to spend nearly as long on it as I had first intended. However, we have here no additional penalties for the abuse of information. If we are thinking in terms of safeguards under the European Convention on Human Rights, the question of penalties for abuse of information for a purpose other than that for which it was collected is likely to be quite important. Before we are finished with the Bill, we may need to think of an amendment designed to meet that need. However, such an amendment would not be suited to amateur drafting, which is why I have not, at this stage, made arty attempt to advance one. If such an amendment were to be drafted, I should prefer to see it agreed through informal discussion outside the Chamber before it is brought before the Committee. Negotiations over the wording could become rather lengthy.
  Another general principle arises over the question of security. Abuse always takes place in one way or another. However, I made most of my remarks on that matter in the debate on Amendment No. 1 and I shall not return to it. I shall return to only one point on which I have not yet touched; namely, the danger inherent in collecting data on the wrong person. I understand that a serious piece of academic work argues that "Shakespeare" was not written by Shakespeare, but by someone else of the same name. A great many people share the same name as others. If the data produced refer to the wrong person, a great deal of misapprehension may result.
  Until very recently, I was not the only "Lord Russell" in this Chamber. The amount of his post which I received and the amount of my post which he received—in both cases that sometimes still happens—is very large indeed. The danger of a bank revealing that data about one of us in mistake for the other would be real. His grandfather and my father once wrote a joint letter to The Times saying, "Sir, we hereby wish to state that neither of us is the other". If no protection is in place against data being produced about the wrong person, a good many other people may wish to do exactly the same thing before the effect of the Bill is through.

  909
  The question of safeguards and the question of whether the action can be proved to be necessary are both subjects that I addressed in my remarks on Amendment No. 1. They need further thought, but for the moment I shall say no more about them.
  Lord Grabiner: This amendment gives rise to a classic "chicken-and-egg" debate. One should always be wary of such a debate because there may not be a solution readily to hand. The origin of the debate in this context lies in the second paragraph of Article 8 of the convention. That provides:
  "There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right"—
  that is, the right to respect for a private life and so on, which is contained in the first paragraph—
  "except such as is in accordance with the law".
  The point about the Bill is that, if it were to become the law, that would be the law which permits the interference contemplated by paragraph 2 of Article 8. So the result will be that you have in place the Data Protection Act—which ultimately has its origins in these provisions in the human rights convention—and you have the Human Rights Act, both being statutes. In addition, you would then have this Act, if passed, which would be, on this hypothesis, the law.
  The practical consequence of this is that the powers under this new Act will have to be exercised in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act and this Act, if passed. I would therefore conclude that it is certainly not necessary to have the safeguards suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. At the end of the day, if the powers granted under this Act are not properly complied with, there will be a breach of the Data Protection Act. We certainly do not need a provision in this Bill—and ultimately in this Act—to confirm the fact that the Data Protection Act is binding and effective in accordance with its terms. That is why I respectfully suggest that the amendment is not necessary.
  Lord Higgins: I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right to say that it is sensible to clear up the data protection points at this stage of the proceedings. That is not to say that we will necessarily have dealt with all the human rights points, although the human rights aspect is part of the data protection argument. Some human rights points will arise later which we could more conveniently raise in detail on clause stand part—we have had detailed representations on the issue—but certainly let us get the Data Protection Act out of the way now.
  The noble Earl touched a sensitive point when he referred to confusion over names. I have suffered for many years through confusion with the Terrence Higgins Trust—although the Terrence is not spelt the same way. While it does excellent work, I am afraid it has over time caused considerable confusion—although I occasionally get contributions, which I duly pass on. It is a sensitive point. I have had to live with
  910
  it for a long while. He was, unfortunately, the second person to die of AIDS in this country and the trust was named after him.
  The noble Earl has rightly said that an Act of Parliament can, in one way, do whatever it likes. But clearly it would be undesirable to do something in one Act of Parliament which is in conflict or in dispute with another. I bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner.
  Perhaps I may pose one question to the Minister, which she may be able to clarify. If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord seemed to be saying that so far as concerns the doubts about the Data Protection Commission and whether something is done in accordance with law—that if you pass this Act then whatever it says is in accordance with law—as I understand it, that is not the position so far as concerns the Human Rights Act. It has to be in accordance with law in a much broader sense. You cannot simply pass a piece of legislation and that makes it in accordance with law.
  It is an important point. We need to be clear whether there is any genuine conflict between what is now proposed by the Government and what is in the Data Protection Act. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As to the question of mistaken identity, I was required to be "of Heigham"—which is my former ward in the city of Norwich—otherwise I was assured, very emphatically, by we all know who, that I would be confused with a certain Lord Holles, I think of the late 17th century—I look to the noble Earl, Lord Russell—who was both illegitimate and died of an unmentionable disease with no heirs. I was told that without being "of Heigham" I would certainly, and regularly, be receiving his correspondence.
  Earl Russell: If the Minister will forgive my interrupting her, as the other Lord "Holles" spelt his name with an "es", if our spelling had been up to it, the confusion would not have happened.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: However, if I am correct, he did get a bit of land near Oxford Street named after him. So there is life after death.
