Sitting of 5 February 2001

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

    Laboratory Employees (Intimidation)
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What measures he is taking to protect the employees of laboratories conducting medical research involving animals from intimidation by militant animal rights activists. [147087]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As I told the House last week during the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, we intend to give the police additional powers to ensure that businesses and individuals can go about their lawful business without fear of violence or intimidation. The measures will allow the police to take action to prevent extremists from protesting outside people's homes and will strengthen the law against the sending of malicious communications.
    In addition, we are consulting closely with the police service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to achieve an effective and consistent approach to the enforcement of the law in this area.
    Dr. Iddon: The Government have already done a great deal to cut out unnecessary animal testing, but is my right hon. Friend aware that if the current harassment of workers continues, animal testing will be driven abroad, where regulations are not as stringent as those in this country? That will not only damage a world-class pharmaceutical industry and defeat one of the prime objectives of the campaigners but will result in a loss of jobs.
    Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. So-called animal rights protesters are at best misguided, and, frankly, many of them are evil, both in their intention and their actions. We need to recognise that many medical advances are based on necessary animal testing.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is a farm in Hall Cross in my constituency which breeds guinea pigs and other animals for testing, specifically to find cures for diseases and to create vaccines and so forth, and that its staff and owners have been intimidated? Does the right hon. Gentleman not
    644
    think that such animal fascism practised by human beings is totally wrong? The irony is that British pharmaceutical companies will simply import guinea pigs and mice from abroad, where there are not regular inspections of the kind that the Home Office conducts here.
    Mr. Straw: I do not know that particular farm, but I have great personal knowledge of a similar farm in west Oxfordshire, where I know the farmer and his wife. That farmer was subject to the most appalling intimidation by so-called animal rights protesters. In the end, he decided to close his cattery, with exactly the consequence, I imagine, that the hon. Gentleman has described; I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I concur entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) about the importance of the work. One of the difficulties is the lack of public understanding of some of the important issues surrounding the processes used by pharmaceutical companies in developing drugs that are essential to our lives. Will my right hon. Friend consider liaising, through the Department of Health, with the chief medical officer to try to introduce into the public domain a simple guide explaining why animal testing is essential? Some of the activists are winning the argument unnecessarily, and I am sure it is possible to persuade the public otherwise.
    Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall certainly take the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health; but British pharmaceutical companies could do more together, through their association, to publicise all the drugs and changes in medical and surgical procedures which have been dependent on animal experimentation, and I urge them to do so.
    Mr. David Lidington: I endorse the Home Secretary's approach. Does he agree, however, that one of the underlying problems that allows such terrorism to take place is the public availability of the home addresses of directors and ordinary shareholders of public companies? I invite him to take the lead in trying to achieve joined-up government on this matter because I was advised by one of his ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry on 8 January that that Department is unlikely to consider introducing legislation to change the requirements to disclose home addresses until late in 2002 at the earliest. Does the Home Secretary agree that the terrorism and intimidation occurring at people's homes at the moment is utterly intolerable in a liberal or civilised society? I urge him to contact his ministerial colleagues to see whether other Departments can follow the lead that he is taking in Whitehall.
    Mr. Straw: I agree that this problem is also faced by the directors and shareholders of the companies. My colleague at the Department of Trade and Industry, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, was right to say that the DTI is unlikely to introduce legislation until 2002. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are actively considering whether there is a vehicle in this Parliament which would allow us to take powers to do exactly what he, and I believe the whole House, wishes to be done.

    Crime Statistics (Northamptonshire)
    Mr. Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on the levels of crime in Northamptonshire. [147088]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): In the 12 months to September 2000, recorded crime in Northamptonshire fell by 9.5 per cent. compared with the previous 12 months. Domestic burglary was down by 14 per cent. and vehicle crime by 15 per cent. Only two forces in England and Wales had a larger overall decrease than Northamptonshire.
    Mr. Hope: The falling crime rate and extra police officers in Corby and east Northamptonshire are welcome news to people in urban and rural areas. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), visited the Kingswood estate in my constituency a few days ago and saw at first hand not only our problems but the way in which the police and the community are working together in partnership, and with the extra Government money, to reduce burglary.
    Problems remain, however: cars continue to be vandalised and homes broken into. The effect on the victims is devastating. People's perceptions of whether the estate is a safe place to live are also affected. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will consider seriously—and I hope respond positively to—the Kingswood estate's bid for CCTV cameras to help reduce the fear of crime?
    Mr. O'Brien: We will certainly consider the bid seriously. Of course, I cannot guarantee the outcome. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South, who visited Kingswood recently says that he saw the partnerships between the police, local authorities and, indeed, my hon. Friend, who has contributed enormously to building those relationships. My right hon. Friend also said that those partnerships were dynamic and were seriously addressing the problems of crime in Corby. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that. We shall do all that we can to maintain the position that, under Labour, crime is falling and police numbers are increasing.

    Asylum Support
    Mr. John Randall: What discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the dispersal of asylum seekers. [147089]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I regularly meet local authority representatives to discuss issues that arise from the introduction of the national asylum support service. I visited Newcastle recently to meet representatives of the north-east regional consortium for asylum support.
    Mr. Randall: The Department's dispersal strategy does not cover unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. My local authority, the London borough of Hillingdon, is currently suffering a funding gap of £3 million in providing services for those children. Now that the Department has
    646
    responsibilities for such funding, can the Minister assure my constituents that adequate funding will be available to my local authority?
    Mrs. Roche: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the important matter of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Last year, Hillingdon received £500 per week for each unaccompanied minor aged up to and including 15, and £300 per week for each asylum seeker aged 16 or 17.
    We will consider the responses to the consultation document. The Department is in active contact with local authorities. The subject is important, which is why I have taken a close personal interest in it.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: My hon. Friend knows that unaccompanied minors become the responsibility of the NASS when they are 18. Unlike other children who are in local authority care, they are not subject to the provisions of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, under which we expect local authorities to follow children up when they become 18. Dispersal causes problems for children who have been in care and who are subsequently moved, thus losing the support of the area in which they lived. Will my hon. Friend discuss the matter again with local authorities to ascertain whether we can devise a better system for those children?
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend makes an important point based on his knowledge as chairman of the all-party group on refugees. My officials are in contact with other officials on the matter. We are considering whether children can be catered for when they go on to the NASS. I assure my hon. Friend that we take account of people's location for the purposes of examinations and the educational cycle.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Does the Minister believe that it is humane, as part of the dispersal technique, to require a young Rwandan refugee who lives in Beckenham to attend an interview in Liverpool at 9 am? That means that she has to catch a train that leaves London at 3 am. She speaks only French, and is traumatised by her brother's death in front of her in Rwanda. Is the Government's policy truly humane?
    Mrs. Roche: We must ensure that people are interviewed as quickly as possible. I understand the hon. Lady's interest in the matter, but nothing is more detrimental to those seeking asylum than facing years of delay. That is why we have made resources for hearing cases available in other parts of the country. We certainly consider people's travel arrangements.
    I have had correspondence with the hon. Lady on a number of other matters. She has now brought this issue to my attention, and I shall certainly consider it and get back to her. The key issue is that we must ensure that people have an early resolution of their cases. We have expanded the operation to Liverpool and Leeds in the interest of clearing the backlog which, sadly, the hon. Lady's Government left us.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for attending a meeting with me and Slough borough council about support for asylum seekers. Will she assure me that

    647
    she will consider carefully our case for additional resources, so that the local residents of Slough will not be expected to pay for asylum seekers out of their council tax?
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend will know that we have made increased sums of money available. She will also know that Slough has benefited from special increases such as those that we gave to London. Slough was the only other place to receive them, because of the particular nature of its circumstances. We shall consider carefully what the Audit Commission has to say about the variations in grant.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the Minister tell us what percentage of those who have not only failed to make a case for genuine asylum but have failed even to make a case for exceptional leave to remain on compassionate grounds have been returned?
    Mrs. Roche: As I have frequently said to the right hon. Lady, we need to increase the rate of return. Last year, we returned more than 8,000 people, which is much more than her Government were able to do. The way to affect the return rate is to have more detention space at the other end of the process. I am therefore disappointed that the Conservatives oppose the increase in detention space. I am afraid that when it is in their own back yards, they simply will not have it.
    Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps the hon. Lady has missed the point. We are proposing that all new applicants for asylum should be detained in secure reception centres. She could not give us the facts, so let me give her some. Last year, there were 76,850 refusals and only 7,610 removals. Is it not true that the Home Secretary and his friends do not know where those who have been refused are; have not a clue how to find out where they are; have no plan to work out a way of finding out; and therefore could not remove them even if they had the will to do so, which patently they do not?
    Mrs. Roche: Let me assist the right hon. Lady. I am anxious that she should be in possession of the full facts, although I realise that they will not alter her view. In 1996, 3,190 people were removed. In 1999, more than 7,600 were removed. In 2000—[Interruption.] These are provisional figures. [Laughter.] Opposition Members laugh, but the thing about provisional figures is that they can go up. In 2000, 8,971 people were removed. That is far more than before. We have doubled the figure and we are reducing the backlog.
    I shall deal with the right hon. Lady's point. It would cost billions of pounds to activate her proposals. Not only that, but she has backed away from them and now talks about applying them only to the white-list countries first. There has been a 47 per cent. reduction in that area, and we now have to deal with the difficult countries. The right hon. Lady proposes to detain people for years, which is not only expensive but inhumane and wrong.

    Home Detention Curfew Scheme
    Mr. Stephen Day: How many violent offenders have been released from prison early on the home detention curfew scheme; and if he will make a statement. [147090]
    Mr. Edward Leigh: What categories of offences have been committed by prisoners released under the home detention curfew scheme while they were on the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [147091]
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: How many prisoners, in what categories, have been released on the Government's early release scheme to date. [147100]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): As of 31 December 2000, 30,409 prisoners had been released on home detention curfew since the scheme began in January 1999. Of those, 5,573 had been convicted of an offence of violence. A table showing the breakdown of the original offences committed has been placed in the Library. A total of 533 prisoners have been reported to the Prison Service as having been convicted, charged or pending prosecution for an offence allegedly committed while on curfew. A table showing a breakdown of the offences by category has been placed in the Library. The most common offence types are motoring offences and theft.
    Mr. Day: The Minister will be aware that the latest figures show an increase of 21 per cent. in the number of robberies. Does he believe that there is perhaps a connection between that and the fact that the Government have released more than 1,200 robbers back on to our streets before they have served even half of their sentence?
    Mr. Boateng: No, I do not. The hon. Gentleman really ought to bear in mind his Government's record on the issue. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduced measures that provide for early release before completion of sentence for every prisoner, including robbers. What we are about is better management of the transition from prison to custody. The strategy is working, because there is a 94 per cent. success rate, which is better than that for any criminal justice measure that the Conservatives were ever able to introduce.
    Mr. Leigh: Will the Minister confirm that 1,035 further offences were committed by criminals while subject to the scheme—including: threats to kill, three; actual bodily harm, 22; woundings, six; assaults, 35; rapes, two; indecent assaults, one; burglaries, 46; robberies, 17; and drug offences, 111? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to the 1,000 people who were robbed, burgled, indecently assaulted, raped, assaulted or wounded because of his scheme?
    Mr. Boateng: I know that the hon. Gentleman gives these matters more serious consideration than his question reveals. He knows that the home detention curfew scheme was supported by the all-party Home Affairs Committee. He knows that his colleagues the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Woking (Mr. Malins) all supported the scheme, and did so because it has a failure rate of only 1.8 per cent. That is minuscule compared with the failure rate of schemes introduced by the Conservative party. The scheme is about

    649
    protecting the public better and it ought to be welcomed by the all-party consensus that originally appreciated its benefits.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Whatever gloss the Minister may put on the scheme, he will know that those who are subject to it include 4,671 drug dealers who have been sentenced to 22 months or more but let out having served less than half their sentence. The drugs problem is particularly serious in Gloucestershire—there has been a huge increase in the number of registered drug addicts since the election—so surely it cannot be right to let people out before they have served their full sentence. It is insidious. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider revoking this half-baked scheme?
    Mr. Boateng: What I do know, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is making a real contribution in his county to the multi-agency approach to crime reduction—a fact which he ought to celebrate. The home detention curfew scheme contributes to the controlled and measured rehabilitation and release back to the community that underpins the measure. It is sensible, it is making a difference and it is contributing to crime reduction. That is why the hon. Members for Woking, for Surrey Heath and for Aldershot supported it and why the overwhelming majority of hon. Members support it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to support it and will abandon the mischievous and misguided campaign against it.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that, despite the home detention curfew scheme—and as Lord Woolf said in his lecture last week—the public are given no greater protection when we keep in prison for short sentences a significant number of people who pose little danger to society?
    Does the Minister agree with us and with Lord Woolf that people who receive a short sentence with no rehabilitation work at all are actually getting what Lord Woolf called a "soft option"—and an ineffective option—and that community sentences would be far more effective? Will he review the sentencing policy that sends many people to prison for short periods with no work done on them that prevents reoffending? Will he also ensure that people who are ill or addicted are treated either in hospital or in the community, where they can be far more effectively rehabilitated and are less likely to offend again?
    Mr. Boateng: Each type of person to whom the hon. Gentleman referred will have been sentenced by the courts. It is the Prison Service's duty to implement and carry out sentences imposed by the courts, which take all matters, including the home detention curfew scheme and other factors, into account when passing sentence. The court determines that it is necessary that those people be in prison, and the Government must make sure that prisoners are held in safe, decent and humane conditions while we address the causes of their offending. That is what we are doing. We are investing record amounts in that, and we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. John Bercow: Is the Minister proud that the figure of 31,000 includes those guilty of
    650
    manslaughter, of attempted murder, of actual and grievous bodily harm, of drug dealing, of cruelty to children, of sex offences, of burglary, of robbery, of violent disorder and, indeed, of affray? How does he justify the release, after serving only six weeks, or less than one third of their sentences, of no fewer than 218 people convicted of assaulting policemen? Why does he not understand that that decision on its own makes a mockery of his claim to support the police and is yet further proof of his Department's institutionalised wimpishness?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman does himself no justice at all by that inane and absurd comment. He knows that our first duty is to protect the public. He also knows that the Criminal Justice Act 1991, as amended by the legislative provisions for the home detention curfew scheme, does that by controlling the release of those convicted and sentenced by the courts. It is the courts that determine the length of sentence. They impose a sentence knowing that in cases where individuals are eligible for it, the home detention curfew scheme will be the basis on which prisoners are released.
    If the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in visiting his local prison and meeting the governor there, he will find out that the risk assessment carried out by the governor has contributed to the overwhelming success of the scheme. Ninety-four per cent. is a record for which Conservative Members would have given their right arm when they were in office.

    Police Recruitment and Housing Costs
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he plans to meet chief constables to discuss recruitment and housing costs. [147092]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Ministers meet chief constables frequently. The crime fighting fund will enable police forces to recruit 9,000 police officers over and above the number previously planned in the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03, with the aim of bringing numbers overall to record levels. Following the increase of £3,300 in the London allowance, which I agreed last year, an offer has been made of £2,000 for those working in the home counties forces within a 30-mile radius of central London, and £1,000 for those within a radius of 30 to 40 miles. The Police Negotiating Board is meeting on 8 February and I very much hope that an agreement will be reached without delay.
    Mr. Swayne: The Secretary of State will be aware that the crime fighting fund has granted Hampshire an additional 82 officers in the current financial year, but that because of our inability to recruit them, we are having to ask that 62 of those be deferred to next year. That leaves us having to recruit 300 fantasy officers next year. The right hon. Gentleman's arrangements for London and the radius around it will make our position worse. What does he propose to do to address the economic realities facing recruits in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight?
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman fantasises about a variety of things, and we are all aware of the phantoms in his life. I am pleased to reassure him that the increase in recruitment is real. In January 2001, there was an increase

    651
    in the number of recruits entering training college of two and a half times—to 820—over the figures for January 12 months ago. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that other home counties forces such as Sussex, Surrey and Kent do not have the recruitment difficulties that Hampshire is experiencing.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me what we are doing about the problem in Hampshire. We have made an offer to the Police Negotiating Board. I hope that that offer or something very similar to it is quickly accepted. The sooner it is accepted, the sooner the genuine recruitment problems, which I recognise exist, will be sorted out. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the chief constable of Hampshire, Mr. Kernaghan, wrote to me only last week to say that he was pleased to learn that the Home Office was addressing the needs of home counties forces.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chief constable of West Yorkshire, will he discuss with him the plans to reorganise the divisional command structures in the Bradford district? There are extremely welcome plans to rationalise and reduce the amount spent on administration and bureaucracy, but we need to ensure that those resources can be redirected to increasing the number of front-line police officers even further.
    Mr. Straw: I am happy to receive representations from my hon. Friend about the reorganisation of the Bradford district. That is a matter for the chief constable and the police authority. Many other chief constables and police authorities have reorganised their command structure, and as a result have assured the release of hundreds of additional officers for front-line duties.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On 16 February last year, the Prime Minister said:
    "every single promise that we made—on getting waiting lists down, getting class sizes down and increasing police numbers—will be met by the next general election".—[Official Report, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 948.]
    The Government are failing to get real waiting lists down, and they are failing to decrease the number of large secondary classes. Can the Home Secretary guarantee that there will be at least as many police officers at the time of the next general election as there were at the time of the last?
    Mr. Straw: I am happy to be judged by the promises that we made, which included reducing class sizes in infant schools—not in secondary schools. That promise has already been met, and waiting lists have already been reduced. The Conservative party made mendacious promises about police numbers, promising an extra 5,000 police officers when funding was to decrease. We did no such thing. The promises that we have made about increasing the number of police officers year by year will be met, and by 2003–04 police numbers will be at record levels—no thanks to the Conservative party.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: When I discussed the issue of police recruitment in my constituency recently, I was told that one of the worst decisions affecting recruitment in the south-east in the past 10 years had been the abolition of the housing allowance by the previous Government in 1994. The £1,000 and £2,000 allowances
    652
    are an effective response to the problem, but they have been on the table for some while now. Will my right hon. Friend press the Police Negotiating Board and the Police Federation to reach a speedy conclusion, because that will lead to higher recruitment in my constituency?
    Mr. Bercow: Robert Halfon for Harlow!
    Mr. Straw: I do not know who he is, but he certainly will not be for Harlow.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) is entirely right. I share his frustration with the proceedings of the Police Negotiating Board. I am afraid to say that, as a result of the difficulties that preceded my offer of a £3,500 increase for Metropolitan police officers, the process was unnecessarily delayed for months and months. I hope that local police federations representing the forces, especially in the home counties, will put pressure on their colleagues in the national federation to accept that this is the best offer that could be made; that the problems go back directly to the previous Government, who abolished the housing allowance altogether; and that our proposal will make a big difference to recruitment, not least in my home county area of Harlow.