  The amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill a requirement that,
  "Nothing in this Act shall authorise an inquiry which contravenes any provision of the Data Protection Act 1998".
  As my noble friend Lord Grabiner said, we have no intention of circumventing the Data Protection Act, even if we could. Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act makes it clear that information can be disclosed where the person is authorised by any enactment to supply it. Should the Bill become law, organisations listed in proposed new subsection (2A) of Section 109B would be authorised to provide information to an authorised officer. These provisions would not therefore undermine the Data Protection Act.
  The department is under duties by virtue of the Data Protection Act. These either originate from provisions in the Act or from the information commissioner's

  911
  general duty to enforce good practice. We are under a duty to ensure that the information we obtain is information that we need. The Bill makes it clear that we can obtain information about a person only where it is legitimate to make him the subject of our inquiries, and the existing legislation into which these provisions would be placed makes clear that the information request must be "reasonable" in relation to explicitly set out purposes which relate to whether or not benefit is paid. Hence the noble Lord need have no fears that the Bill would allow us to obtain unnecessary information.
  We must also ensure that what can be done with personal information is transparent. To this end, we shall ensure that benefit claim forms inform people that the information they give us may be checked with other organisations.
  The DSS is also under a duty to tell a person what information we hold about that person, including what we have obtained from other organisations, if he or she makes a subject access request under the Data Protection Act. The only time we should not provide these details is when to do so would jeopardise an ongoing investigation.
  We have agreed to publish a code of practice before implementing these provisions. The code will ensure that people are aware of the detailed operation of the powers.
  In addition, information received from organisations included in the Bill can be passed on to third parties only in circumstances allowed for in the Data Protection Act. Unless we have statutory authority to divulge information, we may do so only if it would help prevent or detect crime. The reference, which was made by my noble friend Lord Grabiner, is to Section 29 of the Data Protection Act, which makes clear that that information may be divulged in those circumstances. In the debate on Amendment No. 1, I sought to make clear that benefit fraud is regarded as high-level fraud for these purposes. Any breach of the Data Protection Act's provisions regarding disclosure could leave an individual subject to criminal proceedings.
  I should mention also that the Data Protection Commissioner, or information commissioner as she is now known, could serve us with an enforcement notice if she felt that we had breached our duties under the Data Protection Act. The Data Protection Act is not breached by this Bill. It will govern the way in which we operate our powers under the Bill and is enforceable via an enforcement notice. There is a lot of protection in the system.
  The noble Earl, Lord Russell, thought that we needed additional penalties for the misuse of information. Existing legislation already provides very heavy penalties—and rightly so. For example, the Data Protection Act makes it an offence knowingly or recklessly to obtain or disclose information. It is subject to an unlimited fine in a Crown Court, so up to £5,00() in a magistrates' court. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 contains offences relating explicitly to the misuse of computers in order to obtain information.
  912
  These offences carry a maximum sentence of up to five years in prison. If the noble Earl believes that additional powers are necessary, over and beyond those, I shall be happy for him to write to me and we shall pursue the matter.
  I assure the Committee that my understanding is that the Bill will not infringe the Data Protection Act. The Data Protection Act will govern the way we operate our powers under this Bill. Should we trespass, then it is enforceable by an enforcement notice. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for such a reassuring response, although I shall need to study what she said. I have just one point requiring clarification. As I understand it, the noble Baroness said that, under the Data Protection Act, anyone drawing social security benefit could serve a form of notice—I have forgotten the Minister's exact form of words—requesting the department to reveal what information it holds on him. Presumably, that would cover the information already available if one wanted to know what one's credit rating was, and so on. But does that mean that an individual can ask to see absolutely everything that the department has obtained with regard to his personal affairs?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am awaiting confirmation on that point. However, my understanding is that anyone who is a benefit claimant can request the DSS to give him a copy of the information that is held under his name. Relying on my memory, I believe that we have had something like 20,000 such requests over the past few years. However, I may be wrong in that respect. It is certainly true to say that the power has been exercised occasionally. As with health records, it can be a useful way of ensuring that no mistakes have been made.
  Lord Higgins: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation, which I find rather surprising. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
  ("( ) No information in possession of any government department relating to any person who is the subject of an inquiry shall be conveyed or shared with any person or body as specified in subsection (2A) above.").
  The noble Lord said: In the course of a Bill as complicated as the one now before us one tends to develop one's own jargon as regards a particular issue. The jargon that I have attached to this set of amendments is "reciprocity". The main thrust of the Bill is to enable the DSS and local authorities to obtain information from the whole string of different organisations listed in the first part of Clause 1.

  913
  Sometimes the Government will be paying for the information but, more generally, they will not be paying for it.
  In the responses to the consultation document provided by various outside organisations there was a tendency to say, "If we give you the information, you ought to give us some information in return"; in other words, there would be a reciprocal arrangement. I referred to one such organisation at Second Reading. As I understand it there is an organisation called CIFAS, which operates in this field. I understand that the Government have no intention whatever that this should be so—that is to say, the credit rating agencies will not be able to say, "We'll tell you what is happening to this particular individual if you tell us something about his income tax return". This is an important point.
  In the response to the consultation there seemed to be some expectation that such a deal might be struck. Therefore, I thought it worth while to raise the point at this stage. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on my amendment. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord's amendment seeks to place limits on the information that the department—indeed, government in general—is able to give back to the organisations from which it has obtained information. That is a perfectly laudable aim and was presumably intended as a safeguard against the inappropriate exchange of personal information with the private sector.
  I take it that the noble Lord is seeking to ensure that we do not send information back, rather than that we do. Is that correct?
  Lord Higgins: Yes, I think so.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I rather thought that this was another of the noble Lord's schizophrenic amendments.
  Either way, the amendment is unnecessary and would fail in its intended purposes. It is unnecessary because we have no plans to exchange sensitive information about people who may be the subject of an inquiry with information providers. I was trying to think of an example that might persuade the noble Lord. It could be of very real interest to a building society or a mortgage lender to know about someone's outgoings in terms of the number of children that he has to maintain. The number of children involved may not only be those in the immediate family; indeed, there might also be children who are known to the CSA in another family, or who were part of a relationship about which his current partner knows nothing. Clearly, that would be very sensitive information which it would be highly inappropriate to send back, even though the mortgage lending company might think it germane to its inquiries. That would be extremely offensive in terms of any concept of privacy and the right of people to expect the DSS to protect sensitive information.
  914
  We are taking steps to ensure that such information does not find its way back to the private sector. We have already had the discussion about not leaving footprints behind with credit reference agencies. However, we know that fraudsters do not respect organisational boundaries and that the people who commit fraud against the benefit system may well try to commit it against the private sector or other organisations in the public sector.
  While trying to ring fence sensitive information which it would be inappropriate to disclose, we are trying to be helpful—as I say, we have had this debate—about giving information that is non-sensitive and non-personal. I gave the example of giving information about someone who was already dead. However, the noble Lord will be aware that our inquiries may at any time uncover fraud against one or more of the organisations that we seek information from. The effect of his amendment would be to prevent us informing a company that it is the victim of fraud and that we had information that might help put a stop to it. The exemption that allows us to pass on information about criminal acts is contained in that self-same Section 29 of the Data Protection Act and in common law.
  In fact, the amendment goes further than that. It would also prevent any other government department from passing on such information. For example, if we made inquiries about a person suspected of benefit fraud, we would effectively prevent the Inland Revenue from informing a bank about its suspicions of his involvement in mortgage fraud. Perversely, the amendment would not apply to people about whom we have not sought information. What I am trying to say to the noble Lord is that it is rather a bad amendment on all possible grounds. We shall not exchange personal information about people whether they are the subject of our inquiries or not, except in the circumstances covered by Section 29 that I have described. I hope that in the light of those comments the noble Lord will wish to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I do not think that the amendment covers the point she made about transferring information from the DSS to the Inland Revenue as it is not specified in subsection (2A). One can see that there may well be a case for exchanging information within government. I shall need to consider the other points which the noble Baroness made as regards people who are dead. Obviously if a pension is continuing to be drawn when the person whose life was insured has departed, it may be appropriate to inform the pensions department of that. However, that raises issues as regards how far that measure will extend. What prompted the amendment with all its faults was the suggestion in a representation, which I believe came from CIFAS, that it would do a deal; that is, it would give information to the Government if the Government

  915
  would give it information. I understood that that was not something that the Government would go along with. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: A number of financial organisations would dearly like to have additional information held by the DSS. I was not clear whether the noble Lord argued that they should or should not have that. They will not get it. However, we are considering whether we can release to them non-sensitive, non-personal information, for example, address verifications or verifications of deaths, which are obviously relevant to companies paying out insurance policies. These organisations have asked us about stolen/blank death, birth, marriage certificates and bogus national insurance numbers. We are considering those matters and we are talking with organisations to see whether we can be helpful in a common activity against fraud without in any sense endangering someone's right to privacy in terms of the sensitive information we hold.
  I do not know whether that reply helps the noble Lord. However, we shall not give the private sector any information about a claimant's benefit details. However, as I say, we are considering some of the other more neutral areas such as information on national insurance numbers or checking whether someone has died and therefore whether an annuity should not continue to be paid. We are considering whether that information could usefully be made available. Perhaps, after all, we are on the same side; namely, that we do not wish to see sensitive information going round the system out there in the private sector. Equally, if in non-sensitive areas we can help in checking fraud, we shall do so.
  Lord Higgins: Let me be clear. I am not in favour of reciprocity in the way I described. The Minister said that there may be occasions where information would be transferred which was not sensitive and personal. Clearly, the information would be personal because it relates to an individual. What is sensitive is a matter of judgment.
  It has been helpful to have the discussion. We shall need to consider what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): Before calling Amendment No. 37 I have to advise the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 38 or 39 due to pre-emption.
  [Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
  Lord Grabiner Lord Grabiner moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 2, line 45, after ("(2B)") insert ("or (2C)").
  The noble Lord said: We have already debated the amendment in the context of Amendments Nos. 20 and 22. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Grabiner Lord Grabiner moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 2, line 46, leave out from ("officer") to ("whose").