    Dangerous Driving (Deaths)
    Mr. Tim Loughton: What recent representations he has received regarding the penalties available in cases of causing death by dangerous driving. [147093]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Government published a consultation paper on road traffic penalties on 19 December last year. Both before then and subsequently, we have received a large number of representations from members of the public, Members of Parliament—including the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), whom I met to discuss the matter—and a wide range of organisations. We shall take all those representations into account before reaching final views based on the consultation paper.
    Mr. Loughton: As he said, the Minister is aware of my concern about the inadequacy of penalties for causing death by dangerous driving following the tragic killing of PC Jeff Tooley in my constituency. Yet in the year of his death, only 13 of 152 people convicted of causing death by dangerous driving were given sentences of five years or more.
    Why, in the document to which he referred, has the Minister ducked living up to his own tough words about making life sentences available for the worst cases of causing death by dangerous driving, rather than the current woefully inadequate 10-year maximum? What message does that send to the families of victims, and to perpetrators, when 190 killer drivers have been let out on the Government's early release scheme having served, on average, 42 per cent. of their time?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's point about the penalties available is important. Since the beginning of 2000, we have received representations from 29 Members

    653
    of Parliament about the deaths of constituents during that period as a result of dangerous driving. In our consultation paper, we included a set of proposals which I believe took the situation significantly forward, not least by sending courts the message that we expect them to impose penalties that are appropriate to the crimes rather than being laughably less than that, as is too often the case.
    The hon. Gentleman's general point about life sentences is legitimate. No doubt he and others will continue to advance that argument as we decide what action to take, on the basis of responses to our consultation paper.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I implore my hon. Friend to have regard for the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service has a large part to play in sentencing. The offences of dangerous driving and careless driving must be divorced, as they carry different sentences. Will my hon. Friend assure us that magistrates who hear evidence about such offences will be backed up? They listen to all the evidence before making decisions, and it would be wrong to undermine their work.
    Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. I can also tell him that the average sentence for the causing of death by dangerous driving, for instance, has been rising rather than falling; but the Government feel that that is not enough, which is why we published the consultation paper and why we intend to take action once we know what responses have been received.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I am extremely concerned about the number of accidents caused by drivers who have taken illegal substances. Would the Minister consider organising an education programme involving leaflets for those who apply for driving licences or to renew their tax discs? It should be explained to people that certain drugs stay in the bloodstream far longer than alcohol, and that, while they should not take such drugs in the first place, they certainly should not drive if they have been taking them.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct in all that he says. We already have a substantial education programme on drug and alcohol abuse and driving, but I shall be happy to consider his specific proposals. This is a serious problem, and it needs to be addressed seriously.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend will know that the best way in which to murder anyone in this country is to kill them with a motor car. The problem has been with us not for a short time, but for a very long time. Will my hon. Friend please give us an undertaking that decisions will be made as a matter of urgency? The agony of families who lose someone in this way is almost unbearable, and it is terribly important for us to show them that we take the matter seriously.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right in every respect. The consultation paper was a major step forward. It is one of which I am personally proud and it advances significantly the argument on penalties. In my role as a Home Office Minister, I have met many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and families who have been bereaved as a
    654
    result of dangerous driving. Significant support can be given to the families of victims of road crime and we have increased the resources for major educational programmes on drinking and driving, but there is no doubt that the most effective cure is to prevent the accidents from happening in the first place. That is why higher penalties are necessary and why the legislation to reduce speeding through the use of speed cameras, which has just gone out of the House of Commons and is being considered by the other place, is important.

    Police Administration
    Ms Ruth Kelly: What measures he has taken to reduce and remove unnecessary administrative burdens on the police service and to ensure that police officers spend more time on operational duties. [147094]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): We are implementing proposals from the recent report entitled "Making a Difference: Reducing Police Paperwork" and, last November, we issued police forces in England and Wales with a revised manual of guidance for the preparation, processing and submission of files. That will reduce considerably the number of forms that officers have to complete when they pass cases to the Crown Prosecution Service. We are also investing in a wide range of new communications technology to minimise the paperwork that officers are required to process.
    Ms Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he assure me that he will continue to move resources from bureaucracy to front-line officers? My constituents in Bolton, West, whose communities are being scarred by a very small minority of young hooligans, feel strongly that more bobbies on the beat are needed to crack down on yobbish behaviour.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Bolton Evening News and Labour Members for Bolton, who have campaigned energetically on precisely the points that she has raised?
    A series of factors contributes to more bobbies on the beat. One is the number of police themselves; the second is operational levels; the third is the proper use of technology; the fourth is a more effective criminal justice system than the current one to ensure that police officers are not constantly obstructed in a wasteful way; and the fifth is effective partnerships between the police and other social institutions such as local authorities. The measures that we have already put in place and which we are introducing in current legislation will make an impact on the issues that my hon. Friend, her constituents and local newspaper have forcefully raised.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Minister realise that front-line officers in my constituency welcome the reopening of the East Molesey police station, soon to be followed by Cobham police station, by volunteers? Last week, in a written answer, he gave me a bland reply in relation to support for volunteers. At the Dispatch Box, will he stiffen his sinews and say that the Government not only welcome volunteers, but will find extra ways to

    655
    provide modest resources to them, so that they can continue to give confidence to the communities in which they work and continue to get the police out on the beat?
    Mr. Clarke: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks and apologise if my earlier reply was bland. That was certainly not my intention. I investigated that matter soon after I took up the post of Minister. One of the things that surprised me was the wide range of volunteering initiatives in different forces throughout the country, which are treated extremely positively both by the police and by the communities that they serve. We are positively looking at ways of extending such initiatives. I am happy to confirm that that is one of the issues that we are addressing with the police in relation to measures to increase visibility and to reassure communities. Those initiatives can be set up in both isolated and non-isolated communities and are often constructive.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that the Pennine division in the Lancashire force and indeed the Lancashire force as a whole have effectively ensured that the police are out on the beat doing the job and are doing less administration work. They have made excellent progress, but does he agree that one other concern is that far too much police time is taken up attending court merely for the deferment of a case?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Some of the changes that we have already put in place—for example, the Narey changes—are already helping, but much more needs to be done. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked Lord Justice Robin Auld to conduct a review of the whole criminal justice process. The inefficiencies that hit police also hit many other parts of the community. Substantial reforms are needed.
    A good range of evidence has been presented to the review. I hope that, when the report is published in a month or so, we will have an agenda on which we can make progress. The changes for which my hon. Friend is looking will have the impact of increasing the police presence locally, which I am sure the whole House would welcome.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) is absolutely right when she talks about bobbies on the beat. Time and again, my own constituents in Macclesfield talk to me about the need for police to be visible in the community. Does the Minister—who has given very rational and responsible replies to the initial question and to the supplementary ones—accept that police officers on the beat in the community, building relationships, can genuinely lead not only to a reduction in crime, but to greater information for the police force so that it can prevent crime?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. I should like to add just one measure to the list of those that I think are important to improving the situation. Recently, new guidance has been issued on tenure for police officers, which has ensured a less rapid turnaround of community officers. That rapid turnaround had made it necessary, every couple of years or so, for new community officers to renew relationships, which was a very time-consuming process.
    656
    It is precisely the type of personal relationship that the hon. Gentleman has described which has made the difference in many communities across the country, as individual community beat officers have thrown their own energy into building relationships with, for example, housing organisations, schools and doctors. We want to do everything that we can to encourage that.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on recognising the particular needs of rural police forces, such as North Yorkshire, in maintaining contact with the public. May I invite him to make an early visit to the experimental police station in the East division in my constituency, which is focusing particularly on making that contact with rural constituents and ensuring that law and order is ever-present in rural areas such as mine?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I should also like to take up that invitation when next I am able to do so. I was delighted that, only a couple of weeks ago, on 26 January, the North Yorkshire police force chief constable and the chairman of the police authority announced:
    "North Yorkshire will have more police officers than ever before"—
    I stress "than ever before"—
    "with the proposed increase in strength taking the force to 1,420 officers by March 2002."
    That was an historic announcement, and I know that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) will welcome it just as much as my hon. Friend does.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: But is not the Minister aware that matters are getting worse, not better? Has he heard of the comments of the chief constable of Lincolnshire, who talks of his force being
    "in danger of sinking under a sea of targets and measures"?
    Is the Minister aware of the comments of Chief Inspector Ray Shepherd, of West Yorkshire police, who asked:
    "Is Charles Clarke, the Home Office Minister, being fed so much nonsense that he isn't aware that police officers nowadays have far more paperwork to complete than before?"
    Does not that help to explain the 60 per cent. increase in voluntary resignations from the police since 1997? Does not it help to explain the one-third fall in the number of specials? Is not it wrong to be putting police officers on to tasks of counting, measuring and filling in returns when we want those officers out there doing the job? Does not that explain why the Prime Minister will not debate the Leader of the Opposition on those matters?
    Mr. Clarke: I meet the chief constable of Lincolnshire very often; he is a member of the national crime reduction taskforce which I chair. He is not an unhappy man, but a very happy one, and I hope to see him later in the week. The hon. Gentleman can be as rhetorical as he likes, but the facts are that crime levels are falling, as they have been doing throughout this Parliament; police numbers are increasing, for the first time since 1993; police morale is increasing, contrary to what he has to say; and the various measures that we have implemented to deal with particular aspects of crime, both nationally and in specific geographical localities, are improving the situation. I do

    657
    not hide the fact that there is a great deal still to be done—that is certainly the truth—but we are doing extremely well, and shall continue to do so.

    Police Funding
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: What research he has undertaken into the correlation between the funding of police forces and their success in controlling the levels of crime and disorder. [147095]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As tables that are on the record in the Official Report show, changes in the number of officers alongside changes in crime at force level over a period in the 1990s indicate little correlation between the two.
    However, the Audit Commission reported in March of last year that there is no consistent link between increases in spending and improvements in performance. Some forces with among the best records in reducing crime have had below-average increases in funding during these years. Police numbers and funding are of course important, but as important is how effectively the resources are used.
    Mr. Pickthall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, because it is important to understand that there is no direct, easy correlation between spending on police and success in fighting crime and disorder. It is as much a question of good management, good targeting and good prioritising by chief constables. Does he agree that some of the disparities between forces in this regard are striking? How can the Home Office ensure that the poorest performers are brought up to the standards of the best, such as Lancashire and Cumbria?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right that the disparities in performance are striking, even when we compare like with like as closely as possible. We are doing that with the crime statistics; grouping basic command units in crime and reduction partnership areas into what are called statistical families, which show the striking differences in performance. They also show striking differences in the use of resources. Some forces which have had average or below-average increases in funding in the past six years have increased police numbers. In other forces, the chief constables have decided to spend the money on other things. It is crucial that performance data are made available and that there is measurement and not ignorance, so the public in each area can judge the performance of their force and their police area compared with others and so forces are held properly accountable at an operational level.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: With great respect, I must take issue with the Home Secretary's comments in regard to my part of London. Surely if police numbers fall, if the time that officers have on the beat reduces and if morale is low, those ingredients are responsible for an increase in serious crime. Does not that make it more difficult for the police force in question to maintain the law and keep the peace? Will he look again at the figures, which are having serious and deleterious effects in my part of London?
    Mr. Straw: I accept that increased funding and police numbers are important. As the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), has just pointed out, we are increasing funding and police numbers, reversing the decline that started in the early 1990s. Nowhere was that decline sharper than in the Metropolitan police area, where there was a drop of nearly 2,000 officers under the previous Government. With the greatest respect, I do not recall the hon. Gentleman protesting about that at the time. More resources and more police officers are important, but if he looks at the data in the Official Report, he will see striking differences in the performance of otherwise similar police areas, just as there are differences between different police divisions within the Metropolitan police. There is no magic about this. It comes down to a truth that everybody in management in the private and public sectors knows: how one performs at a given level of resources depends on management, leadership and organisation. I am pleased to say that respective performance is now improving, which is why recruitment is going up and morale is rising.
    Mr. Chris Pond: I congratulate Kent police on the 23 per cent. reduction in crime since 1997; in some areas, such as Lorton close, crime has been reduced by 70 per cent. since 1997. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in part, that may be due to the significant increases in the resources available to Kent police but, more importantly, that it is due to the leadership provided within Kent police, its effective work within the local community and local authority and the measures taken to reduce the causes of crime; the last, perhaps, being the most significant factor of all?
    Mr. Straw: I agree entirely. Kent makes my point exactly. It has the best record for crime reduction between 1996–97 and 1999–2000 of any of the country's 43 police forces, even though it was only ninth in terms of changes in police numbers and had around average budget increases. That shows what could be done by other forces with excellent leadership of the kind provided by Sir David Phillips, with well-motivated officers and with the funding that we are now putting in.
    Mr. John Butterfill: Does the Home Secretary accept that, just as it is not right to reward poorly performing police forces, it is equally wrong to penalise those that perform well? Dorset has the second lowest funding per capita in the United Kingdom but, thanks to the inspired leadership of Jane Stichbury, our chief constable, and members of her force, it does remarkably well by targeting certain areas. It has reduced burglary and car theft, but there remains a severe problem with street crime, which is growing, and drug-related crime, because we have drug rehabilitation centres to which people are sent from all over the country.
    With yet another very low settlement, we are falling further and further behind. We were managing to maintain standards only by stretching all our resources absolutely to the limit—indeed, to breaking point.
    Mr. Straw: Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the chief constable and all her officers and staff for their very good record. Police numbers in Dorset have increased since March 1997. I understand that the arguments about how the overall money should be

    659
    allocated within the standard spending assessment are perennial and will go on for ever, but it should be noted that we have made special provision for rural forces, including Dorset, and that in the full year it will receive £440,000, a substantial grant, in recognition of the county's rural needs.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: We all want more police on the street, but does not the research into the funding of police authorities show the importance of tackling social exclusion, having more facilities for young people, and a whole variety of measures to combat the causes of crime, in the effort to bring the crime figures down?
    Mr. Straw: I agree entirely. I congratulate my hon. Friend, his district council and the local police on all the work that they are undertaking. Of course, it is the case that, if we are to get crime and disorder down, we must attack the underlying and immediate causes as well as incidents of crime when they happen. That is why we are targeting potential young offenders as well as those who have actually committed crimes. We are also joining up the powers of the education authorities and the police so that they can conduct truancy sweeps and ensure that the youngsters are back in school, as well as doing much other work the better to support families and their children at risk.

    Police Manpower
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will list those police forces which do not have a full establishment of officers. [147097]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Under legislation passed by the previous Government, chief officers of police were given the power to determine within available resources the number of officers that there should be in their force. There is therefore no centrally determined establishment.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, although it could only be categorised as less than full and frank. Will he now give the rather shorter list of those police forces that do have a full establishment of officers?
    Mr. Clarke: I am terribly sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is simply not grasping the point. As a result
    660
    of legislation passed by the previous Government, there is no longer a centrally determined establishment for each force in Britain, so his question is essentially meaningless. That was what I was trying, as courteously as possible, to point out.

    Police Funding
    Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the average percentage change from 2001–02 to 2000–01 for police authorities in England and Wales in respect of (a) total revenue expenditure and (b) council tax precept. [147098]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I am glad that the very full exchange on the previous question indicated its essential meaninglessness.
    These are matters for individual police authorities, which are required to set their net budget requirements and issue precepts for 2001–02 by 1 March. We can make serious assessments about levels of total revenue expenditure and council tax precept only after that date.
    Mr. Heath: Even if the Minister does not know the answer, I at least have some idea of it from having examined some of the budget papers of the west country police forces. The increase in precept has been anything from 5 per cent. to 9.7 per cent., and it has been 7.5 per cent. in my local force, Avon and Somerset constabulary. The problem is that most of the money will pay not for extra police officers but for the area cost adjustment, which the Western Daily Press has called the "tax on the West". When will we be able to put money into having extra police officers rather than paying for a national scheme that involves our funding other councils?
    Mr. Clarke: Through the police grant and our crime fighting fund, the Government are putting resources directly into funding police officers up and down the country. We debated that point last week during the police grant debate. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the area cost adjustment is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, within which the police system works. However, for the reason suggested by the hon. Gentleman, we are putting extra resources into the crime fighting fund and rural funds, and we are, by various other means, putting more resources into policing. That is reducing crime throughout the country, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of ever-increasing incursions by Albanian or Kosovo Liberation Army forces into southern Macedonia and southern Serbia and of the apprehension of KLA personnel by British personnel and their handing over not to KFOR but to the Americans at Camp Bond Steel, have you had any request from the Ministry of Defence to comment on those important events?
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that the Leader of the House of Commons promised on Thursday that there would be a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister when his talks with the commissioner for transport in London had reached a refined stage. Are not the travelling public in London facing a crisis at a refined stage of misery because of the political strike on the London underground? Have Transport Ministers suggested to you that they should face up to their responsibilities by making a statement to the House?
Mr. Speaker: There is a further point of order.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the lack of investment in the tube over the past four years, the clear deterioration of the tube and today's dreadful strike, and because of the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister on Friday—a humiliating climbdown for him and a clear change in Government policy—do not the Government owe the House the courtesy of an explanation and a statement?
Mr. Speaker: Both hon. Gentlemen have raised that matter as a point of order, but it has nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said that a question was "meaningless". Is it not up to the Clerks and the Table Office to determine whether a question is meaningless? Was it not discourteous to the Table Office to say so?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should worry too much about the Table Office, which can handle itself.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Further to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), Mr. Speaker. In what circumstances can we expect the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement to the House? Is it not a normal courtesy to make statements to the House rather than at a press conference?
Mr. Speaker: That is up to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Opposition Day
[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Poverty (Wales)
Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.33 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move,
That this House notes that there is growing poverty throughout Wales, both in rural and urban areas with a widening gap between rich and poor; further notes the Government's failure to avoid the problems in the manufacturing industry as evidenced by the huge job losses announced by Corus which will add greatly to the problems of social exclusion in Wales; further notes that the Welsh Affairs Committee in the Third Report of Session 1999–2000, HC 365, `Social Exclusion in Wales' reported on the matter, concluding that: Government should consider regional variations in tax to encourage investment, that it may well be necessary for the basic state pension to be increased in line with average earnings, that Government should initiate a comprehensive national benefit take-up campaign, that increasing the level of benefits is central to tackling social exclusion, and that the Barnett formula should be reassessed to reflect a needs-based formula.
The term "social exclusion" conjures up many images and has been subject to a great deal of academic debate. It appears to be a moot point whether social exclusion must include poverty, but it seems to me that wherever there is an example of social exclusion, poverty is there or thereabouts.
Social exclusion is not confined to urban areas—far from it; it also exists in rural areas where public transport is poor, where village shops and post offices are closing and where the infrastructure of rural life is under threat. All of that is exacerbated by the crisis in agriculture, which has had a huge impact on the rural economy. Throughout Wales, once-bustling market towns are now quiet; the effects of out-of-town shopping and the current crisis cast a dark shadow on them. The rural post office is in danger of becoming merely a fond memory. Again, that affects people in the greatest need and those most at risk of exclusion—the elderly, the poor, the unemployed and those for whom public transport is the only means of transport.
Since taking office, the Government have stood by as one in eight of our sub-post offices have closed. Every month, Members receive a pro forma letter from Post Office Counters Ltd. about proposed closures, asking whether we know of anyone who would be interested in taking over such businesses. The advertising campaign mounted by Post Office Counters is a joke. Typically, it consists of putting up one sheet of A4 in the shop window of the nearest sub-post office for six or seven days. One would have thought that this Labour Government—of all Governments—would realise that such publicity was not very effective.
The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has made some useful suggestions on the matter. It recommends that the Post Office should appoint a network development officer and officers in rural and socially deprived areas to ensure that unnecessary post office closures are avoided.