  The noble Lord said: I tabled the amendment in order to raise a question. As presently drafted, the power which would be granted by the Bill in new subsection (2D) is concerned with information to be obtained from utility providers. The intention is to give that power only to an authorised officer who is an official of a government department.
  My amendment would not limit the power to the government department official. It would enable an authorised officer appointed by a local authority to have these powers.
  My concern is that both housing benefit and council tax benefit are administered by local authorities and I do not understand why this power should not be provided to local authorities as well. The relevant safeguards are already in the Bill. First, the power could be exercised only by an authorised officer; and, secondly, the limited subject matter of the power—namely, whether or not gas, water or electricity is consumed at identified premises—is hardly earth shattering in data protection terms. It is low grade information. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: I like the policy intention underlying the amendment. I wonder whether the amendment is the best way to achieve it. If we have the amendment in this form, we do not only authorise local government—I think that there is quite a strong case for that—we shall also allow authorisation of a wide variety of people who might be acting on the Government's behalf, those possibly in the private security industry. That could raise questions about which we might be less happy. If that is an unnecessary worry, I shall be happy to be told so.
  Lord Grabiner: I understand that the expression "authorised officer" is elsewhere defined in the master legislation into which these provisions would go. I do not think that it would extend as far as the noble Earl suggests. I should have to be advised about that, but I believe that to be the position.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My noble friend is right in his reply but it does not make me like his amendment any the more.
  The amendment would remove the requirement that in order to obtain information about consumption from a utility company the authorised officer should be an official of a government department. This in effect opens up the use of the power to local authority officers.
  The way that we envisage the information that we receive from utility companies being handled means that this extension of the power to local authority investigators is unnecessary. We do not intend—I do not think that it would be reasonable—that investigators at local level, whether employed by the DSS or local authorities, would approach utility companies to obtain bulk information about consumption. They will, of course, be able to use the

  917
  powers in new subsection (2A) to get information about individuals where they have ground for doing so. But what this power is about is getting bulk information for matching against our social security records. We shall do this through our data matching service based in the North West. It should be necessary only for authorised officers carrying out this data matching to use the power.
  Local authorities will be a major beneficiary of the results of these data matches as they are expected to reveal residency fraud which is a major concern as regards housing benefit. But they will not have to extract the data from the utilities themselves. We will do it for them through our existing housing benefit matching information service.
  I hope that that explanation satisfies my noble friend's concern and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Grabiner: At this hour of the night it would be entirely inappropriate for me to have cross words with my noble friend. We can have this discussion elsewhere. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
  ("(2F) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as conveying a right to use information gained under this Act for any purpose other than that of detecting social security fraud, or to communicate such information to anyone not otherwise authorised to receive it."").
  The noble Earl said: I do not know to what extent the amendment may be necessary. I look forward to the Minister's remarks on that. However, it contains a principle that needs to be asserted. Under the general principle of the need for safeguards, information that is gathered under the powers of the Bill should be confined to the purposes for which its collection has been authorised. Information is like an oil slick—it has a remarkable habit of spreading into all sorts of places where it is not wanted. The Bill creates a formidable machine for information-gathering. We need to make provision to ensure that that machine shall not be driven on the pavement.
  I do not know in what ways the amendment might or might not be necessary. I look forward to enlightenment on that. Even if it is not formally necessary, we should bear in mind that to some extent legislation has a hortatory effect. It is read. Not everybody who reads the Bill will have listened to the Minister's excellent replies on Amendment No. 35. Not everybody will know about the security provided in the Data Protection Act. The public reaction to the Bill might be more favourable with the restriction spelled out than without. The consent of the public to the existence of such sweeping powers will be a large
  918
  part of their effectiveness. The department might be wise to bear that in mind. In hope of the Minister's answer, I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I understand where the noble Earl is coming from. I shall seek to allay his fears.
  The aim of the amendment is to prevent the DSS and local authorities using information obtained under the Bill for purposes other than detecting social security fraud and to prevent us disclosing it to people not authorised to receive it.
  Clause 1 sets out the circumstances in which we could require information about an individual and about the quantity of utilities supplied to addresses. The information that we obtain under those powers may not be used for any other purpose unless there is a statutory provision allowing for that.
  I shall explain the ways in which the law allows us to use such information. We took powers in the Social Security Act 1998 to allow us to use any information that we obtained for any other purpose connected with functions in relation to social security, child support or war pensions. Obtaining accurate information can sometimes be a time-consuming exercise. Claimants and groups that work with them, such as CABs, tell us that they want to be able to interact with the department in a much more convenient way. They want to provide information only once. They want a correct and reliable spine of information to be available—an architecture on which the benefits system can be built. They expect one area of the department to know what they have told another. The exasperated claims that I hear from people who have told the CSA one thing, but we have not passed it on to the Benefits Agency when they believe that we should have done, are evidence of that.
  Through initiatives such as the ONE pilots, we are demonstrating our commitment to trying to produce a client-centred rather than a benefit-centred approach. However, that would fall at the first hurdle if we could not pass information throughout the social security system. It is also important from the cost point of view to be able to obtain information only once.