663
The Committee recommends that, when it is known that a manager is about to retire, Post Office Counters should immediately initiate an active campaign to find a replacement on terms favourable to a prospective applicant.
The Select Committee calls for full implementation of the performance and innovation unit report. Let us not forget, however, that it was the Labour Government who initiated the Horizon project and who will, I fear, deprive us of our rural post offices—40 per cent. of their income is under threat and 60 per cent. of the existing network is estimated to be at risk.
Freudian slips are being made by Post Office Counters. When a decision is taken to close a given sub-post office, reference is made only to the nearest sub-post office that remains open. I have no doubt that the agenda of Post Office Counters is that of so-called rationalisation. An excellent candidate in my constituency—with an already flourishing business and an extremely good track record—was told by a Post Office Counters operative that taking over the post office was a waste of his time and "not worth it". How do we counter that?
Last Thursday, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke in the House about job losses at Corus. I share the right hon. Gentleman's genuine concern at the behaviour of Corus and its chairman, but the Government must face up to the fact that they have done little over the past 18 months to two years. It should have been obvious that Corus was in some difficulty—18 months ago, the company's accounts showed a loss of £1 billion. That should have rung some alarm bells among the Government.
I do not accept that it is good enough for a Minister to claim that Corus would not speak to the Government about that or that a Minister could have remained in ignorance—in the strictest sense—of what was going on. I always thought that Governments had certain economic levers available to them; after all, they have an interest in our communities and in maintaining a good manufacturing sector. Unfortunately, it appears that they have done nothing. During Labour's time in office—more than three years—16,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Wales alone.
Mr. Huw Edwards: The hon. Gentleman mentions discussions between Corus and Ministers. I should be interested to know whether he has held discussions with the chief executive and chairman of Corus. I assure him that, on the Monday before the announcement, my Labour colleagues held discussions with the chief executive and chairman, who told us categorically that no decision had been made on any plant. If he was telling the truth, it shows that the decisions were made in only two days; if he was not telling the truth, it shows both deceit and the contempt in which he holds the work force, Parliament and the Government. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr. Llwyd: I certainly partly agree, but I agree most definitely about last week's behaviour. I was making the point that it has been known that the industry was in difficulty for more than 18 months, and that operating aids could have been offered. We should be considering better regional policies, given the disparity between the south-east and the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
664
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and I certainly could not condone such behaviour, but the risks have been known for some time and the Government have been inactive. Until I hear differently, that is my view. During Thursday's statement, I specifically asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help had been offered to Corus. His answer was that I should find out what the National Assembly had done. With respect, his reply did not take the matter much further, and it tends to support my view that very little has been done. We can think about what happened to Rover.
Mr. Barry Jones: The hon. Gentleman and I disagree on some matters, but does he agree that the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) is true? Many of us attended the meeting with the chairman of Corus. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Corus has treated a magnificent work force most shabbily? He might agree that the Shotton work force should not have had that kick in the teeth and that Shotton steelworks should receive investment. He might find that some of his ideas agree with ours.
Mr. Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I do not doubt for a second what the hon. Member for Monmouth says. I know him too well to doubt anything that he says on the Floor of the House. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that things should not have happened as they did, but we have to question what action the Government took in the preceding few months. No one can condone what happened, and it is an absolute disgrace that those communities in Wales are now being cast aside in such a callous, cynical manner—the worst possible example of capitalism gone bad. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blame Corus."] That is exactly the point that I want to make if hon. Members will contain themselves for a minute or two.
I am trying to develop the point that a regional policy, operating aids and so on should be considered. If not, what is the point of objective 1, under which it is recognised that parts of the United Kingdom are doing very badly, while others are doing well? That is not only my view. I shall quote the following:
"Since 1990 the share of GDP within the UK has declined significantly in the North East, the North West, the West Midlands, Wales and Scotland. It has increased significantly in the Eastern Region, London and the South East. These are symptoms of something fundamental. We don't have to look far for some of the causes. In 1998 manufacturing businesses invested over ten times as much in research and development in the South East—£1.9 billion—than in the North East—£164 million. Lack of investment, poor skills and education qualification, these are some of the underlying causes we need to tackle."
Those comments were made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in November. Obviously, he recognises that there are regional economic disparities in the United Kingdom, but what has been done to counter the problem in Wales? I shall leave the point there; I hope that it is well made. Although there is much agreement in the Chamber, it is still a moot point, and I am sure that one of my right hon. or hon. Friends will develop it further.
The quotation that I cited shows that the Secretary of State has acknowledged the disparities for some time. Therefore, why has no attempt been made to develop a regional economic policy for Wales? I mentioned

665
operating aids, and in this context the Government would be entitled to introduce a lower corporation tax and a lower employer's national insurance contribution. Other grant aid is available as a spur for manufacturing industry in general. A specific package could have been introduced to assist Corus with its difficulties.
Why have those suggestions not been taken up? It is all very well making a speech about economic disparities, but what answers have been given to deal with the problems of the various regions and parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Llew Smith: The hon. Gentleman refers to disparities in Wales and elsewhere and to the answers that have been given to overcome them, but will he comment on what happened in the Assembly when his colleagues abstained in the vote that provided an additional £5.5 million for Blaenau Gwent? They failed to vote for that money. If their inactivity had been rewarded and the money had not come to Blaenau Gwent, not only would public services have been slashed dramatically but our council taxes would have increased by between 50 and 60 per cent. Does he think that not voting for money for areas such as Blaenau Gwent is the answer to overcoming disparities and deprivation?
Mr. Llwyd: The answer is that the settlement was totally inadequate. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but he has made his point and I did not find it very funny.
Mr. Smith rose—
Mr. Llwyd: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I shall respond to him. The settlement was insufficient—cuts have been made here, there and everywhere in local government. More important, much of that money has gone towards match funding for objective 1 projects, and I speak with some authority on that subject.
Mr. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the logic of his argument is that nothing is better than something? The nationalist party did not vote for any additional money for Blaenau Gwent; it failed to vote for the £5.5 million that was allocated to our community.
Mr. Llwyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but it was a Labour budget and it was unamendable. What does he suggest could have been done in those circumstances?
Mr. Smith: The nationalists could have shown their support for some of the most deprived communities in Wales by voting for the £5.5 million that the Labour Administration allocated for Blaenau Gwent. The fact that they failed to do so showed their disdain for my community and for some of the poorest communities in Wales.
Mr. Llwyd: I shall not respond to that final point, because it was getting ridiculous.
I shall return to the main point of this debate and the 16,000 jobs that have been lost to manufacturing industry in Wales since the Government took office. I can conclude only that some inactivity—either intentional or
666
Otherwise—has led to many jobs being lost in the perceived Labour heartlands in Wales. The mood is one of anger—anger at inactivity and anger at being taken for granted as traditional Labour voters.
The next election in Wales will prove to be very interesting, and more interesting even than the National Assembly election. That might have something to do with the peculiar behaviour of Mr. Adrian McMenamin.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Who is he?
Mr. Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman asks, "Who is he?" I did not know either until Mr. McMenamin started misbehaving; he is such a useful member of the Wales Office team. He was employed by the Secretary of State for Wales as a ministerial special adviser and he is still employed—lucky man. He is paid out of the public purse and he spends time at home and in working hours denigrating members of Plaid Cymru—the Party of Wales—in the most offensive manner. The Secretary of State for Wales says that such behaviour is okay, but I will not dwell long on his view. He is not here today and I have been told why, so I shall not make an issue of it.
The Secretary of State cannot get away with the argument that Mr. McMenamin is not prohibited from behaving in the way that I have described outside office hours, because he jolly well is. Under his designation, he is not supposed to take political actions—however strange they may be—during office hours or at any other time. I sincerely believe that, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to consider himself a right hon. Gentleman, he must dismiss Mr. McMenamin, whether he is a maverick or part and parcel of something else.
Currently, two computers are busily churning out offensive remarks about members of my party. One has been registered to Millbank and the other to the Wales Office. We know that the previous Government were beset by sleaze, but it is sleazy of the Labour party to pay an official to insult Plaid Cymru Members as individuals. The last thing that I would do is insult a Labour Member, or, indeed, a member of any political party. We have a right to express our views and not to be denigrated and slagged off.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I was interested by the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the use of public funds for political opportunity. Will he assure me that the press releases sent out in my area from the office of a Plaid Cymru Member of the European Parliament are paid for by his party, rather than from the public funds allocated to MEPs?
Mr. Llwyd: Of course they are paid for properly, but, if the hon. Lady wants to raise that issue, why does not she write to the person concerned? We are such a growing party that I cannot know what goes on in every office.
Mrs. Lawrence: I did write to the office, but I did not receive a reply.
Mr. Llwyd: I hope that the hon. Lady will take cognisance of my words. I shall e-mail the MEP concerned and ask her to address the point. I hope that that will be helpful.

667
Parts of the British economy are doing very well, mainly because of the way in which economic policies are being implemented. However, their success has its cost in other areas, as Welsh Members of Parliament know. I am afraid that Wales is bottom of the United Kingdom regional competitive index table—a place that I think is shared by the north-east. Wales is also bottom of the regional knowledge-based business index table. In terms of the knowledge economy, it is lacking and is in worse circumstances than any other area. Although we agree with the long-term goal, the short to medium term looks very bleak for Wales, because of the difficulties caused by the failure to establish a regional policy and to target the region's specific problems.
There must be greater balance between high-tech jobs and those in more traditional industries such as manufacturing. The Government are rightly putting a lot of emphasis on the knowledge economy, but they seem to be ignoring the needs of traditional economies. We need to ensure that incoming companies feel comfortable with the development of regional policies. We should be taking measures such as those that I have mentioned, including cuts in corporation tax, national insurance and so on.
Mr. Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for incoming companies to be attracted to Wales. What does he think of the comment made by Seimon Glyn, a Plaid Cymru councillor, who said that the English are a drain on Welsh resources? Does he think that that comment will attract or repel inward investors?
Mr. Llwyd: Before I answer that question, I refer the hon. Gentleman to remarks made by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), who said:
"One particular area of concern I have brought to the attention of the Committee is the way in which some landlords are able to play the system and bring in large numbers of people from outside the area to live in substandard accommodation."
He pointed out that the cost was placed on local government. Worse still—I am quoting a publication of which the hon. Gentleman is aware—he said:
"The police do recognise there are problems in Colwyn Bay. There are those with little or no stake in the community who are known to be criminally active."
Before the hon. Gentleman or any other Labour Member throws any brickbats, let me say that I know the councillor to whom he referred, and I am not sure what he said, but he has since apologised.
Perhaps Labour Members should look a bit nearer home. A serving Member of the House has been terribly abusive to incomers to north Wales, so let us not start insulting each other across the House on that subject—there is nothing in it for the Labour party.
Mr. Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
Mr. Llwyd: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman should sit down.
According to a recent report published by Robert Higgins of the centre for advanced studies at Cardiff university, entitled "An Index of Competitiveness in
668
the UK: Local, regional and global analysis", Wales ranks last but one in the UK regional competitiveness index. Higgins notes:
"The index makes it abundantly clear it is the southern regions of England that are driving economic growth in the UK."
Good luck to them. I am saying that there should be a different approach in other parts of the UK. Higgins goes on to say:
"It is these regions that are home to the highest density of firms, the most knowledge-intensive firms, the highest level of economic activity, which in turn gives firms based in the areas a higher level of productivity".
He asks:
"Should we not be pushing for stronger incentives to help make the uncompetitive areas more competitive?"
That is my point.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The hon. Gentleman's main theory about the economy is that Wales is being treated unfavourably and is at the bottom of various league tables. I understand his argument, but will he concede that in his constituency unemployment has fallen by a third from 1,640 in December 1996 to 1,051 at present and that there have been parallel falls in unemployment throughout Wales? Despite the picture of doom and gloom that he is painting, the job situation in Wales, including in traditional industries, the rural economy and south Wales, is pretty good.
Mr. Llwyd: Modesty prevents me from saying why unemployment has fallen in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the constituency has an effective Member of Parliament. If he were to listen to my contribution, he would realise that I am not whingeing but talking about what could be done to improve various areas of the UK. I say good luck to the south-east, but this is not a one-size-fits-all situation, as the Department of Trade and Industry appears to believe. I give due credit to the Government because unemployment has fallen, and of course I am pleased about that. However, manufacturing jobs have been lost, and we need to take our eye off one ball and keep it on another. We must ensure that we have a comprehensive regional approach to the problem, and that is what I am developing. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the figures that he quoted.
The Welsh Affairs Committee made a recommendation about regional variations in tax, and I hope that the Government will respond in due course. Happily, Plaid Cymru policy accords with that recommendation.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: That is because Meirionnydd has a good MP.
Mr. Llwyd: I will not overdo the self-congratulation.
The Select Committee also made an important point about pensions. It said that it will
"watch the combination of the Pension Credit proposals and the Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign"
to ensure that pensioners are not left in poverty in future. It concluded that if those proposals do not work, the basic state pension will have to be linked once more to average earnings. That mirrors a recommendation by the Scottish Affairs Committee, and it is long overdue. That argument has long been raging in this place, and I am sure that we

669
will revisit the matter. Suffice it to say that pensioners require a better deal than they are receiving at present. Few people, inside or outside the Chamber, can forget the 75p debacle.
On benefits, the Select Committee took the view that the Government should
"conduct a comprehensive national benefit take-up campaign".
It said that
"the benefits system allows people to survive, but does not lift them out of poverty."
It rightly concluded:
"Lifting the level of benefits is central to tackling social exclusion."
The Committee also examined the poverty trap, which acts as a disincentive to re-entering work. To be fair, the working families tax credit should assist. However, a substantial disincentive remains for childless people. In my view, and in that of many commentators and others who gave evidence to the Committee, there should be a transitional or tapering benefit for the first three to six months of new employment to attempt to deal with that damaging disincentive.
The Secretary of State for Wales and I have fallen out drastically about what he said or did not say in answer to a question that I asked or did not ask about the vexed matter of the Barnett formula. The Committee concludes that the Barnett formula needs reconsidering and to be made more needs based. Lord Barnett said:
"I had always assumed its use would be temporary until a more sophisticated method that took account of needs could be devised."
"Temporary" in that context is as temporary as the old traffic lights at Drws-y-nant in Rhydymain. It meant 23 years in that case; the Barnett formula is doing even better. We appreciate that such matters need to be reconsidered from time to time because they are important to the governance of Wales.
A preliminary glance at the figures shows that Wales has nothing to fear from a needs-based assessment as long as it is impartially conducted. Wales does not have to depend on the Barnett formula in its current form and would do better from a fairly calculated Barnett mark 2. We hope that the Government will take the initiative and develop a new formula after the next general election. There will be increasing pressure to reconsider an outmoded mechanism, which has worked well in the past, but should be re-examined after such a long time.
The Barnett formula constitutes a mechanistic approach and does not take account of the changing or current needs of Wales. The National Assembly has had much to say about that. It behoves us as Members of Parliament of all parties to chip in on the debate, further it, discuss it with our Assembly colleagues and try to devise a formula that is more needs based. I am therefore happy to endorse the Select Committee's recommendation that the Barnett formula should be reviewed or replaced by a needs-based system. Indeed, that is self-evident, given the huge disparity in GDP between England and Wales.
I know that several hon. Members want to speak in the debate, and I shall not take up much more time.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his jocular remarks, will he explain
670
the reason for his belief that there is growing poverty in Wales? He said that 20,000 jobs had been lost, but that 40,000 jobs had come to Wales, including 500 today to Bridgend and 500 two days ago to Rogerstone.
The hon. Gentleman said that pensioners had a raw deal last year. Will he acknowledge that they had the biggest increase in 25 years this year? They will get rises beyond the level of earnings and that of inflation. When will he produce the evidence to support his case that there is growing poverty in Wales?
Mr. Llwyd: I do not have to look far: the GDP of Wales is decreasing. Sometimes the hon. Gentleman is beset by prejudice. He described my remarks as jocular. They are not. He might find the subject funny, but I do not. It is serious, and other Select Committee members are fully aware of the evidence that was taken in the past 12 months. We know that poverty in Wales is increasing. Yes, the Government are attempting to address the problem, but GDP in Wales goes ever downward. Let us not beat about that bush.
When the Government were elected, the cry of "Things can only get better" was uttered ad nauseam. Things have not got better for students, schools, people on benefits—such as those who have been taken off invalidity benefit—coal miners, members of the farming community, rural dwellers or Welsh steelmakers. Things have, however, got even better for the well off. That is a grave indictment of the new Labour Government and their priorities.
4.5 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"notes the Government's central aim is a fair and prosperous society that offers opportunity for all, and that both economic prosperity and social justice depend on people being able to achieve their full potential; endorses the Government's commitment to eradicating child poverty, to providing employment opportunities for all who can work, to rewarding saving, and to ensuring that older people live secure, active and fulfilling lives and to tackling the root causes of poverty and social exclusion; further notes and expresses concern at the announcement by Corus on 1st February 2001; believes that the Corus action is a short term solution which is damaging for the individuals affected and the communities concerned; and calls on the company to think again about the planned closures and redundancies and instead work with the trade unions, Government and the National Assembly for Wales to identify a better way forward.".
Every right hon. and hon. Member will have been shocked by the devastating announcement made by Corus last week. The company has made a short-term decision that is bad for Wales and I believe that it will look back on it and regret it. Our steel industry has achieved magnificent productivity gains over the past 20 years, averaging 10 per cent. a year. We have the greatest output per employee in Europe: 571 tonnes per man, compared with 543 tonnes in Germany and 534 tonnes in France.
There is strong evidence of the underlying strength of the economy. Employment grew by 239,000 last year, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) pointed out, it grew in Wales, too. Manufacturing output rose by 0.7 per cent. and manufacturing exports, despite a high pound, grew by 7 per cent. Many other companies recognise that underlying strength in the economy. In the past two

671
months, many companies have announced important investments in Wales, including Wireless Systems International, which is investing to create 264 new jobs at a high-tech telecommunications project in Cwmbran, and Ford, which announced 500 new jobs at Bridgend today.
The Government urge Corus to reconsider its decision. The company should be working with the trade unions, the National Assembly for Wales and the Government. The Secretary of State for Wales had meetings in Cardiff today with the First Minister and the Finance Minister of the Assembly, and he will also have meetings with Cabinet colleagues today, including the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. At this moment, he is having a meeting with the Prime Minister.
Mr. Alun Michael: Would my hon. Friend care to contrast the behaviour of Corus with that of Ford when jobs at Bridgend were threatened? Over a considerable period, the management of Ford in the UK—right up to Ian McAllister—and the local trade unions at Bridgend worked closely with Ministers, particularly with me when I was Secretary of State for Wales. The battle was taken to the management, and the door was open for negotiations as far away as Detroit. Is it not sad that Corus will not take such a positive approach and work with us on such difficult issues in these difficult times?
Mr. Bayley: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and his experience gives real weight to his comments. It is in the interest of Wales, of the work force, of the Government and of the company for Corus to work with the Government to look for ways forward in circumstances such as these.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister accept that if Corus had wanted to announce in Holland the kind of redundancies that it has just announced in Wales, it would not have been able to do so because the Dutch Government have adopted the EU regulation on consultation between trade unions, the Government and other bodies? Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will reconsider the introduction of those regulations? We do not want any company to treat Welsh workers in this way again.
Mr. Bayley: I do not accept that, because the redundancy package in the Netherlands is broadly the same as the severance arrangements here in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, there has been dialogue between the Government and the company. We have raised the question of a package of measures, including assistance with business rates, environmental projects—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, which shows that he is not interested in tackling the real issues. It is right that the Government made those offers to the company and it is unfortunate that the company did not respond, but we still want to work with Corus. The Government urge it to think again.
Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bayley: No, I must make progress.
Across the board, the Government are making progress in tackling poverty and social exclusion. The Corus announcement is a painful reminder that obstacles will
672
continue to get in our way and that the Government have more to do, but let us consider the facts. When the Government came to power three and a half years ago, the problems of poverty and social exclusion in Wales were stark and the gap between rich and poor had been widening for two decades. One child in three in Wales lived in a low-income household; one child in five lived in a household in which no adult was in work; about one pensioner in four in Wales lived in a low-income household; and the poorest communities in Wales had high unemployment, high levels of poor housing and high crime. After years of neglect by the Conservatives, whole generations and whole communities in Wales had been written off.
Those problems are deep and complex, interlinked and inter-generational. They span people's lives, from childhood through working age to retirement. New solutions were desperately needed to challenge years of Conservative complacency and inaction. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced in February 1999 that we would publish not a vague wish list, but an annual report setting out the action that we were taking to tackle poverty, backed up by indicators against which we would be judged.
In March 1999, the Prime Minister put tackling child poverty right at the heart of that strategy with his historic pledge to halve child poverty in 10 years and eradicate it in 20. Alongside that, we set goals to end long-term unemployment, to help adults into work when they can work—while providing more support for those who cannot work—to ensure that pensioners live secure, active and fulfilling lives and to ensure that we rebuild communities crippled by years of inaction by the previous Government.
Those goals are challenging, not easy, and cannot be achieved overnight. There is no simple way to brush aside two decades of high unemployment and growing poverty. As the Corus announcement shows, there will be setbacks even when progress is being made, but the Government remain determined to make a difference, and we are making a difference because we are following policies that make a difference. Our first annual report on poverty, which was published in September 1999, examined the problems that we faced and outlined what we would do to overcome them. In September last year, we published our second annual report, which provided a detailed account of the actions that we have taken in Wales and elsewhere since we announced our strategy in September 1999.
The motion stresses the importance of benefit levels and take-up. Those are indeed important, but the motion ignores what the Government have done to improve benefits in real terms for those who cannot work and what we have done and are doing to promote take-up. We introduced a minimum income guarantee for pensioners in 1999 to target more help on those who need it most. Last year, we launched the most comprehensive take-up campaign ever run to help more pensioners to claim the minimum income guarantee, but poverty and exclusion are much wider ranging and more complex than just a lack of cash. Therefore, the Government strategy set out in the "Opportunity for All" reports focuses not simply on low income, but on access to education and quality in child care, housing and health.

673
Instead of focusing only on benefits and income, our strategy is to address the causes of poverty as well as the symptoms and to tackle in the round the problems that can drag people down into poverty and social exclusion at different stages in their lives.
Mr. Edwards: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the success of the Government's welfare-to-work policies has led in part to a reduction in expenditure on social security? Will he acknowledge the concerns of citizens advice bureaux and other advice agencies and the recommendation in paragraph 69 of the Select Committee's social exclusion report that, as a result of those savings, the Government could centrally fund independent advice agencies like the citizens advice bureaux and thus improve the take-up of benefits and other services?
Mr. Bayley: Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and all the members of his Committee, for producing an important piece of work. The Government are considering it and will respond in the normal way to the report and its recommendations. The fundamental point that my hon. Friend raises is absolutely right: we promised in our manifesto to reduce spending on the costs of economic failure and instead to make pathways back into work for people who could work. We have done so, and unemployment is now at its lowest level for two decades. That has released resources that we are able to spend elsewhere, not least on making substantial increases in pensions, which will be introduced in April this year.
Children are a special priority in our poverty strategy, because they have only one opportunity to get a good start in life. That is why £11 million a year has been spent on sure start in Wales, on programmes approved by the Assembly and delivered by a partnership of local authorities, health services and voluntary organisations, to provide better services in the crucial early years of a child's life. We are investing in education, too, to give children the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century. An extra £12 billion was announced in the spending review for education and training in the UK over the next three years.
If we are to raise children out of poverty we need to raise family incomes, and we are doing that. Measures in the past four Budgets will lift some 50,000 children out of poverty in Wales. Those measures include a significant increase in child benefit—now £15 a week for the eldest child and £10 a week for other children. Plaid Cymru, in its manifesto at the last election, promised to link child benefit with the cost of living. We have linked child benefit with the cost of living and done more—26 per cent. more—than that. There has been a 26 per cent. real-terms rise in child benefit since 1997. If hon. Members want to do something to relieve child poverty, here is something that the Government are doing. Some 650,000 children in 360,000 families in Wales gain from those increases.
The introduction of the working families tax credit and the minimum wage together guarantee families with children, with one person in full-time work, a minimum income of £208 a week, which rises to £214 a week in April of this year. Some 67,000 families in Wales are benefiting from that. We also increased the sure start maternity grant from £200 to £300 in September last year.
674
Thus all families with children in Wales will be better off by on average £15 a week. A couple on income support with two children under the age of 11 will be better off by nearly £30 a week compared with 1997. Families on the working families tax credit receive on average £30 a week more than they received on family credit, which it replaced. More than 30,000 lone parents in Wales receive benefit from the new working families tax credit.
However, we can and should do more for parents and their children by encouraging parents into work, which we are doing through the new deals and the ONE service. Children are benefiting from being in families with higher incomes and from seeing at first hand that work is the route out of poverty and the way to a better life. The new deal for young people has helped some 35,000 young people in Wales so far. Half of those have found work, while a further 11,000 have entered training or education.
Another barrier to work is the difficulty in getting affordable child care. That is why we have introduced the child care tax credit, which is now claimed by 5,600 families in Wales. The average gain from the child care tax credit is about £32 a week, compared with £22 a week with the family credit.
The Tories used to say that they wanted wealth to cascade down the generations. It always has, but poverty is inherited, too. If people are poor, their children grow up in poverty and are more likely to be in poverty in adult life. We want to break that cycle of deprivation. We are helping people of working age to rise out of poverty and social exclusion.
The system that we inherited was designed 50 years ago and is no longer up to the job. Our goal is clear: we want a modern, active welfare state that creates opportunities and incentives, and is based on the fundamental principle of work for those who can work and security for those who cannot. We are making progress towards that goal. Employment is up by more than 1 million since the election. More people are in work than ever before. Since 1997, we have more than halved the number of long-term unemployed in Wales: it went down from 27,000 in May 1997 to around 12,000 in May 2000. We have reduced youth unemployment, which went down from 22,000 to about 15,000 in the same period. We have also cut the overall level of unemployment in Wales from 6.5 per cent. to 4.6 per cent. We are investing £89 million in the ONE service to bring together benefit and employment services in 12 pilot areas, including south-east Gwent, which will help the unemployed to work.
Mr. Simon Thomas: At the start of this long list of Government achievements, the hon. Gentleman gave three headline figures for poverty in Wales which were the legacy of the Conservative Government when the Labour party took over. Will he give the current figures, so that the people of Wales can see what has been achieved in the past four years—not what will be achieved?
Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman may have stopped concentrating for a minute. I gave him the unemployment

675
figures for May 2000. [Interruption.] He asks me a question, then he will not listen to the answer. He asked for figures for May 1997.
Mr. Thomas: No.
Mr. Bayley: Yes. The hon. Gentleman asked for figures for May 1997 and for more recent figures. I have given him the figures that are available, which are the unemployment figures. Unemployment has come down in Wales.
Mr. Thomas: I fear that I may have misled the Minister, although not deliberately. I referred him to the three headline figures that he used at the start of his list of Government achievements. They had nothing to do with the unemployment figures. He referred to the number of children in fatherless, unemployed households, and the number in pensioner poverty. What are those figures after four years? He has not given them.
Mr. Bayley: Those figures for Wales, as opposed to the United Kingdom as a whole, are not yet available because of the way in which the statistics are collected. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the number of children growing up in workless households is down in Wales as it is elsewhere in the UK. That is good. Some of the other figures will take longer, because they are produced two years after the event. They will be published, and we should and will be judged by them. Progress is being made, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more is needed. We cannot wipe out 20 years of increasing social exclusion and deprivation under the previous Government in just a few years. It is a long haul, but we have started.
Mr. Nigel Evans: While the Minister is rattling through this glorious Government's wonderful list of achievements, will he give some attention to the farming industry, which is suffering greatly under this Government? Will he tell us how many people have left farming, and the levels of income in the industry under this Administration?
Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman ignores his party's lamentable record on farming. The level of support for farming, in Wales and elsewhere, is higher than the level of support for all other industries put together. I do not deny for a minute that smaller farmers have real problems, but our Government are addressing those problems.
To encourage people to move from welfare into work, we need to ensure that work pays. We have introduced the national minimum wage, which is helping about 90,000 workers in Wales. As I have said, we are doing more to give extra help to pensioners: the minimum income guarantee has already helped around 95,000 of the poorest pensioners in Wales.
Over the weekend I read the Select Committee's report. It is a very good report, but let me be clear about one thing. Those 95,000 pensioners who benefit from the guarantee would not have gained at all from an earnings uprating of the basic state pension, because every penny that they received on the basic pension would have been taken off their income support.
The Tories may have different plans, but let me make it crystal clear that under this Labour Government the basic state pension will remain the foundation of
676
retirement income. For most people, however, the best way to secure a good standard of living in retirement is to contribute to a good second pension. As a result of our reforms, more people than ever will retire with better second pensions, and some will be able to receive such pensions for the first time ever.
As we promised, we are building on SERPS through the new state second pension, and 18 million people will have significantly better second pensions as a result. For the lower paid, the state second pension will in some cases more than double what they would have received under SERPS. That means that someone earning £120 a week will be £40 a week better off in retirement than he or she would have been under the Tories.
Moreover, for the first time, full-time parents, carers and disabled people will receive more money in retirement. For example, a state second pension of £50 a week, on top of the basic state pension, will be available to someone who has been a carer throughout his or her adult life. For people who cannot have access to occupational pensions and for whom personal pensions are inappropriate, we have introduced stakeholder pensions, which are flexible, secure and good value for money. They are revolutionising the way the pensions industry does business, by cutting charges, although they are coming on stream only from April this year. Those reforms mean that more and more people will retire on decent incomes. We will ensure that people who save during their working lives are rewarded.
More recently, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Social Security announced further help for vulnerable groups. We are tackling pensioner poverty by aligning all the rates of the minimum income guarantee with the highest rate. The winter fuel payment has been increased from £150 to £200 for this winter only, as part of a bridge to our new pension credit. We have abolished capital limits in the sure start maternity grant and funeral payments, to ensure that families on low incomes with small amounts of savings receive support to help cover the costs associated with the birth of a baby or the death of a close relative.
We have introduced a package of measures to help carers and the severely disabled on low incomes. That means that from April this year there will be an extra £10 a week for carers on income support, increasing the rate from £14.15 to £24.40. The disabled child premium, within income support, will rise from £22.25 to £30, a real-terms increase of £7.40. The new disability income guarantee will increase the weekly incomes of the poorest and most severely disabled people by £7.25 a week for single people and children and by £11.05 a week for couples, which means that a single person on DIG will receive £142 a week while couples will get £186.80.
These policies are already making a difference to people's lives, but we are developing more. By 2003 we shall be introducing the integrated child credit, a new employment tax credit and a pension credit to reward pensioners who have worked and saved hard during their working lives.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bayley: No, I shall not.
We are already witnessing real change as a result of our policies. The close consultation and co-operation between the United Kingdom Government and the

677
devolved Administration lie at the heart of our joined-up strategy. We are determined to continue to make a difference to people who live in Wales by providing real opportunity for all.
4.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Mr. Ruane: Where are the hon. Gentleman's mates?
Mr. Evans: Plenty of my mates will be here after the next general election. We will be sitting on the Government Benches, not on the Opposition Benches. We look forward to that and we will miss the hon. Gentleman.
I have been told that the Secretary of State cannot be here because he is having a meeting with the Prime Minister today about the steel job losses. I accept that fully. I hope that considerable progress can be made at that meeting. I urge the Minister to encourage lobbying for the traditional 1 March debate, so that we can discuss Welsh issues on a much wider scale.
This is a vital debate on social exclusion, poverty and job losses in Wales. I welcome the Minister, with his particular remit on social security. As we have heard, he knows his statistics well, although many people living in Wales will be scratching their heads and wondering how much of that relates to them. I think that he will understand what I mean when I refer to certain sectors in Wales that he failed to mention.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said that there were many interpretations of social exclusion. He referred to the rural economy, although the Minister made scant reference to it. It plays a dominant part in Wales. We need a vital rural economy to ensure that many people, particularly those living in west, mid and north Wales, can benefit from any growth in the economy generally.
Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the rural economy is affected by the on-going loss of manufacturing jobs in places such as mid-Wales? For example, uncertainty surrounds 200 jobs at the firm formerly known as BSK, in Llanidloes. Does he agree that it is incumbent on the Government to work with the Assembly in Wales to ensure that those rural jobs are not forgotten, despite the situation at Corus, which naturally gives rise to concern?
Mr. Evans: I rarely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion I do. Manufacturing jobs are vital: if jobs in rural areas are lost, it will be incredibly difficult to attract industry back to those areas. Infrastructural and service problems exist there, so losing 200 jobs in a rural area has a greater impact than it would in an urban area. Long-term problems of attracting jobs back to rural areas is that much more difficult.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I have looked up the unemployment figures for the constituency of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). The latest figures for December show that 594 people were out of
678
work, an unemployment rate of 2.2 per cent. I think that he and many of us who represent rural areas are relieved that unemployment is relatively very low in our areas.
Mr. Evans: I hope that the hon. Gentleman never loses that book, because he will have nothing to say if he does. It is all very well to trot out statistics glibly and to say what the rate of unemployment in the Montgomeryshire constituency is, but everything the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said was right. People are fearful of jobs going in rural areas. The arrogance that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) is displaying does him no great credit. People who work in manufacturing industries, not just in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom, will know that, since 1997, 370,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. In Wales, 16,000 have been lost. It is a real problem when manufacturing jobs, the bread and butter, the guts, of British industry, are lost.
Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the statistics for Montgomeryshire are very good, that is not an excuse for ignoring the dangers that he has been describing? The thousands of Corus job losses are unquestionably a serious matter. However, the loss of 200 jobs—the losses are not definite yet—in a place like Llanidloes would have at least the same impact as the Corus job losses will have at Ebbw Vale.
Mr. Evans: Of course I accept that job losses in rural areas have a disproportionate impact. I suspect that Labour Members representing rural constituencies will also accept that and realise how much more difficult it is to attract industry to those areas. I should hope that all hon. Members agree that jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs, in rural areas are hard to come by.
We have already heard about the post office closures of the past four years. We also know that, for many people, the post office may be their only village shop. It is pointless saying that those people can simply get into their cars and go to a neighbouring village where a post office may have survived, because many people do not have a vehicle. Additionally, rural transport is poor—although I concede that it has always been poor. The state of rural transport, however, should only make us recognise all the more the importance of the post office network in rural Wales.
Petrol is another bugbear. We now have some of the highest petrol prices and petrol taxation in the world. We really do need to recognise that fact. Several months ago, spontaneous petrol disputes were a recognition of that fact. Since then, however, very little has happened to change the situation. We have all heard about the wonderful new low sulphur petrol, but I have yet to see it being sold in any of the garages that I visit—[Interruption.] I am not saying that it will not be available, but currently many garages do not sell it.
Mrs. Lawrence: As the hon. Gentleman does not represent a Welsh constituency, he may not be aware that the Government's policy on both ultra-low sulphur diesel and ultra-low sulphur petrol has secured, in the medium to long term, the refinery in my constituency which is one of the major employers there.
Mr. Evans: I was in the hon. Lady's constituency, with the excellent Stephen Crabb, the prospective