  It is important that the information that we obtain under the Bill can be used for any social security purpose. For example, if we obtained information from a bank that a claimant had considerable savings, not only would we stop that person claiming benefit, we would also wish to re-examine his child support arrangements to ensure that he was meeting his responsibilities in maintaining his children. We would not expect the Child Support Agency accidentally to find that person and discover that he was failing to declare his income to that agency, too.
  The principle of using information efficiently and effectively is a government-wide issue. Should any information held by the DSS assist other departments to perform their functions more effectively, we should be able to share that information.

  919
  Statutory powers allow us to provide information to the Department for Education and Employment, Customs & Excise, the Inland Revenue, the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. Those powers clearly set out the purposes for which information may be transferred; in other words, they are highly transparent. For example, legislation in the Jobseekers Act 1995 enables the DSS to share information with the Department for Education and Employment which determines a person's availability for work. Should we obtain information that a person is studying full-time, that would affect his or her availability for work and we may need to share that information with the DfEE.
  Finally, the DSS, like any other organisation, can provide information to other organisations where that helps to prevent and detect crime. On that point, we return to Section 29 of the Data Protection Act. Therefore, in highly specific circumstances we may be in a position to provide information to the police.
  Local authorities also need to share some information to help to prevent fraud in housing and council tax benefits. Therefore, social security legislation allows local authorities to share housing benefit and council tax benefit information with each other and with the DSS.
  The Committee will be interested to know how long the department retains information for such purposes. It is normally held for approximately 18 months, but that period could be extended in the case of an ongoing action. From July, the retention period will be reduced to 14 months. We are not talking about a vague data bank which is held in perpetuity.
  Members of the Committee have expressed concerns that information obtained under the powers could be disclosed inappropriately where no legislation existed to allow the disclosure. Perhaps I may reassure the Committee that we are experienced in holding DSS information securely. That point arose in our discussions on an earlier amendment.
  We have already produced a detailed protection of customer information guide. That sets out clearly the legislation which governs the protection of information and the disciplinary and legal consequences for staff who fail to act properly. Again, that is a subject on which I have already touched. It also provides guidance on such matters as what should be considered when making a decision about whether to disclose information—for example, whether the disclosure is necessary and whether legislation permits it—and what information should be recorded about the disclosure.
  That guide is published on the DSS internet site. Staff who do not follow the guidance are subject to disciplinary procedures and, where appropriate, will he prosecuted under Section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That section provides for an offence of unlawfully disclosing information obtained during social security administration. It is punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years, and so on. Safeguards are also provided under the Data Protection Act and the Computer Misuse Act. The
  920
  existing provisions ensure that those who disclose information unlawfully can be punished. They provide a deterrent.
  I wish to make one other point. It may not have been the noble Lord's intent, but the effect of the amendment would be to amend at a sweep all the provisions of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That is the main legislation governing the administration of benefit. Therefore, we would be prevented from obtaining any information under its provisions for any purpose other than detecting social security fraud. That would prevent us, for example, collecting any information on the basis of which we could pay benefit to claimants. Therefore, this is not only, so to speak, an amendment which wrecks the Bill but an amendment which wrecks the entire social security system in one fell swoop.
  We would look to maximise the use of any information which we obtain, as the public and business rightly expect. Should information be useful for other social security purposes, we would use it within the framework of the law. In order to maximise efficiency, we would, where appropriate, also make available to other departments information which was useful to them, but, again, only where the law allowed us to do so. We have strong guidance which governs the disclosure of information, and strong safeguards to prevent disclosure which is not allowed for by law.
  Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will agree that we should not expect a person to submit separate pieces of information when he may be receiving housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support, child support, and so on, and possibly disability benefit as well. Asking him to repeat the same information five, six or seven times over with the possibility of error, which would lead to the information being thrown out by data-matching, is not something that we should contemplate lightly. Against that background, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Throughout, my emphasis has been that any exchange or passing on of such information must be transparent. That is within the framework of the law. The information which we seek to obtain will be used for the purpose of prosecuting fraud. I believe that that is a matter of common ground between us.
  Earl Russell: The Minister reminds me of an incident that took place in this House in 1641 during the prosecution of the Earl of Strafford. He was asked by prosecuting counsel, "Is the noble Earl arguing whether this kingdom be this kingdom?". The Minister is telling me that this Bill is not this Bill. That alone would have prevented me from pressing the amendment further tonight had I been minded to do so, which I am not.
  The Minister makes a very persuasive case about conveying data from one place to another, especially with regard to the CSA and the Benefits Agency. The number of cases about which I have heard in which mothers were left without income because their

  921
  maintenance stopped but their benefits did not kick in is legion. That alone would be enough to require us to consider the matter seriously.
  I confess that the Minister has not entirely allayed my concerns about this matter. She invoked the Data Protection Act 1998—I had wondered whether she would. I remember our debates on that legislation during its passage through the House—I participated in them. I felt the same uneasy and hesitant misgivings about that legislation that I feel about the Bill. I could see a strong case in favour of it but strong grounds to be hesitant about it. That view was shared by the citizens advice bureaux, whose name the Minister invoked. She will remember the briefs that it submitted on the 1998 Act. In the end, after a great deal of hesitation, I decided that I was prepared to accept the Bill that became the 1998 Act as the lesser of two evils, roughly along the lines of our debate on Clause 1. However, I did not know then that the 1998 Act would have a ratchet effect—it will be used together with the powers conferred on it in the present Bill. A salami-slicing process is involved, which increases the powers of the executive. If that is to continue in future legislation, it could cause considerable misgivings. By invoking the 1998 Act and recalling my hesitations about it, the Minister made me wonder whether I was right to let it go through as freely as I did. That may slightly damage the case that she wanted to achieve.