679
parliamentary candidate for her constituency, who showed me round Haverfordwest and Milford Haven. As she herself would concede, Milford Haven is an unemployment black spot and has tremendous problems, and it would take a disproportionate effort to attract jobs to her constituency. I realise that. I lived in Swansea for 33 years, and it was difficult to attract investment even there, although it is only an hour from Cardiff. It will take even more energy to attract investment further west.
Mrs. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman's comments seem to highlight his lack of knowledge—despite his recent visit to my constituency, about which he did not notify me. The employment figures in my constituency have improved massively, primarily because of the 1,500 jobs at Cyber Park that we anticipate will have been created by June, although almost as many have already been created. Most of Cyber Park's employees come from my constituency. At the opening of the latest development there, the Employment Service made the point that those jobs have had the knock-on effect of creating another 4,000 jobs in the community. Perhaps, having been to my constituency, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge at least those facts.
Mr. Evans: I have apologised privately to the hon. Lady for the discourtesy in not notifying her, and I do so again publicly. I can also guarantee her that, in just a couple of weeks, when I visit her constituency with the most excellent Stephen Crabb, I shall most certainly let her know. Perhaps she could join me in a walk-round. Perhaps we could go to Milford Haven and see the problems there. Although I hear what she says, I am sure that she will concede the difficulty of dealing with unemployment in western and rural Wales and the need for even more energy to be devoted to attracting industry there.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: No. I have to make a little more progress, but I shall give way later.
I asked the Minister about farming, and he conceded that it is experiencing real and severe problems. Even the Minister, however, may not fully understand the impact that the farming crisis is having in parts of Wales. Recently, the Western Mail reported that 73 jobs a week were being lost to Welsh farming. The total number of people employed on Welsh farms in June 2000 was 55,700, 3,800 fewer than a year before. These statistics come from the National Assembly. The president of the Farmers Union of Wales, Bob Parry, said:
"This serves to underline just how badly the agricultural sector in Wales is suffering."
Hugh Richards, the president of the National Farmers Union in Wales, described the figure as
"a very sad indictment of the appalling state of the agriculture industry in Wales."
There has been a dramatic fall of 13 per cent. in the number of full-time farmers over two years, from 25,800 in 1998 to 22,600 in 2000. Mr. Parry said:
"Politicians must take this crisis seriously and take positive action to stem the flow of jobs from farming. Losing 73 jobs every week in rural Wales has a detrimental knock-on effect on the entire economy, a fact that must be recognised by the Assembly and also by Whitehall."
680
From 1995–99 to date, farm incomes have fallen by more than half, and some farmers now survive on well below the minimum wage. They are self-employed; as one farmer said to me, not all farmers go out of business, but a lot go poor. Unfortunately, that is happening in too many areas. When we talk about poverty and social exclusion in Wales, we must not forget the farming industry.
Many of those involved in farming are coming to London on 18 March. I have encouraged the Prime Minister to be here on that date to meet a delegation of rural dwellers from my constituency. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State could say whether he will be here on that date to meet representatives of Welsh farmers and those who live in rural areas; they will have a strong message to send to him. Many people in Wales are scratching their heads and wondering why time is being taken to legislate on hunting with hounds when there are so many deep-seated problems in Wales.
An additional problem for which the Government are specifically responsible is the introduction of the climate change levy. I ask Ministers to look carefully at the impact that that will have on those farmers in Wales—particularly horticulturists—who use a lot of energy. Will Ministers scrap this dreadful and appalling tax?
Tax on petrol, in particular, is regressive and hits the poorest parts of society. On average, each family in Wales is paying £670 net more taxes today than in May 1997; after the Government's promise that there would be no new taxes, that seems a bit rich to these people. The real problem comes when people think, "We are paying the taxes, so where are the services?"
I shall refer to one example that should worry everyone in the country. Nothing is more socially excluding or hurtful to the poor than to have the NHS not delivering the decent health care that they expect after paying their taxes. Many people in this Chamber could afford private health care if they so wished. Those who are socially excluded and live on low incomes have no choice; they must use the health service. The total of Welsh residents waiting for in-patient or day-case treatment has gone up from March 1997 by 14.7 per cent. The number of patients waiting over 12 months rose between 31 March 1997 and 31 December 2000 by 85 per cent. For the same period, the number of patients waiting more than 18 months has gone up by 251 per cent. Those are chilling figures, and the Government should work with the Welsh Assembly to ensure that we get a much improved service for the people of Wales.
When the Government of Wales Act 1998 was enacted, establishing the Assembly, Government Members gave the impression that everything would be rosy and that it was guaranteed that waiting lists would go down. We were almost tempted to believe that the Welsh rugby team would win every game—although, sadly, after Saturday, that is clearly not the case. There is not much that the Government can do about Welsh rugby, but there is everything that they can do about the health service in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): How will the hon. Gentleman's proposed cuts in public spending help the national health service in Wales? How will his opposition

681
to the working families tax credit, to child benefit rises, to the minimum wage and to public spending by local authorities help socially excluded rural areas?
Mr. Evans: The Government trot out the line that the Conservatives plan to cut expenditure, but they fail to recognise that we may well plan to cut the proposed enormous increases in expenditure by £8 billion overall, which will be returned to the people in tax cuts that they can spend themselves; but we also intend to ensure that we spend money more effectively and efficiently.
The cost of government has gone up by £2 billion a year, for example. In Wales, we now have MEPs, MPs, Assembly Members, local authority councillors—where does it all stop? This all costs an enormous sum. Are the people of Wales getting a better service? No. At a time of crisis in the national health service in Wales, the Welsh Assembly is to spend £42 million on a new building, when people who voted in the referendum were told that it would cost between £12 million and £17 million. Surely it would be better to stay within budget and spend the difference on the health service. Does anyone here believe that the money should be spent on the Assembly building? The silence at least indicates some consensus. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Plaid Cymru may have something to say.
Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend will have heard the Under-Secretary referring to the working families tax credit. Does he agree that it shares with the child care credit and the student loan repayment administration regulations, whatever their intrinsic merits or demerits, the characteristic of shuffling responsibility from central Government to beleaguered businesses, forcing them to become unpaid tax collectors and benefit distributors? Would not it be sensible, instead of creating the deepest sea of regulation that businesses have ever had to negotiate, if the Government eased the burden and allowed them to breathe, to grow and to prosper?
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. [Interruption.] He can see that many hon. Members are keen to reply to his telling point.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Evans: I think that Plaid Cymru should have its say on the Assembly building.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman mentioned £42 million being spent on the Assembly building. Will he remind the House of the cost of the office in which he is situated, and perhaps compare the figures?
Mr. Evans: I had no involvement in the costs of that building and have gone on the record to condemn its extortionate cost. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the people of Wales, who were told that the new building would cost between £12 million and £17 million, but who now face a bill of £42 million—and no one seriously expects it to be built for much under £60 million; at least, I do not—would rather have the money spent on a palace for self-styled Ministers than on the NHS, he is more out of touch than I suspected.
682
The hon. Gentleman cannot deflect me from the excellent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I attended the launch of "Barriers to Survival and Growth in UK Small Firms", a document produced by the Federation of Small Businesses in November 2000 following responses from 927 small businesses. I own a small business in Wales, but I am not a member of the federation so have no interest to declare. Small businesses make the economy grow, and we must look to them to expand it in all parts of Wales, particularly rural Wales.
Mr. Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: In a moment.
Some 95 per cent. of respondents said that they were dissatisfied with fuel costs, a fact that should not be lost on the Government. Some 71 per cent. said that they were dissatisfied with local council business charges, and 76 per cent. were dissatisfied with the amount of local business. On the very point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, table 28 on page 25 refers to dissatisfaction with legislation. Some 81 per cent. were dissatisfied with the volume of legislation; 83 per cent. with its complexity; 79 per cent. with the rate of change in legislation; 79 per cent. with the interpretation of legislation; 59 per cent. with the ability to employ staff—
Mr. Flynn: The weather?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman may make light of the problems that small businesses face, but steelworkers in his constituency are losing their jobs and will seek new jobs from small businesses. If I were he, I should not treat so lightly the concerns of 927 small businesses in Wales. He should listen instead of making cheap comments.
Some 65 per cent. of respondents were dissatisfied with the cost of compliance, and 66 per cent. were unhappy with the implementation of European Union regulations. The Minister may already have read this excellent document; he is giving half a nod, so I shall ensure that he is sent a copy and will highlight the tables to which I hope he will pay some attention. Small businesses want to grow but the Government are stifling them.
Mr. Bayley: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that employment in Wales is going up and that unemployment is falling? Many of the new jobs are in the small business sector.
Mr. Evans: Of course unemployment has gone down, as it did towards the end of the period of Conservative government. The trend left as part of the previous Government's economic legacy has been continued, but we fear that the legacy will be destroyed. If job losses rise, I am sure that the Government will say that it is not their fault—"it's not me, guv.com." Nothing is ever the responsibility of the Government, but the United States of America is in fear of job losses and a recession, and the same thing is happening in Wales.
Mr. Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: In a moment.

683
Manufacturing industry is Wales's bread and butter, and more important, proportionally, than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire spoke of fears of job losses in his constituency, which I am certain are real. I applaud the announcement of 600 new jobs made today by Ford; the £240 million investment in Wales comes as a welcome tonic for us all. However, it cannot be taken in isolation.
As I listened to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry making his statement on the job losses at Corus, it was almost as though he were making a speech about how wonderful manufacturing is in Britain; but we know that there are real problems. We cannot hide the fact that there are severe job losses in manufacturing: at Courtaulds Textiles in Wrexham, 167 jobs were lost; we know exactly how many jobs will be lost at Corus—on top of job losses at the company last year; at Dewhirst, the women's clothing factory in Pembrokeshire, 300 jobs were lost—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Evans: I shall give way in a moment.
At Scottish Courage, 1,300 jobs were lost. There were also job losses at Hitachi, Sony and Panasonic. The announcement about Corus was made the day after Dairy Crest announced 500 job losses and the creation of 250 jobs—a net decrease.
Mrs. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman again makes a fundamental mistake about my constituency. No job losses have occurred at Dewhirst in my constituency. Hopefully, with the help of the Assembly and Members of the House, there will be no such losses. Negotiations are at a sensitive stage; the matter depends on commercial considerations. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman got his facts right for once.
Mr. Evans: All I can say is that the announcement was made. If the National Assembly for Wales is able—
Mrs. Lawrence rose—
Mr. Evans: Perhaps the hon. Lady could restrain herself for a moment.
If the National Assembly and, indeed, the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Minister, can do something to alleviate job losses from that factory, I should welcome it.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: I shall give way in a moment. I am always grateful for any assistance from the hon. Gentleman; I once tried—completely unsuccessfully—to prevent him from getting his job.
On the job losses at Corus and elsewhere, we all have to recognise that part of the problem relates to who is speaking for Wales on the economy—that came out on Thursday when the job losses were announced. Is it the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Is it the Secretary of State for Wales? Is it the First Minister? Is it
684
the Liberal Democrat Deputy First Minister, the Minister for Economic Development? There has been such fragmentation of responsibility.
People who are losing their jobs realise that the one great growth industry in Wales is politics—there are far more politicians and assistants for politicians. However, it certainly did not help the workers at Corus to hear the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry say at the Dispatch Box that he knew nothing about the job losses. If only the right hon. Gentleman read the Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Times or any other newspaper, perhaps he would have had an inkling.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman recently visited my constituency and informed me of his plans to do so. Unfortunately, he has not realised that the job losses at Dewhirst to which he referred took place in my constituency—165 jobs were lost. There is also a threat of job losses in Fishguard, to which many of my constituents travel to work. That is the reality of job losses in rural areas; in a small town such as Lampeter, the loss of 165 jobs—mainly held by women—is a tremendous blow.
Mr. Evans: On top of all that, an enormous number of jobs has been lost at Associated Dairies during the past two to three years. Furthermore, it is extremely hard to put jobs back into the dairy sector.
I know that a meeting on job losses is being held today. Many people will be affected; not just those who work directly for Corus, but those working in other industries that rely on the company. Service jobs and those in other manufacturing sectors depend on the health of Corus. Those people will be looking to the Government to set up a package of support and regeneration in the area. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will be able to offer us some guidance on that matter as quickly as possible; those people must be extremely worried about the job losses. I do not know whether the meeting has finished—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman indicates that it will finish shortly.
The Library has produced figures on social exclusion in Wales; in each category, the document gives figures for the United Kingdom as a whole, followed by the figures for Wales. The number of children in workless households is higher than in the United Kingdom generally. The number of children in households with relatively low income is higher in Wales. The number of working-age people in employment is obviously lower in Wales. The number of working-age people in workless households is higher in Wales. The number of working-age adults on income support for two years or more is higher in Wales. That makes fairly bleak reading.
The report entitled "Social Exclusion in Wales"—to which the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) will, no doubt, shortly refer—contains some chilling statistics, especially those on teenage pregnancies, to which he refers specifically.
Mr. Martin Caton: If the Conservative party is so concerned about social exclusion in Wales, why has it boycotted the entire social exclusion inquiry by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that the Select Committee's Conservative Members were unable to be present during the deliberations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Evans: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman will be able to discuss that matter with the individuals concerned.
The incoming Labour Government told us that things could only get better in Wales; they were trusted by people in Wales, but things have got decidedly worse in the past four years. Things will get better; they will get better in a few weeks' time when we have a general election. We are fed up to the back teeth with hearing statistic after statistic from Ministers. They tell us how good things are, but we know from visiting villages, towns and cities in Wales that there is real poverty. There are areas of growth, too, but the pockets of poverty hurt deeply. Things will only get better when this rotten Government are chucked out a few weeks from now.
5.1 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) requests that there should be a further look at the Barnett formula. He calls for a Barnett formula mark 2, which would be more needs based and perhaps more sophisticated than the current one. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs also issued that call. I certainly would not resile from that, but if we have a needs-based Barnett formula mark 2, more money will presumably come to Wales from the British Exchequer. I do not object to that; it is the purpose of having a better formula, but neither the hon. Gentleman nor his hon. Friends have told us how their policies could bridge the gap between the even greater public expenditure derived from a Barnett formula mark 2 and the amount of tax, sadly, that is raised in Wales.
Total public expenditure in Wales is about a third higher than the total sum raised in tax. If we had a better Barnett formula—let us have one—that gap would be even greater. Plaid Cymru Members want to leave the British Union and join the European Union. That is their policy, and they are perfectly entitled to it, but they must tell the people of Wales how they would bridge that gap in expenditure.
Plaid Cymru Members may say that they could somehow borrow the difference, but that would be practically impossible because a borrowing requirement of 15 per cent. of GDP would be involved, but the Maastricht criteria allow for 3 per cent. at most. If they borrowed at that 15 per cent. rate, they would not be allowed to join the euro, and they would have given up the British pound. Perhaps they will therefore tell us in what currency would the Welsh steel industry trade. Clearly, that policy would be a total disaster not only for the Welsh steel industry, but for the Welsh economy.
I agree with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and the terms of the motion tabled by his party that the Corus cuts and closures will worsen the problems of social exclusion in Wales. Of course, they will certainly make them worse in the short term, but I hope that the position can be retrieved in the medium term. I speak as the Member of Parliament for a constituency that does not produce basic steel, but it does produce tinplate. It has produced tinplate from before the first world war and it was producing it when President McKinley and the United States imposed the McKinley tariff on Llanelli tinplate.
686
In the 1970s, three factories in Wales produced tinplate. They were at Trostre in my constituency; Velindre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton); and Ebbw Vale in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). If the Corus proposals go through, only one plant will remain. In the 1970s, those three factories had 90 per cent. of the domestic tinplate market in the United Kingdom. More than 20 years later, that figure is now down to 50 per cent. and British Steel has never explained to me how it managed to lose almost 40 per cent. of the market. Perhaps it was too much to expect it to hold on to 90 per cent. of the domestic market—that figure may have been artificial—but the considerable decline has left us with the prospect that only the plant at Trostre will remain.
It gives no pleasure to those who work in Trostre and those who live in my constituency—they have lived with the problem for years—that our plant will be the last one remaining. Under the plans, the plant at Ebbw Vale is expected to close. We hope that the proposals put forward by the trade unions mean that at least two plants will produce tinplate in Wales. We need two plants to maintain a 50 per cent. market share, and, if that share is eroded any further, it will affect the plant in my constituency and the plant at Port Talbot that produces steel for the tinplate industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and others mentioned the meeting that some of us had with the chairman and chief executive of Corus. We heard what was said and have considered it carefully. Indeed, I have studied the press release that Corus issued. It seems fair to say that Corus gave three reasons for embarking on this venture. First, the euro-sterling exchange rate is a problem; secondly, it sees a decline in the UK's manufacturing base; and, thirdly, problems are associated with the overproduction and price of steel. I shall return to those three reasons shortly, but they are all external to the company.
I accept that the company was losing money but, as I understand it, the reconfigurated debt will be higher than the one it had before the reconstruction and all the cuts and closures took place. Although the company was losing money, no one has ever suggested that there were internal reasons for that. As we have heard, productivity is excellent and the steel industry in Britain is probably as efficient as almost any steel industry in Europe and it is close to being as efficient as the industry in Japan. The problems are not internal, but Corus is using internal measures—a blood sacrifice or slaughter of the innocents among the workers in the industry—to try to solve or react to external problems. It is not sitting down with the Government and the trade unions to consider how to deal with those external factors.
No one is suggesting that a solution is easy—some forces are outside all our control—but the company should do what Ford did. It should sit down with Government to try come to terms with the problems. The company's problems are not the result of a lack of productivity, but of external factors. Although we accept that the chairman and chief executive of Corus is under considerable pressure, it is totally indefensible for him not to come to Government to describe the external problems that the industry faces and to ask for help in alleviating them as best we can. The company failed to do that and engaged in an old-fashioned blood sacrifice that will not resolve the problem. Such an approach is totally out of date.