  I am prepared to consider some variation of the amendment for future use. I should be happy to discuss whether there is any prospect of doing so constructively, which there may be.
  The Minister said that the data cannot be used for any other purpose unless an Act of Parliament provides otherwise. There would be real propaganda advantages in terms of public reaction in having a restriction even as limited as that spelt out in the Bill. That would mean that anything that involved communicating the data in the future would have to come before Parliament. It could also possibly be useful with regard to the ECHR charter and the argument about safeguards.
  The Minister will not necessarily want to discuss that question across the Committee tonight, but I should he very grateful if we could discuss it in future. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 3, line 23, at beginning insert ("subject to subsection (6A) below,").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 42, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 44.
  The amendments were motivated to a large extent by the serious concerns of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee about the width of the power in proposed new subsection (6)(a) of what is Section 109B of the Administration Act. That proposed new
  922
  subsection will allow the Government by order to add any person without any qualification to the list of persons from whom information can be demanded.
  I see a case for allowing some possibility of developing new methods of electronic communication. One thinks perhaps of a replacement of the Student Loans Company or of bodies similar to those now included in subsection (2A) from which it would be appropriate to obtain information. It may be undesirable that that should require primary legislation each time a change is made. But at the same time, the power could clearly be exercised by order so as to include those who are plainly unsuitable as persons from whom information could be required.
  Those now listed in subsection (2A) are people who obtain what might be called routine information in the course of their business or undertakings. For example, utility bills identify whether or not somebody is a student at an educational establishment, and so forth. But it is plainly not limited to that. In our view, it is desirable that there should be certain exclusions from the list of people who could be added. In particular, we are concerned with those people to whom the subject of the inquiry has gone to obtain advice or professional information. That includes the legal professional privilege. No doubt if that legal professional privilege stood alone, the information could not be ordered to be disclosed because to do so would be a breach of the Human Rights Act.
  But the amendment goes considerably wider than that. It would cover information received from citizens advice bureaux or other advice agencies, and advice provided by them by people who were not lawyers, and so legal professional privilege could not be obtained. In those circumstances the restriction imposed by Amendments Nos. 42 and 44 is one that will cause no harm to the purposes of this Bill, but will be a reasonable and proper protection for those who seek and provide information in the course of seeking advice. I beg to move.
  Lord Astor of Hever: I support Amendments Nos. 42 and 44. The safeguard to protect individuals so eloquently suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seems eminently sensible and I agree with him that it will cause no harm to the Bill.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This issue was raised perfectly properly at Second Reading. The amendment seeks to prevent us adding those who provide advice or professional assistance to the list of organisations that could be required to provide information. In particular, the noble Lord had in mind lawyers and members of the CAB.
  I have already stated that we shall not add lawyers to the list of organisations which could be required to provide information. I also made it clear at Second Reading that in the same way we shall not be adding CAB. We have not sought to make such groups exempt from the provisions of the Bill because it is not necessary to do so. The order-making power to extend the list of organisations that can be required to provide information is subject to the affirmative procedure.

  923
  Parliament would thus have the opportunity to consider whether any new proposals were an appropriate use of the power
  This amendment may go further than providing such protection. "Advice" is a rather wide term and could cover, for example, the advice given by a building society in response to a mortgage application. We would not want to be prevented obtaining information about a property that someone had failed to declare when making a claim for benefit. In light of the substantive point that to add professional or confidential advice to the list of organisations would require the affirmative parliamentary procedure, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister. I think that we have a problem here. The Minister stated that the Government have no intention of extending subsection (2A) to CABs or similar bodies. Nevertheless, that is not covered by Pepper v Hart. The declaration has no binding effect and in no way binds any future government. In those circumstances I am not altogether happy with the fact that there is no restriction of any kind. It may be possible to draft something which is more satisfactory to the Government which achieves the object we seek. However, we shall consider the matter. We may return to it at a later date.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord why he is not content with the affirmative procedure, which seems to me to be a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny and should surely abate his fears.
  Lord Goodhart: [f something is plainly undesirable—I believe that information which is obtained by somebody who goes confidentially to obtain advice should not be subject to disclosure under the Bill—it is better to exclude it on the face of the Bill rather than to say that it will be covered by the affirmative procedure. Equally, one could say that it does not matter if the procedure is negative because it can always be prayed against. If, plainly, it should not be the subject of an order and can reasonably well be defined, it should be on the face of the Bill and not in secondary legislation. Having said that, it is not my intention to press the matter tonight. I shall ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. However, before I do that, I believe that my noble friend wishes to speak.
  Earl Russell: I am grateful to my noble friend. Before we finish with this, I have a further answer to the Minister's point about the affirmative resolution. She should have been expecting it; I have made it many times before. It is only an adequate assurance if it is regularly accepted that it is the normal practice of the House to vote on statutory instruments. We are in a state of suspense on that at the moment. It is accepted in large parts of the House that we do so. At present it is done only on high days and holy days, which means
  924
  that there is a limited amount of control, but not as much as there is through a Bill. I do not know what the attitude of the Labour Party might be on this matter were it to find itself again in opposition. One takes it for granted that every government deplores voting on regulations and always will. But what its attitude might be in opposition, should that happen, would be material. I do not know whether the Minister has anything to add. There are two questions here: scrutiny and control. The affirmative procedure gives scrutiny; it is only if it also gives control that it is an acceptable answer to this sort of concern.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not want to go into a debate which this Chamber has enjoyed many times. The affirmative procedure gives this House scrutiny; it gives the other House control. The problem I have always had with the position of the noble Earl on the right to vote down affirmative orders in this House—I speak as an individual at least as much as a member of the Government—is that I do not think it right that this House should have equal power with the elected Chamber to block secondary legislation. That is where I stand. That would mean that the elected Chamber could pass an affirmative order or agree it and, by voting it down, we could block the will of the other House prevailing. That is where my problems lie. I do not believe that a secondary chamber, especially as we are not an elected secondary chamber, has any authority or legitimacy to do that.
  Earl Russell: My problem with that is that equal power with another place to control the Government is no power whatever. Unless they are controlled here they are controlled nowhere.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That will remain the difference between us.
  Lord Goodhart: I am sorry that we do not have time to pursue that issue, which is extremely interesting and important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: When we began debating the Bill—it seems a long time ago—I said that two themes would run through it. One was data protection and the other was human rights. There is some relationship between the two but, as I have said at various stages, it seems to me appropriate to deal with the second issue on the Question whether the clause shall stand part.
  Although we have touched on the human rights issue in various amendments, we have not considered other detailed points. I believe that it would be appropriate to do so now but I do not intend to raise other matters which we have considered comprehensively when debating individual amendments.

  925
  It is important to deal with the matter because under the present arrangements the Minister responsible for the Bill is obliged to give an assurance. That appears on the first page of the Bill. Under the heading "EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS", we see the statement:
  "The Baroness Hollis of Heigham has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a): In my view the provisions of the Social Security Fraud Bill [H.L.] are compatible with the Convention rights".
  I have two initial questions to ask about that. It is stated that the Bill is
  "compatible with the Convention rights"
  rather than with the implementing legislation which we have subsequently and rather dramatically passed. Perhaps the Minister would clarify why that is done in terms of the treaty rights rather than the domestic rights.
  Secondly, we are still unclear about the level at which the advice, no doubt advice on which the Minister made her statement, is being given. We do not know whether it comes from within the department, from the Law Officers, from the Foreign Office lawyers or whoever? It is relevant in the context of this Bill because Members of the Committee will have received a notice from Justice setting out a number of problems with the Bill. We must consider whether the advice which the Minister is receiving is likely to be of equal quality or weight to that embodied in the representations made to us by Justice. It would be helpful to know how expert are those advising the noble Baroness.
  Justice, in its recommendations, is very clear. It states:
  "The extent of the intrusions into privacy rights, sanctioned by the Bill as presently drafted, is unlikely to be justifiable under Article 8 of the convention. In the light of this, the statement of compatibility made in respect of the Bill under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act may need to be reconsidered".
  That is an important statement.
  It is the case that had we accepted Amendment No. 1 much of the doubt expressed by the representations we have received would have been put at rest. Paragraph 15 of the note points out that a minimum safeguard Justice considers fair should be prior judicial authorisation for the compulsory acquisition of information in each particular case. It goes on to cite Klaus v Germany in the European Court of Human Rights to that effect.
  However, the Committee has not accepted Amendment No. 1. That raises the question whether the doubts which have been expressed in this respect are valid, and the dangers if they are not. I am not sure what the consequences will be if they are not. Irrespective of whether that will be resolved by the Human Rights Act being invoked or the European Court of Human Rights, at all events it lends strength to the argument that Amendment No. 1 is important and should be reconsidered on Report.
  Having said that, a number of the comments made by the Minister this evening lead one to believe that some of the complaints about the Bill as it now stands
  926
  may not in the event turn out to be a problem. We spent some time debating the question of whether something is likely to be a contravention of social security law. I believe that it was implied that the Minister would look at it and perhaps clear up that particular point. The other remarks related to subsection (2C)(c). The suggestion that that matter will be eliminated by Amendment No. 32, or something like it, also helps to reassure those who are concerned about the position under the convention.
  Another important point is the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation which expresses concerns, which are reflected in the recommendations of Justice, about whether the order-making powers are too great. The Select Committee suggested that various assurances might be given with regard to the uses of the powers in Clause 6(8) and (10).
  11 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Has the noble Lord had access to the sixth report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That is the committee's response to the Government's response to the fifth report. If so, the noble Lord will see that the committee says that the Government have responded constructively and satisfactorily.
  Lord Higgins: In that case, I take the point. If so, is it the case that the assurances have been comprehensively put together and laid before the House as a clear package, as the Select Committee recommended?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes.