687
I should like to deal with the three reasons to which I referred, for which I have a ladder of escalation. The third reason on that ladder is the relative values of the pound and the euro. There is no doubt of the importance of that factor, as the exchange rate clearly worked against the steel industry. It has now improved a little, but the weakness of the euro was bound to affect British companies—including those in the steel industry—that were trying to export to the continent at a time when the pound was strong.
However, we should not imagine that the problems would not have arisen or that jobs would not have been lost if we had joined the euro. Indeed, we are not hearing that suggestion as much as we did previously and I certainly do not believe that Corus takes that view. When I ask people who favour joining the euro at what rate they would do so, I do not get an answer. Joining it at the present exchange rates or even the higher rates of six months ago would crucify not only the steel industry, but most of Welsh and British manufacturing.
On the other hand, it is sometimes suggested that devaluation is a great panacea. I have never thought that that is the case; devaluation is merely something that occasionally has to happen. I shall not betray any confidences, but I think that the Corus chief executive said in our meeting that, if devaluation was to help the company, it would have to occur at a rate of some 20 per cent. on present levels. Indeed, some European Commissioners have suggested a devaluation of 20 to 25 per cent. I find surprising the idea that the Germans and French would allow us to devalue at such a rate. If they did so, there would be other consequences: higher interest rates, higher taxes, cuts in public expenditure or a combination of the three. We would be in a completely different situation. Devaluation is not a panacea, and neither is joining the euro.
The second factor on my escalator of reasons is the decline in manufacturing industry. We must agree with Corus to some extent on that point. Yes, there has been a decline.
Mr. Öpik: I was of the belief that the reduction of interest rates was a mechanism by which one could devalue a currency. The right hon. Gentleman appears to feel that the opposite is true.
Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is speaking about a slow and gradual devaluation that enables us to slide into the euro at a much lower rate, then perhaps we could reduce the interest rates, but how would that affect inflation? Interest rates cannot be reduced for the sake of devaluation alone; other factors must be taken into account.
There has been a decline in manufacturing, partly for structural reasons. Emerging countries have moved into the basic manufacturing activities in which Wales has been especially involved. Years ago, people laughed at Brazilian steel, but that does not happen these days. The emerging countries are producing the basic heavy metals and goods that Wales produced in the past. Structural decline has occurred not only in Wales and Britain, but in Europe and the United States. British Steel was responsible for the reduction from 90 per cent. to 50 per cent. of Wales' share in the tinplate market. That affected the steel industry; less steel can be produced in Port
688
Talbot because so much of the tinplate market was lost. British Steel was, therefore, responsible for some of the decline.
I remember well the benign neglect and antipathy with which successive Conservative Governments treated the manufacturing industry in the 1980s. They had a hatred of the industry and its unions that was seen by the House time after time, year after year. Perhaps reality crept in towards the early 1990s, when it was, to some extent, realised that such an attitude was mistaken. However, manufacturing was a pariah for long periods and was not to be supported in any way.
All Governments seem to have the notion that they cannot touch manufacturing or the markets. The European Union has introduced competition rules that did not exist in the 1970s, and which make it much more difficult, although not impossible, to support manufacturing. The general agreement on tariffs and trade and the World Trade Organisation also make that much more difficult. Governments and politicians have to try to reassert themselves. We must state that we have a role. These rules cannot be made to dominate us when our communities and entire economies are under threat. It will not be easy, but politicians must stand up, rather than allowing matters to drift and fashion to prevent us from assisting manufacturing.
Corus gave three reasons for its decision. Hon. Members can choose which one is the most important, but for me, the main reason is our old friend—or perhaps not a friend—global capitalism. I talk to people in manufacturing industry in my constituency, such as those at Trostre. Enormous pressure is exerted on prices by global forces that none of us can really understand or control. That pressure means that costs must constantly be driven down to try to make a profit at the lower prices.
At our meeting with the chairman and chief executive, he said, in answer to a question that I asked, that we are getting to a point at which there is a world price for steel. I am not a great expert on the steel industry, but having been the Member for Llanelli, where tinplate is made, for 30 years, I have observed the industry. There did not used to be a world price for steel. I can see that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is anticipating what I am about to say. There used to be a national steel price and a regional steel price. Indeed, there was a common belief in the industry that the prices were fixed. I do not know whether they were fixed, but if they were, those who fixed them were very clever about it, because the steel industry managed to keep out of the restrictive trade practices court, unlike cement manufacturers, who were frequently before that court.
It was thought that there was an unofficial European steel cartel. I do not blame the industry for that. Territories were carved up, partly because steel is heavy and it costs a great deal to transport it a long way. There was, perhaps, some price fixing, but it is all disappearing. It is significant that the chairman and chief executive of Corus said that we are close to having a world price for steel. He said it as if he could not believe it—after all, he is of that earlier generation in the industry.
We have heard a lot about farming. I do not want to provoke some of my hon. Friends who are not as keen on the farming community, but we have world prices for agricultural products. World prices, whether in manufacturing or farming, are determined by the lowest

689
costs, which are often in emerging economies outside Europe and north America. When asked about that, the chairman and chief executive of Corus said, "Where is the steel coming from then?" It is coming from Brazil and former Soviet Union countries such as Russia, and Soviet satellites such as Poland and Czechoslovakia. Perhaps it is not very good steel—I do not know. Maybe one could not make tinplate from it; it probably has too many impurities. However, it is pouring into Europe and creating a world price for steel.
I understand that the European export price for hot-rolled coil has fallen by $100 a tonne in the past 12 months. The price at the beginning of that period was $300 a tonne, and is now down to $200 a tonne. I am not saying that the price will fall further. Maybe special factors were involved. I am not an expert on the steel industry, but what will happen to Corus if the price falls again by $100 or even $50 a tonne? Where will that leave our industries? All Governments and politicians must pay less obeisance to the market and to globalisation than we have tended to in the past. We must see what we can do; otherwise, our communities and our economies may gradually disappear. That is why Corus should have talked to the Government. Perhaps they could not have provided a solution, but the company did not have an answer either, and it should therefore have consulted the Government. It is better to talk, to get together and try to resolve the problem.
We live in deflationary times but we have a structure for inflation. The marketplace determines the price and the grand governors of central banks—the Basle mafia—decide interest rates and pretend that they are all powerful and that they have made a great impact. That also applies to Dr. Alan Greenspan. Perhaps those bankers are all right when there is inflation, but they are no good in times of deflation. For example, half the Japanese banks have gone bankrupt. In times of deflation, we do not need central bankers, but government. We needed government in the past in such times, and we shall need it again in future if deflation worsens.
I have listed the three factors, and I believe that the third is most significant. Whatever factor is most important, companies should talk to Governments, let them get involved and ascertain whether we can tame the forces that often drive our industry to the wall. It will be a major task to rebuild our communities, but I believe that it can be done. We must try to broaden our manufacturing base. Everybody says that, and it is easy to say, but harder to do. We must broaden our base to include information and communication technology if we can. That will not be done by what my noble Friend Lord Healey used to describe as monetary and financial wheezes. A couple of points off corporation tax and 0.5 per cent. off the interest rate may help—I do not decry such measures—but many of our communities in south Wales have a genuine structural problem.
There is also a structural problem in education, especially in science and mathematics. I do not mean training after leaving school, but basic education in those subjects. Why is the south-east of England powering ahead in manufacturing? Why is the gap widening, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said? Partly because the education and training that people receive there is better than that in Wales. We must match the
690
best. We must start pursuing excellence again, and stop equating excellence with elitism, which is different. We did it once, and we can do it again. We must show the political will to achieve that. Yes, we must have the resources, the money from the Treasury, but let us show the political will to raise the standard of education and learning in our communities. Then we will solve the problem.
5.23 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on his speech. I agree with many of his comments, and his point about education was vital. We must regenerate our pride in education and our commitment to it. It is essential to future industries, technologies and job opportunities in Wales.
I congratulate the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on its comprehensive report, which forms the background to the debate. It makes many excellent recommendations, and I congratulate its Chairman, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and its members. I congratulate especially my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on getting so many Plaid Cymru policies adopted by the Committee. His influence is far reaching.
The challenge is to persuade the Government to adopt the Committee's recommendations and not to leave the report on dusty shelves. They need to be implemented. The Minister's opening speech made no commitment to taking any action on the report. As he knows, I have a lot of respect for him, but his speech was awash with complacency. He boasted about action that the Government claim to have taken. Poor people in Wales know the truth; they experience the reality of poverty. No amount of Government spin can change that.
Let us consider some of the economic factors that form the background to the report. Gross domestic product per head in Wales has dropped from 92 per cent. of the United Kingdom average in the 1960s to 79 per cent. now. In 1999, the proportion of working-age people in employment in Wales was 68 per cent., compared with 80 per cent. in south-east England. The proportion of working-age people in workless households in Wales was 16 per cent., more than twice as high as in south-east England.
The employment rate for people with disabilities in Wales was only 31 per cent., compared with 51 per cent. in south-east England. The employment rate for lone parents in Wales was 47 per cent., compared with 56 per cent. in south-east England. The employment rate for those aged over 50 was 56 per cent. in Wales, compared with 74 per cent. in south-east England. Those are some of the background figures to the social and economic problems that Wales is facing.
Mr. Ruane: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the negative statistics for Wales. May I counter them with some positive ones? There have been 40,000 new jobs in Wales since 1997—29,400 in the two years to September 2000—and 67,000 families have benefited from the working families tax credit. The new deal has helped 27,000 jobless people into work in Wales. More than 100,000 workers in Wales are benefiting from the

691
national minimum wage—approximately 10 per cent. of the work force. All that has been achieved under Labour over the past three and a half years.
Mr. Wigley: I was not expecting the hon. Gentleman to read out his manifesto for the forthcoming election in his Clwyd constituency. No doubt he will put the best spin that he can on the figures that exist. However, he acknowledges that—as the Committee stated in its report—severe problems face Wales. Of course, we welcome the new jobs have that have been created, such as the 600 at Bridgend that were re-announced today by Ford. We welcome any good news. However, we must look at the targets at which we should be aiming. The gulf in GDP per head has widened over the past 20 years, and the problem is getting progressively worse—even over the past three years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) rightly said.
I turn to this week's disastrous news about the job losses in the steel industry. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) will not be surprised that I am referring to this, because the decision has hit Shotton as it has hit the steelworking towns of south Wales. The First Minister in the Assembly, who represents Cardiff, West here at Westminster, has estimated that the total effect of the decision, including knock-on effects, will be the loss of about 7,000 jobs in Wales.
That loss will be on top of a loss of between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs in the agricultural sector over the past 18 months, which was mentioned earlier. Although we welcome the confirmation of the new jobs that have been announced, even with the knock-on effect taken into account, they go only one tenth of the way towards remedying the recent job losses, and they will certainly not represent any progress in increasing the amount of income per head in Wales.
It is unacceptable that any company should treat its work force as Corus has done. It is equally unacceptable that the Government should have stood back from the crisis that has been rapidly developing over the past 18 months. When we warned of the dangers, we were told to stop scaremongering. However, not only the steel industry but all manufacturing has been hit by the Government's policy of maintaining the high parity of the pound. The number of manufacturing jobs in Wales decreased from 230,000 in 1990 to 192,000 last year—a decrease of 38,000 jobs. Tourism and agriculture have also been hit by the over-valued pound.
Mr. Martyn Jones: I want to correct the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, the Government's policy is not to maintain the parity of the pound but to maintain interest rates. That has nothing to do with the parity of the pound.
Mr. Wigley: Goodness me! If one retains interest rates as the only tool with which to control inflation, and holds them at too high a level, that will inevitably affect the parity of the pound because money will be sucked in. That is basic economics. Handing over control to the Bank of England, with only one objective—to control inflation—will inevitably have a knock-on effect on employment. Even the United States gives its central bank the twin objective of having regard to employment and to inflation.
692
The Government are totally culpable in passing over responsibility to the Bank of England without giving it responsibility for employment as well as inflation.
Mr. Llew Smith: The right hon. Gentleman obviously disapproves of handing over powers to the Bank of England, and I agree with him about that, but what are his views on handing over powers to the European central bank? As I understand it, if we hand over such powers, the matters that the right hon. Gentleman believes should remain in our control will no longer do so.
Mr. Wigley: I believe that such policies must be accountable to the people and that policies followed by the Bank of England or the European central bank must have an eye on what is acceptable to the people in terms of employment as well as inflation. For the Government—a Labour Government—to have abandoned employment as a criterion for the Bank of England in controlling the economy beggars belief. The founding fathers of the Labour party, including those in the hon. Gentleman's Blaenau Gwent constituency, must be turning in their graves as they contemplate this situation.
There is a need to get the pound to a realistic parity against the euro and I believe that, having achieved that realistic level, we should be in the European currency system to give manufacturing the confidence it needs to plan its future. It is unacceptable that the factories of Wales—
Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wigley: No, not at the moment. I shall make progress rather than take running interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that some Labour Members agree, unless they have totally changed their colours, that it is unacceptable that the factories of Wales should be put in jeopardy by the vagaries of the currency casino from which we are suffering, now and over recent years.
The steel issue runs even deeper. Steel is a basic commodity of the manufacturing economy, basic for construction and basic for any independent defence policy of these islands. For the Government to sit back and allow the future of that basic industry to be determined by shareholders in the New York stock exchange and decisions of Dutch executives is not acceptable. The steel job losses will hit Gorseinon and Shotton and cast a grave shadow over the future of the Llanwern steelworks, where productivity is 20 per cent. higher than that of the Dutch steelworks that will benefit from Corus's cuts in the United Kingdom.
For Ebbw Vale—yes, the constituency of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)—the news is absolutely calamitous. That community depends on steel. It still has not got over the previous round of cuts and has some of the worst figures in Wales for poverty and deprivation. Now it is to be hit by the scandalous and unacceptable closure decision. A Labour Government—yes, a Labour Government—are sitting back and letting that happen, but let us not pretend that they are helpless.
Of course the Government can do something, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli suggested. They could and should have intervened to tell Corus in no uncertain terms that they would not sit back and allow such a

693
vital industry to be undermined, but they did not. They could intervene even now on the basis of the strategic importance of the steel industry, as suggested last week by Edwina Hart, Labour's Minister for Finance and Communities in the National Assembly. They could say that, unless Corus rethinks, they will act to take the United Kingdom steel industry back into some form of public ownership or, at the very least, to underwrite the trade union proposals for a takeover or a management buy-out. They could examine the model successfully followed by Tower colliery or the Glas Cymru model for Welsh Water.
What is not acceptable is for the Government to wring their hands, shake their head and utter spurious, cynical noises of sympathy while doing absolutely nothing to save those vital jobs.
Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wigley: Not at the moment.
What on earth is the point of electing a Labour Government if they stand back and watch communities such as Ebbw Vale be sacrificed on the altar of the New York stock exchange?
Mr. Hanson: The Labour Government are not sitting back and watching jobs being lost. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and some of my hon. Friends, I represent steelworkers. We met Corus and met the unions before, during and after the announcement and we shall continue to do so. I will not take posturing from the right hon. Gentleman on those points.
Mr. Wigley: And I will not take mock anger at the Dispatch Box from the Minister. If the Government were doing something, we should have known what they were doing. By now, they should have shown their colours by their actions.
It is time that the Government shook themselves out of the self-congratulatory complacency that they have shown in the debate. We need action on steel. We need a proactive regional policy, as recommended by the Select Committee. We need to lower corporation tax to attract new investment, as has been done in Ireland. We need regional variation of tax as a tool of regional policy, as recommended by the Select Committee. We need operating aids such as lower national insurance in objective 1 areas. We need—again, as highlighted by the Select Committee—a revised Barnett formula to ensure that resources are available to tackle social deprivation in Wales in line with our needs. It is sad to see that the Secretary of State for Wales has already ruled out that option in his reply to a question on 18 January.
It is outrageous that the funding available for Wales in 2001 is still based on the 1978 formula, taking no notice of the enormous structural changes in the Welsh economy over the past 20 years. Unless the Labour Government are prepared to act on such social priorities, what on earth is the point of their existence? The clock is ticking not just for Ebbw Vale and Llanwern, but for new Labour in Wales. Unless they change course, their time will soon be up.
5.35 pm
Mr. Llew Smith: For me and for my constituency, the past week has been sad, dramatic and awful—to say the least.
For many years, my community has been built on coal and steel. The coal industry was wiped out by the previous Tory Government immediately after the 1984 miners' strike, when miners in my community stood up to defend their industry and, indeed, their community. Now, the steel industry might also be wiped out, once again by the privatisation policies of the previous Tory Government.
What annoys many people in my community is the refusal to accept that privatisation is the problem. What makes us angry is when Corus spews out a long list of excuses why Ebbw Vale as a steel town should close and why other steel jobs should go. We are told on one day that it is a problem of transport costs, on another that it is because of the climate change levy and on yet another that it is a problem of rates. We are then told that it is a problem of the euro.
Corus seems to have changed its position on the euro almost daily. A few weeks ago, it said that the euro was the problem. A week or so ago, one of its chief executives said that the euro was not the problem. When the closure was announced, we were told once again that the euro was the problem. However, some 24 hours after the closure, the Financial Times reported that the euro was not the problem. I do not believe that the euro, transport costs, the climate change levy or rates had anything to do with the closure of the Ebbw Vale tinplate plant and the loss of other jobs throughout the steel industry. I believe that it has happened as a result of the incompetence of the Corus directors, who, instead of building on the productivity achieved by the work force, spent the past 18 months asset-stripping the industry. The community in Blaenau Gwent is now paying for that.
I have said it before and I shall say it again: ominously, on the day on which Corus was formed, one of its first acts was not to make a statement saying that it was determined to build up the steel industry but to hand over approximately £700 million, which Moffatt described as a special payment, to its shareholders. As Moffatt said, had the £700 million not been handed over, it is unlikely that the merger would have gone ahead. Thus, we know that the merger was about money, not about building up one of our greatest industries.
Corus also appropriated some £900 million from the workers' pension fund. It was a workers' pension fund in more ways than one. Corus seemed to have forgotten that much of the money was paid into that fund when the steel industry was publicly owned. Over the past 18 months, Corus has spent some £135 million buying up companies throughout the world. Although it found the £135 million to do that, it could find only £3 million to invest in the UK steel industry.
It is ironic and obscene not only that Corus did not invest in the plant in Ebbw Vale as it should have done, but that 24 hours before the closure was announced, it got around to investing in a nameplate for the plant. During the previous 18 months, the company had not been willing to invest in a new nameplate. A piece of white tarpaulin with the name "Corus" splattered across it had been thrown over the previous nameplate. That says something about the company's contribution.