  Lord Higgins: Obviously, I accept what the Minister says on that point. None the less, we shall need to consider carefully at later stages of the Bill the extent to which the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention; in particular, whether the various provisions of subsection (2C) are proportionate to the requirements of the legislation and sufficiently specific. However, in that respect the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, about making the provision relate to a particular individual may be helpful. Other than that, I believe that it would be helpful to have the Minister's comments on the points that I raise.
  Lord Goodhart: I rise only because the noble Lord's reference to Justice reminds me that earlier I should have made a declaration of interest. I am a vice-chairman of the council of Justice. As an officer of that organisation, it is right that I declare that interest.
  Lord Grabiner: I shall be very brief. The reason for brevity, apart from the fact that it is my natural inclination, is that I believe that the debate which may otherwise result from the notice of intention to oppose the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill will be much more fruitful when the Committee sees the wording of the Bill in the light of amendments accepted thus far and the amendments which the

  927
  Committee anticipates will be tabled by my noble friend. So I do not propose at this hour to devote time to discussing the specific point, save to pick up two matters.
  The noble Lord drew attention to the language of the endorsement on the face of the Bill. My understanding is that that is in absolutely standard form and is entirely consistent with the requirements of Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act, a provision to which the noble Lord specifically referred. That is precisely what the endorsement says. The meaning of convention rights is defined in Section 1 of the 1998 Act as encompassing the relevant provisions of the articles of the convention and the relevant articles of the first and sixth protocols as read with Articles 16 to 18 of the convention. It is in standard form.
  I, too, should disclose a position in Justice. It is not as dignified as that of my noble friend; I am a mere council member. But I want to enter a note of caution in this discussion. Every person has a view about whether or not what we are discussing and the kinds of matters we have been discussing today are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The mere fact that someone, however distinguished, from whatever organisation, however outstanding and wonderful, expresses a view about these matters should be taken careful account of.
  But at the end of the day these are essentially judgmental matters. They are about reasonableness, fairness and common sense. Part of the process involves the debate that we have been having today. My own view, for what it is worth, is that what we have been discussing and what we have so far been agreeing to has all been in accordance with the requirements of the convention and compatible with it. If I felt that it was not, I would not have gone along with it. But I think that that discussion would be much more fruitfully had in the light of a clearer and cleaner version of Clause 1.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I know that this is a debate on Clause I stand part but I do not intend to tire the Committee by reviewing what we have discussed and established so far. I shall be extremely brief—the more so as my noble friend Lord Grabiner has addressed much better than I could the human rights issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
  928
  The Bill is a balance. It is about powers to obtain information that we need in order to safeguard taxpayers' money against fraud, but it limits those powers to inquiries that we believe are reasonable. Elsewhere, there are safeguards against the unauthorised obtaining and disclosure of information. I have also outlined what amounts in my view to a comprehensive system of administrative safeguard.
  To come to the point which is at the core of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, we have no doubt that these measures are both necessary and proportionate to the problem. We are confident that they comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and data protection legislation. They are measures which uphold people's rights while providing us with the powers we need to check for cheats.
  The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about the status of legal advice. My advice comes from department lawyers and from Foreign and Commonwealth Office lawyers. My advice has been that the Government's position and these provisions are compatible with convention rights. We could, as my noble friend Lord Grabiner said, argue about whose lawyer knows better. But I do think that the core of the concerns which gave rise to issues about human rights were largely associated with new subsection (2C)(c).
  I shall do my best to come back with wording that might satisfy your Lordships and look at the repercussions and read-across. In the light of that, I am confident that what I have signed remains correct. I took it on sound legal advice and I have every reason to believe that the Bill properly balances the pursuit of fraud while protecting the human rights and the rights of individuals appropriately to privacy where their privacy is not a shelter against serious fraud. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will allow Clause 1 to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at eleven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Asylum Appeals: Website
  Asylum Appeals: Website
  Domestic Property Revaluation and Council Tax
  Domestic Property Revaluation and Council Tax
  Flood Damage: Local Authority Claims
  Flood Damage: Local Authority Claims
  Forty-four Tonne Lorries
  Forty-four Tonne Lorries
  Culture Online
  Culture Online
  Inheritance Tax
  Inheritance Tax
  Long-term Care Insurance: Tax Position
  Long-term Care Insurance: Tax Position
  AVGAS Sales: Duty
  AVGAS Sales: Duty
  Army Heavy Logistic Support Vehicles
  Army Heavy Logistic Support Vehicles
  National Blood Service and Anal Sex
  National Blood Service and Anal Sex
  BT Local Exchange Unbundling and Broadband Services
  BT Local Exchange Unbundling and Broadband Services
  Criminal Records Bureau: Charges to Voluntary Bodies
  Criminal Records Bureau: Charges to Voluntary Bodies
  Emergencies: Co-ordinated Response
  Emergencies: Co-ordinated Response
  Treaty on European Union, Treaty of Nice and Position of United Kingdom and Ireland Protocol
  Treaty on European Union, Treaty of Nice and Position of United Kingdom and Ireland Protocol
  Data Protection Code of Practice: E-mail Monitoring
  Data Protection Code of Practice: E-mail Monitoring