695
The joint chief executives were sacked a while back. If we accept what we were told, they were sacked for incompetence, so why were they given millions of pounds of compensation? On top of that, when Corus was formed, one of its first acts was to give massive wage increases to the former Dutch managers. Surely that cannot be right. It is certainly not right when we compare that with the treatment of the steelworkers—the people who built the industry, and turned the plant in Ebbw Vale into one of the most efficient and productive in the world.
Steelworkers in Ebbw Vale have made sacrifice after sacrifice by accepting changes in their conditions of employment and wages. All that seems to be irrelevant to Corus. After making those sacrifices and building the industry and the plant into one of the most successful in the world, surely the workers should have been rewarded for their endeavours. In fact, they have been punished.
The media have reported that 750 jobs will be lost if that plant closes. They are wrong. Over the past couple of years, Corus has outsourced much of its work. People who were previously employed by the company are now employed by other firms but are still working at the plant. That is another 250 jobs. On 1 March, another 250 workers will be made redundant as a result of the last lot of job losses. The small community of Ebbw Vale will suffer 1,250 job losses. No matter how we measure deprivation—unemployment, low wages, ill health or bad housing—sadly, that community is top of the list. We have not recovered from the previous job losses in the steel industry or from the wiping out of the mining industry.
What annoys people in the community is that they made cuts in their conditions of employment, such as wage standstills, but Corus has never accepted that it is those workers who are the real experts. They have worked in the steel industry not for one or two years, but for 20, 30 or 40 years. They know the industry inside out. Sadly, their skills, talents and creativity were ignored by Corus's management. On no occasion did Corus say to those workers that it wanted to use their skills, talent and creativity to help it to build up the industry in the months ahead.
Cores showed disdain not only for the work force but for the Government, trade unions and other public representatives. I have been going into the tinplate works in Ebbw Vale for many a long year, but in recent years there has been a change and I have been prevented from doing so. A few weeks back, I said to Mr. Stuart Wilkie, the works manager, that I wanted to go into the plant to have a chat with the management and the union regarding the problems facing the industry and the possible job losses. Mr. Wilkie said that I could go into the plant, but only after the decision had been taken. Indeed, on the day of the decision, Mr. Wilkie said that Mr. Vickers, one of the managing directors, had asked him to contact me to explain the redundancies.
Like most other Members who are present, I never use foul language. Never does an "expletive deleted" pass my lips. That occasion, however, was an exception, because the Mr. Vickers who advised the plant manager to inform me on the telephone of redundancies and the closure of the plant was the very same Mr. Vickers—the very same managing director—who, on the day on which Corus was formed, rang me at home at 8.30 am and assured me that there would be no job losses, that the plant's future was not threatened and that the plant was secure. Obviously
696
the position has changed dramatically, because of the contribution of the Moffats of this world, the Vickerses of this world and yes, the works managers of this world. Instead of building up the industry, those people have tried to destroy it.
I think I am known in my group as one who, when I think the Government are wrong, says so and votes accordingly. In this instance, however, I do not believe that the Government are to blame. The blame lies entirely with Corus, and any Member who tries to shift the blame will do a disservice to my community—to the 1,250 people who will lose their jobs, and the 1,250 families who will suffer. They will suffer as a result of Corus: Corus and privatisation have caused this disaster.
When we met Mr. Moffat some days ago, I came away totally demoralized—not just in the context of the future of Ebbw Vale, but in the context of the steel industry's future in the United Kingdom. If the Moffats of this world remain in power within the industry, I predict that in five years there will be no steel industry in the United Kingdom. It seemed to me that Mr. Moffat had no commitment to the industry and no strategy for it; I sensed short-termism.
What probably happened was this. Mr. Moffat sacked the two chief executives and then thought, "I will sort this out", but he could not sort it out. He could not sort out the problems that obviously existed with the banks.
Another thing annoyed me. Mr. Moffat told us that no decision had been made about the future of the Ebbw Vale plant, yet about 24 hours later he and the others were planning a press release saying that the Ebbw Vale tinplate works would close. Mr. Moffat was lying through his teeth: it is impossible to reach any other conclusion.
It was bad enough to lie to me. What is more repulsive is the fact that Mr. Moffat lied to people who depended on the industry and the plant for their future: he and people like him will not be forgiven for that.
The current debate in Ebbw Vale is not about whether the Government can provide extra money; it is still about saving the plant, and that is what we must do. By working-class standards—by the standards of Blaenau Gwent—those were 1,250 good jobs. When the people who no longer have those jobs sign on the dole, the alternative will be not 1,250 jobs in some other manufacturing firm but, probably, security officers' jobs at £4 an hour. That cannot be right.
All our energies must go into saving the plant. In doing so, we shall not only be saving the lives of many people in that community; we shall be saving the life of the steel industry. That is a goal worth fighting for, which is what those in my community are still doing.
5.49 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: My heart goes out to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). What Corus has done to his community is unforgivable, and he rightly makes a cry for a fightback by the work force. We must all support him in that, whatever party we are in. We must do something to save the community, which depends totally on the steel industry. I feel strongly about the matter.
In Wales, the background to this subject is extraordinary. Social exclusion has been linked with problems of unemployment, poor skills, low incomes,

697
poor housing, high crime, poor environment, bad health and family breakdown. The archetypal view is that social exclusion is found on inner-city estates, but one must remember that it can be found in rural areas, too, and that poor people in rural areas can be particularly excluded because of a lack of transport, increased costs and remote services.
Wales suffers disproportionately compared with other areas in the United Kingdom. Wales has a higher rate of children living in poverty, lower levels of educational achievement, more housing of poor quality, low rates of pay, a higher rate of households with no one in employment, a higher proportion of people on income-replacement benefits, a particularly high proportion of people in receipt of sickness and disability benefits, lower life expectancy and higher mortality rates. I am sorry to have to say it, but that is a legacy of 18 years of Conservative rule. The Conservatives have nothing to be proud of in leaving that legacy for us to pick up.
Social exclusion refers to more than a set level of income. It refers to the marginalisation of people in society and to their exclusion from what we would normally think was a thoroughly decent society.
Gender is important in this respect. In Wales, 245,000 women live on or around the poverty line. That is inexcusable. Lone parents, who are nearly always women, are even less likely to be in paid employment. Women represent the most significant group of socially excluded members of society. That must not be forgotten. With all the job losses, it is the women who have to struggle to bring up their families in poverty—that is what we are talking about.
People over state retirement age comprise 20 per cent. of the Welsh population. That is higher than in the UK as a whole. In my constituency, 24 per cent. of the population are in that category.
Mr. Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that sparsity considerations make it more expensive to cater for the social needs of the elderly in rural areas such as mid-Wales and that it is important that the Government are sensitive to that? Otherwise, they create elderly ghettoisation, which exacerbates the life expectancy and health problems that he describes.
Mr. Livsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but, as he knows, that problem already exists in many areas. Indeed, where post offices have closed, elderly people cannot go to collect their pensions. I know that they can get them through the post, but that contributes to closures of even more post offices. The blame for that lies both with the previous and present Governments. They have both closed an awful lot of sub-post offices.
Chronic ill health and mortality rates are significantly higher in Wales than in England. A lack of public transport, particularly in rural areas, hits people very hard.
Children and young people are disproportionately affected by social exclusion. Thirty-seven per cent. of children live in poverty—in a household with well below 50 per cent. of average income, which currently stands at £200 a week. More than 5 per cent. leave school at
698
16 with no qualifications. In some parts of Wales, the figure is much higher than that. It used to be about 20 per cent. in some of the valley areas, but that is being tackled.
Young people aged 16 to 18 are excluded from the national minimum wage. I am a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which investigated social exclusion. We met that problem head on in interviews with young people. They must get fair treatment and assistance to earn the full minimum wage. Few young people have access to a car, so they are particularly affected by the lack of public transport.
The rate of teenage pregnancy is particularly high in Wales. The vulnerability of children who are looked after by local authorities has been highlighted by the north Wales child abuse tribunal. It is important to remember that children in care and those leaving care are highly vulnerable. We are starting to attack that problem, rightly, with the establishment of a Children's Commissioner for Wales.
People with disabilities or long-term illnesses are frequently excluded from the mainstream of society. People in ethnic minorities suffer higher unemployment by far than those in other categories.
The crisis in agriculture and the disastrous decline in farm incomes have had a knock-on effect on the rural economy. Good jobs in the sector are in short supply. The rural population is ageing. As those of us in mid-Wales know, the average age of farmers in the area is 58. I do not know whether young people will replace them. We are losing an entire generation of young farmers, who are finding work elsewhere and, indeed, leaving our communities. A graphic figure has been quoted in a different context: between 1998 and 2000, 6,000 farmers left the land in Wales. That is the equivalent of the announcement by Corus last week on the steel industry: 6,000 people in England and Wales as a whole will have to leave the industry.
There is a crisis in both manufacturing and farming. Wales overall depends on both sectors. The 3,000 job losses at Corus are supplemented by 550 job losses in the dairy manufacturing industry in Carmarthen and Cardiff. Welsh milk is to be bottled in Gloucestershire and sent back again. The environmental costs of that are frightening.
Wales's gross domestic product has declined by 12 per cent. in the past 20 years. Half a point of GDP went for every year of the 18 years that the Conservatives were in power.
The problems with pay are serious. We have 28.3 per cent. of the population earning less than £250 a week. As a result of unemployment and low pay, many people in Wales depend on social security benefits. Twenty-five per cent. of households in Wales and nearly 500,000 people received income support or family credit in 1997, for example.
The Corus announcement comes on top of everything that I have referred to. We believe that many aspects of the Corus shutdown and the redundancies in the steel industry mean that there will be very little, if any, investment and a great decline in jobs.
There is a strong case for a management buy-out of the Ebbw Vale plant. It should be by a combination of management and work force. The Government should support that with investment money. We should start with Ebbw Vale and go through to Llanwern because, again, almost half the work force is going there.

699
It was stated over the weekend that Corus had no plans whatever for new investment in the steel industry. I agree with the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent—I do not think that there will be a steel industry left in five years. I am critical of the Government for allowing British Steel to be amalgamated into Corus, which was a fundamental error of judgment.
Steel is a fundamental part of our economy and we can have very little manufacturing without it. The Government must intervene in the matter, but that must not involve straightforward renationalisation. The work force have to be assisted to manage plants, perhaps by bringing in management, and to secure a profitable industry. There may have to be restructuring and the industry may have to be made more efficient, but that cannot happen without massive investment to make the industry more competitive.
Mr. Llew Smith: The hon. Gentleman talks about a management and workers' buy-out at Ebbw Vale. Although I have no knowledge of such a buy-out, he may be aware that Mr. Moffat, the chairman and chief executive of Corus, has said that he does not favour competition and that he will not accept a buy-out of any part of the industry. It seems ironic that people who oppose public ownership because they oppose monopolies and who support privatisation because they support competition do not favour competition when it is in their own backyards.
Mr. Livsey: I understand why the hon. Gentleman says that. However, Corus's objective is to remove 3 million tonnes of steel from United Kingdom steel production. That figure has been chosen because it is the amount of UK steel production that is currently being exported unprofitably.
We cannot expect a very sympathetic response from some multinational companies. I worked for a multinational company for quite some time and I realise that some boardrooms will cut and run. I think that we are dealing with just such a boardroom in this case. Other boardrooms will co-operate and negotiate. In its announcement today, on Bridgend, Ford has given an example of the latter type of management. Hon. Members are wrong, however, if they think that Corus will negotiate; it will not. Corus will not even try to negotiate.
I believe that we must resurrect the steel industry and that we have to do so in the many plants that will be closed down.
Mr. Smith: There is obviously a communication problem. I thought that the point of my comments was to make it clear that Corus is not going to negotiate with the Government, public representatives or trade unions. It is not going to negotiate, full stop. I was not implying that Corus will suddenly decide to negotiate on the possibility of allowing alternative ownership for plants being closed. Corus has categorically stated that it will not sell those plants. We therefore assume that it will knock down and clear away the buildings.
Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that Corus is a public company. However, if the company is £1.6 billion in debt, as it is, and if an offer can be made, surely it would be better to pursue that option than to
700
spend money for years on social security payments for those who have lost their jobs, which is what could happen. There is room for a constructive initiative to save Britain's steel industry. That is what we are talking about. We must save our steel industry as a basic part of our economy.
There are many ways in which action can be taken. We have to encourage the development of skills in the work force. I should say, to be fair, that the National Assembly is taking some action to address that issue. We are committed to training programmes that will bring enormous benefits to the overall economy. However, it is essential that we have even more investment in education.
We must also reduce the gap between rich and poor, and not allow it to widen as happened under the previous, Conservative Government and is occurring even under this Government. However, I applaud the efforts being made, through the new deal and other measures, to try to plug the wealth gap.
More has to be done for pensioners and for people on low incomes to improve their quality of life. As the Welsh Affairs Committee's report makes clear, much more assistance must be given to poor nations and regions. Additionally, reform of the Barnett formula has to be based on needs themselves. We should help lower-paid people by reducing taxation for poor taxpayers. The Liberal Democrats' policy is to raise tax on those earning more than £100,000 and to redistribute it among those who are on very low incomes.
We hope to regenerate deprived rural and urban communities, wherever they are, and to boost local services by directing more money to the provision of high-quality services, such as those provided in post offices. We also believe in tackling social disadvantage by developing an inclusive society.
Liberal Democrat Members believe very strongly that the Assembly must have more power and that fundamental new primary legislation would enable us to take immediate action to abolish, for example, tuition fees for students. We could also take immediate action to provide free care for the elderly, as has happened in Scotland.
Such legislation would also enable us more strongly to encourage the Government to change employment law, to ensure that the type of disaster that Corus has thrust upon us does not happen again. There was an opportunity at the Nice summit to take action on that issue, but it did not happen. The Government must think again about providing our employees with greater protection. Additionally, corporation tax relief and national insurance tax relief should be available in hard-hit regions.
One of our fundamental problems is that, on 1 January 1999, we did not enter the eurozone. It is a massive problem which has aggravated the difficulties with the steel industry and the exchange rate. I disagree with hon. Members who believe that it has not been a problem. Steel is not profitable largely because of the exchange rate and our position outside the euro. Manufacturing and agricultural commodity prices, whether for milk, lamb or steel, have all been affected by the disparity. The Government have to tackle the problem.
There is a lot of work to be done. The steel industry has to be saved, but only Government intervention can do that. There was intervention in the 1920s and 1930s, when

701
my family was ejected from the iron and steel industry in south Wales, to which we were never to return. I do not want another generation to be placed in a similar position.
About 20 years ago, 14,000 people were working in that plant in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. Today, we are bemoaning the loss of 1,250 jobs there. The massive productivity of the steelworkers has made those jobs much more precious. Wales's steelworkers have to be rewarded for their efforts. We must give them a hand up and help them as much as possible. If that requires direct Government intervention, so be it.
6.8 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on an issue that, for much of the past two years, has exercised the Welsh Affairs Committee and been the focus of our work. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is not only a Committee member, but moved today's Opposition motion. Although I am pleased to be able today to debate and to defend the Government's action to tackle social exclusion in Wales, I am somewhat puzzled about Plaid Cymru's real reason and motive for initiating the debate.
On Monday 15 January 2001, the Welsh Affairs Committee published its much awaited report "Social Exclusion in Wales", which has attracted cross-party support in Wales. On that very day, in an interview with BBC Radio Wales, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said:
"The Report is a step in the right direction".
It is indeed a step in the right direction.
The hon. Gentleman went on to tell the BBC that he wanted to see both the Government and the National Assembly for Wales working together to tackle social exclusion. As he put it, he wanted to see "all agencies working together". In today's motion, however, he has demonstrated supreme impatience with and discourtesy to one of those partners, by criticising the Government before they have been able to give their considered response to the Committee's report. Allowing such a response to be made is not only a convention of the House, but the most sensible way of approaching serious and important matters such as social exclusion.
By tabling today's motion, Plaid Cymru is simply jumping the general election gun. I believe that Plaid Cymru Members are losing their nerve at the most critical moment because they see that we have put in place the new deal, achieved the lowest ever unemployment in Wales, helped 100,000 people in Wales with the minimum wage and created the pensioners' minimum income guarantee and the working families tax credit. Only today, we heard the Government's announcement on the child tax credit. Plaid Cymru has demonstrated possibly the worst case of premature elaboration seen in this House for many years.
Mr. Llwyd: I am not going on the record as a sufferer. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he knows as well as I do that it took nine months for the Government to
702
respond to the last report. Frankly, that is not good enough. All Committee members were concerned about that; this debate may elicit an early response.
Mr. Jones: I agree, but the Government have not had time to respond to the report—they have had 21 days—so what he says is slightly disingenuous. Plaid Cymru wants things both ways. The motion castigates the Government for their alleged failure, yet it cannot wait for the Government to give a detailed response. That is not good enough.
Last June, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy rightly berated the Government, saying:
"Over the past few years, we have been disappointed in the content of the responses from Governments to reports, and in the fact that there have been delays of nine, 10 or 12 months before such responses have been made available. These delays have been something of a scandal."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 21 June 2000; Vol. 352. c 69WH.]
I agree. However, that does not mean that the Government can respond in 21 days.
Mr. Llwyd: Has the hon. Gentleman read the motion? It does not ask for a response within any given time; the motion merely "notes" certain matters.
Mr. Jones: That is a bit disingenuous. The hon. Gentleman must be expecting a response to a motion that asks the House to take note of a report. If he carries on at this rate, he will be demanding that the Government respond to our reports before we have even had the inquiries.
What have Plaid Cymru achieved by holding this debate today? If the motion is an attempt somehow to wrong-foot the Government, it has failed miserably. If it is a serious attempt to address the problems facing Wales, it has failed. The Welsh Affairs Committee has already had an inquiry into social exclusion and we now await the Government's response. If the motion is an attempt by Plaid Cymru to advance its own agenda on social exclusion, it has failed, on its own admission. I am sure the House will be delighted to learn that Plaid Cymru fully supported the recommendations of the report.
Let me not just criticise Plaid Cymru, however. At least its Members are here—all four of them. The official Opposition showed their contempt for the issue by having only two Members sitting on their Benches. I tell a lie; the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) popped in after 56 minutes, stayed for 25 minutes and has now disappeared.
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend spoke more sense during his short contribution than the hon. Gentleman is speaking now.
Mr. Jones: Oh no, he didn't. That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion; I do not think any other Member of the House would agree.
Mr. Edwards: Could I remind my hon. Friend that when the hon. Member for Buckingham was on the Welsh Affairs Committee, he did at least attend the Committee? Would my hon. Friend confirm that the two Opposition Committee members during the social exclusion inquiry attended virtually no sittings whatever in the entire year?
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend can say that; as the Chairman of the Committee, I could not possibly comment.

703
One of the problems with having the debate today is that it is likely that the Liaison Committee will not now accept my bid for a debate on the report. Although we have very little time, I need to make a few points about the report.
The inquiry that led to our report started early in 1999—a few months before devolution—and continued until nearly the end of last year. It was one of the largest inquiries undertaken by the Committee, involving consultation with nearly 100 organisations, nine formal hearings and 11 days of visits throughout Wales. We also held three seminars—two with academics and one with representatives of ethnic minority groups in Cardiff—and an informal meeting, to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) referred, with young people in Machynlleth. That was very enlightening. In addition, we visited the Republic of Ireland in March 2000, and the United States of America in June 2000.
Tackling social exclusion is a key area in which co-operation between the UK Government and the National Assembly for Wales is crucial. The National Assembly has responsibility for housing, health, transport, education and training and local government in Wales; but responsibility for social security benefits, taxation, the Employment Service, the regulation of financial services, the indirect management of the Post Office and the fight against crime all rest with the UK Government.
The Committee's main emphasis was on those areas for which the UK Government have responsibility. It is quite proper that, as a Committee of the UK Parliament, we should seek to examine most closely the activities of the UK Government. Equally, it would be difficult for us to carry out our scrutiny of the Government effectively without impinging from time to time on matters that are properly for the National Assembly for Wales.
The main area where we believe the Government can make a difference in tackling social exclusion in Wales is in tackling poverty and financial exclusion. By poverty, I mean the lack of money to buy the necessities of life and to participate fully in society. There is obviously scope for debate on what constitutes poverty and what constitute the necessities of life. The Government use an indicator of relative poverty to measure poverty—normally 50 per cent. of average incomes—but some of our witnesses argued for different definitions.
Whatever definition of poverty is used, it is all too clear that many people in Wales are poor. Unemployment in Wales is higher than in the UK as a whole, and the employment rate is lower. In some areas of Wales, such as Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil, the proportion of the working-age population in employment is less than 60 per cent. However, there is no evidence of absolute poverty increasing and plenty of evidence of employment rising.
It is not only a matter of unemployment; for those who are in work, low pay contributes to poverty in Wales. Some 28.3 per cent. of full-time adult employees in Wales earn less than £250 a week, compared with 23.7 per cent. for Great Britain as a whole. We recommended the lower rate of the national minimum wage for 18 to 21-year-olds and entitlement to the minimum wage being extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire pointed out. I hope the Government will respond to that, although we would not expect a response today.
704
The problem of poverty is further exacerbated by the fact that, for many poor people, the necessities of life are more expensive. Those who have no car often pay more for their food in local shops than they would if they could reach the out-of-town supermarket. Meter payment rates for gas and electricity are higher than the rates available to those who pay monthly by direct debit.
We believe that uplifting social security benefits is central to tackling social exclusion. At present, the benefits system allows people to survive, but does not lift them out of poverty. Although poverty is one of the most obvious causes, and one of the symptoms, of social exclusion, it is not the whole problem. People may be socially excluded because they are elderly; because they have a disability; because of poor education or language barriers; because they live in a remote area with poor amenities; or for a host of other reasons. It is important to bear in mind the fact that the problems that we are addressing are varied and complex, and we should not expect simple solutions to be effective.
Central to our report is the emphasis on local solutions within a national framework. During our visits in Wales, one of the common, positive themes that emerged was that the community spirit is very much alive and just needs a helping hand. We witnessed that in the Maes Geirchan estate, in Caia Park in Wrexham, at Llanelli Hill in Abergavenny, in the City of Swansea—
Mr. Ruane: In Rhyl?
Mr. Jones: As my hon. Friend says, we witnessed it in Rhyl, and when we published our report last month at the Dusty Forge centre in Ely, Cardiff.
Capacity-building programmes—led from the bottom up by enthusiastic, energetic local people—can, we believe, be extremely effective in tackling social exclusion, especially when they are run in close co-operation with a supportive local authority, as we observed in Swansea, Torfaen and Wrexham.
The common problem associated with all the projects has been a lack of stable, sustainable funding. To address this, we recommend that funding for social exclusion projects should in most cases be for a minimum of five years. Project organisers should be given a little breathing room to put their begging bowls away for a few years and concentrate on the core work of the project. It struck us that many enthusiastic, talented people who wanted to put their energies into regenerating their local community had to spend much of their time justifying their funding and trying to make sure that the project would still exist the following year.
Pump-priming has its place and can produce impressive results, but it will not be enough in every case. In some of the most disadvantaged areas, funding may be required on a permanent, or at least an on-going, basis. We also believe that the funding regime for social exclusion projects should be streamlined and simplified. At the moment, there are too many different pots of money and too much bureaucratic control is exercised over them. It may be that we need to learn to accept a degree of risk in our social investment. After all, how often is the cost of not investing in a project given equal consideration to the cost of spending the money?
We need to move away from challenge funding to sustainable funding wherever it is required. But the National Assembly will be unable to provide this unless

705
it is provided with adequate resources. Objective 1 offers a unique opportunity to bring a large injection of public funding to west Wales and the valleys, and we must ensure that it is used to good effect to tackle social exclusion. European funding is not the only answer, though. The Government must match their fine words by tackling social exclusion with hard money. The extent of social exclusion in Wales
must be recognised in the funding allocation to Wales.
Ms Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key issues highlighted in the Select Committee's inquiry was the difficulty of moving from benefits into work? Is it not one of the important recommendations that new benefit ideas should be tried out in a pilot area in Wales?
Mr. Jones: Indeed. We need to test which benefit changes might work in the effort to tackle social exclusion. In Ireland, benefits are tapered to allow people back into work without running into a brick wall of benefit loss.
It is true that the Barnett formula is probably overdue for a revamp to reflect the real needs of both Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. We need an anti-poverty strategy with the goal of eliminating not only child poverty—as the Prime Minister has already pledged—but all poverty, within a realistic time scale, based on clear, objective measures of the number of poor people. The Government have set the date of 2020 for the elimination of child poverty, so perhaps we could aim at eliminating all poverty in 30 years.
Mrs. Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that 360,000 children are benefiting from increased child benefit shows that the motion is totally incorrect in its insinuations?
Mr. Jones: Absolutely. I will not read out the whole list of all the benefits that the Government have brought to Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, go on.''] All right, then. In Wales, 67,000 families are benefiting from the working families tax credit; 27,000 jobless people have been helped into work through the new deal; since the launch of the new deal throughout Wales, the number of 18 to 24 year-olds unemployed and claiming jobseeker's allowance for six months or more has fallen by 73 per cent; more than 100,000 workers are benefiting from the national minimum wage—that is especially impressive in Wales, with our lower gross domestic product; and 500,000 pensioner households are receiving the increased winter fuel payment of £200.
Mr. Ruane: How does my hon. Friend feel about the contrast with the Conservative Government, under whom 5,000 pensioners froze to death—they had hypothermia—in their own homes in 1985 because they were too scared to turn on their gas or electric fires? How does that compare with Labour's record of reducing VAT on fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent.—the Tories wanted to stick it up to 17.5 per cent.—and giving pensioners £200 last December in a winter fuel allowance so that they can be secure in their own homes and know that they can keep warm and pay their fuel bills?
Mr. Jones: Winter fuel allowance for those on income support means that they, too, need not suffer from cold in the winter.
In Wales, 210,000 pensioner households are entitled to free television licences; all 630,000 pensioners are to gain from above-inflation pension increases this year and next: 360,000 children are benefiting from increases in child benefit; and we have had the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s.
The Government are also responsible for the tax regime, which is so important to the economic prosperity of Wales. In Ireland, the tax regime—notably the low rate of corporation tax—is attractive to both inward investors and domestic entrepreneurs, who consider it far more important than objective 1 funding in promoting economic growth and regeneration. It is time for the Government to consider regional variations in tax to encourage investment in the less developed areas.
Mrs. Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major issues in tackling social exclusion must be economic stability, especially for people on low incomes? Does he agree that the fact that we have the lowest mortgage and interest rates for 30 years and the lowest unemployment rate since 1978 will go a long way towards tackling social exclusion?
Mr. Jones: Absolutely, and that also gives the Government the wherewithal to help those areas of the economy that have not yet benefited from the economic turnaround.
Mr. Evans: I am sorry to intrude on the love-in taking place on the Government Back Benches, but what about the fuel tax, which hits poor people disproportionately hard?
Mr. Jones: We reduced fuel tax from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) said. The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening.
Mr. Evans: I am talking about petrol tax. We have among the highest petrol taxes in the world.
Mr. Jones: The Conservative Government put the biggest chunk of tax on fuel when they increased VAT to 15 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is trying to stir up this nonsense again about fuel costs being down to tax. He talked about how farmers are struggling. Many of them are struggling because of the increase from 7p to 28p a litre. There is no duty.
Mr. Evans: When farmers drive cars and use lorries to transport goods, they are paying duty. When the accelerator had done its bit and it was proved that it was not working—
Mr. Jones: You introduced it.
Mr. Evans: Indeed, but when accelerators come to the end of their useful life, they should be scrapped. The Government have been putting petrol taxes up for four years, hitting the poorest hardest.
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman argues against his own case. The fuel tax escalator—rather than accelerator,

707
as he was saying, perhaps because he knows that if he kept his foot off the accelerator he would not be spending so much on fuel—was begun by the Conservative Government, and we stopped it.
Mr. Evans: Labour put it up.
Mr. Jones: Of course we put up the price in accordance with the escalator before we stopped it. Fuel for the hon. Gentleman's farmers went up from 7p a litre to 28p a litre. That was the biggest increase, and everyone else was paying it, too. As usual, he is talking a load of nonsense.
Mr. Denzil Davies: To return to the proposal about a differential rate of corporation tax, and the Irish lower rate, did the Committee consider the fact that the lower rate in southern Ireland covers the whole country, so that Dublin and Galway do not have differing rates? Did it consider the problem that, if we introduced a differential system in Wales, there would be a different rate in Newport, outside the objective 1 area, and in Swansea, which is inside it?
Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend is right. The Irish corporation tax rate is nation wide. We noted that a lot of the country's industry is based around Dublin. The economy as a whole is doing very well, but there are regional problems. We should try out different ideas, recognising that they might not all work.
Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that road haulage is particularly important in rural areas where there is no rail network on which to move goods? It would be helpful if the Government gave strategic consideration to managing that issue so that the countryside was not disadvantaged.
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman will remember the Chancellor's special measures for rural transport, which added up to the equivalent of 8p a litre. The Government have listened on that point and they recognise the problem, as the Committee does in the report.
My time is up. The Committee awaits the Government's response with great anticipation. Plaid Cymru, in submitting today's motion, have demonstrated an impatience and a need to grab headlines for a day instead of waiting for a considered response from the Executive. That is sad.
6.30 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. He and his Committee deserve all credit for their hard work on the excellent report before us. That said, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism of our timing of the motion. Today's timely debate has allowed many Labour Members to give their views on matters including manufacturing and Corus, and to express constituency concerns and angers. Our motion is worded extremely carefully. It notes the report, and calls for no action from the Government. We expect Labour Members to support it because it is a tame motion and has cross-party support.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), who made a great contribution to the debate by distributing useful lists
708
among Labour Members. He has provided much fun. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has just said to me, those lists give only the good news. I agree that new Labour has a good news story to tell on job creation, and neither we nor our motion have detracted from that.
The motion addresses the wider issues of social exclusion that my hon. Friend set out in his sterling opening speech. By setting out his definitions of poverty and social exclusion, my hon. Friend made it clear that social exclusion goes wider than employment or even wages. It includes access to services, particularly in rural areas, where there are many difficulties in Wales. My hon. Friend was clear on how steps could be taken to engender indigenous business growth and support. That could have been of use to Corus, although it is too late to find out whether that would have been so. Certainly, such support should be available for the future support of what remains of the steel industry in Wales.
My hon. Friend made it clear that the Government could yet intervene in the debate on the future of that industry. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) acknowledged that the Government have a role, and it has been too long since a Government were prepared to intervene in industrial policy. After 18 years of Conservative Governments ignoring industrial policy, we have had four years in which Labour has been content to let the Bank of England decide industrial policy. That has been disastrous for Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy concluded with some remarks on the Barnett formula. It is worth impressing on the House some views on the formula. Lord Barnett himself assumed that it would be temporary. My hon. Friend compared the formula to the Drws-y-nant traffic lights, which he said had been in place for 23 years too long. I must tell him that the Barnett formula has existed for 22 years, so it will need only one more year before it beats that record. As with traffic lights on roads that we pass along every day, we have grown used to the Barnett formula. It can turn red or green as it lets us have some money one year or none the next. We never question the need for the formula, and that is the point of this debate.
I was pleased to hear Labour Members acknowledge the need to review the formula because it is outmoded, mechanistic and formulaic. It is based on what the Welsh economy was like 20 years ago, when gross domestic product was closer to 90 per cent. than the 80 per cent. that it represents today. For 20 years, the formula has been entrenched, instead of dealing, as it was supposed to, with changes year on year. The passage of time means that it deals with figures above the funding coming into Wales, not just with changes to funding. The case for changing the formula is unanswerable. The only opposition to change has come from the hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
Mr. Caton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: I do not have much time. I did not write a brief before arriving, as many Ministers do, and I want to respond to everyone who has made a point in the debate. If I have time later, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Labour Members suggest that we see the Barnett formula as meaning that every part of the country must get back what it gives in income tax and other taxation.

709
That is not the purpose of the formula. In fact, that is the view taken by the hon. Member for Brent, East, who is now the Mayor of London. The Barnett formula should be a true, needs-based analysis of the needs of the. Welsh economy and public services, and any review should take that into account. If that were so, the formula would go closer to doing what European regional development funds do. They consider what happens all over the European Union and recognise which areas need extra support.
Redistribution is a good, old-fashioned socialist word, but that is what we want enshrined in the relationship between Wales and the Westminster Parliament so long as the people of Wales still want that relationship to exist. The Barnett formula has its place, but it must be reviewed and its analysis must be more closely based on need. If it is not, the people of Wales will question even more the relationship between this place and the National Assembly and Government in Wales.
We welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), to a Plaid Cymru debate. Usually, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) attends Welsh questions, and it is good to see her neighbour today. The Minister spoke well from his brief—he had it off pat—but it was a brief full of statistics with no feeling for how people lead their lives in Wales. What he said would not go down well with those who feel the depths of social exclusion, poverty and low incomes. By telling us always what the Government intend to do, the Government betray their own voters, who expected them to have done something after four years in government.
The Minister was quite right to refer to the 18 extraordinary years of Conservative Government, but the Government have had nearly a quarter of that time: they should be at least a quarter of the way towards reforming society, but that does not seem to be so.
Mr. Bayley: If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech later, he will find that I have listed not what the Government intend to do, but what we have done. When we came to power, 95,000 pensioners had pensions of £62.45 a week or less, and they now receive the minimum income guarantee. Their incomes are £18 higher, and will rise to £92 in April. Unemployment is down, and the number of parents no longer on income support but in work has risen. In response to the hon. Gentleman's point on children, I can tell him that 21.1 per cent. of children in Wales were in workless households in spring 1997, and the figure is now 19.5 per cent. We are moving in the right direction, although I would be the first to agree that there is a long way to go.
Mr. Thomas: The Minister finishes on precisely the point that I wrote down from his speech—the Government need to do more. That is precisely what the motion says. Statistics may show movements this way or that, but there is an amazing sense of complacency from Labour Back Benchers, particularly as regards manufacturing industry.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was correct to concentrate some of his remarks on the rural areas, because they have been somewhat ignored by Conservative Members. I was pleased to see him
710
occupying the Conservative Benches this afternoon. He is right to point out the problems in rural areas. When numbers of job losses are small, they do not give rise to the shock headlines that the media want to publish.
There is a lack of understanding of the real social exclusion in rural areas. It has to be seen to be believed. It takes a visit to a dairy farm where the farmer's income is less than £4,000 and he is too proud to claim the benefits that are available. He will not make that claim on behalf of his family because he is a business man who has always run the farm himself—he has always kept it going. That happens increasingly in rural areas.
In two years, 6,300 farming jobs were lost—under the Labour Government, not under any previous Government. By comparison, 16,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. Between 165 and 175 jobs are being lost in my constituency: of 700 people—mainly females—employed in manufacturing in Ceredigion, 165 have lost their job overnight, with the closure of a factory in a town of fewer than 2,000 people. That has a devastating effect. Such job losses may not make the headlines, but they are just as damaging to small communities.
In the countryside, we are experiencing a silent shutdown. The countryside is slowly being turned off—tractor by tractor; factory by factory; post office by post office—until it will be nothing but scrubland or a nice place to visit. That is the truth about what is happening in the countryside at present. Labour Members must understand that context for social exclusion and poverty, as well as that for the large numbers of people affected in the valleys and the south-east of Wales. Those areas are equally important, but the countryside has been overlooked.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli pursued excellence in his speech. He gave a concise account of his understanding of the events at Corus during the past few months. I do not disagree with his three analyses. His speech was similar to the one that he always makes about Barnett; he made a threadbare defence of the Treasury's control of the economy of Wales.
Mr. Caton: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)? Under an independent Wales, if Plaid Cymru was successful, how would it meet current public expenditure with a much lower tax take? We need an answer to that question.
Mr. Ruane: Where is the beef?
Mr. Thomas: Hon. Members will have to wait for our manifesto at the general election—[Interruption.] I recommend that the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) reads the manifesto. He will see exactly what our policies are for the people of Wales—[Interruption.] We will certainly send a copy to the right hon. Member for Llanelli. He will need to read the Plaid Cymru manifesto, because he will need to know where his opposition is coming from.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made the most powerful speech of the debate—with its combination of intellect and emotion. I pay tribute to him. The House will miss his voice—as a Member of this place for a quarter of a century, he has advocated policies in an impassioned way. That will be

711
missed. The National Assembly's gain will be our loss, although I am sure that the Plaid Cymru Bench will be full enough—partly, at least, to make up for that.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) is no longer in the Chamber. He spoke eloquently on behalf of his constituents and expressed their anger at the closure in Ebbw Vale. All hon. Members have great sympathy with them. Plaid Cymru Members realise that Ebbw Vale and Blaenau Gwent are among the most deprived areas in Wales. Our motion does not seek to undermine that.
Although British Steel was privatised by the Conservatives, its merger with Corus was approved by the Labour Government. At the time, the situation in the financial markets was known; the Government must have known that the merger presaged large financial restructuring. There is Government responsibility. Although Corus wielded the axe, the death sentence was passed by the Government's economic policies.
I can do no more than read from a memo; it is internal to the National Assembly, but unfortunately, it fell into the wrong hands. It states:
"So I think the message is the Government is not willing to offer any help to Wales at this very bleak time."
That memo was sent to civil servants by the second most senior civil servant in Wales. It shows clearly that the Government have responsibility for what happened at Corus.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) made his usual measured and excellent contribution, although his party has partial responsibility for the actions of the National Assembly. Its members in Wales will be judged on that record.
The motion sets out the recommendations of the Select Committee, although our debate has been somewhat overshadowed by events at Corus—rightly so. In a recent report on manufacturing in Wales, the TUC referred to the haemorrhaging of jobs—that is clearly shown at Corus. The motion includes short-term and long-term prescriptions that have cross-party support. We are not actually asking the Government to do much more than note the motion. It would thus be delightful if Labour Members who represent Welsh constituencies could join us in the Division Lobby to show the people of Wales where their hearts are and where their intentions lie.
In the meantime, the Government make the lame argument that at least they are not the Conservatives. Thank goodness that in Wales we have Plaid Cymru to take on the fight from the Labour party at the next general election.
6.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): The debate has been interesting. I want to clear up one matter immediately for my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones). We very much welcome the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. The Government will consider it and will respond to it in due course, so I do not want to pre-empt discussion of the report in this debate.
One of my hon. Friend's key points was about partnership. The Government are considering that idea; we support partnership between ourselves, the National Assembly and local authorities in Wales to ensure that we tackle social exclusion. I shall take lessons from no one
712
in the House about social exclusion. I see it every day in my constituency—as my right hon. and hon. Friends do in their areas. Many of us came into politics to tackle social exclusion. The contribution of the Select Committee is certainly welcome, but we recognise those exclusion issues and we will take them on in due course.
There has been considerable discussion of the situation at Corus. My right hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and other hon. Members referred to Corus in their contributions. Last week's announcement at Corus was devastating for the individuals and communities affected. I live among steelworkers—the Shotton plant is close to my constituency. Many of my friends and neighbours work there.
There is no doubt that Corus has been facing difficulties. Trading conditions are difficult; the company has had to consider such issues. However, for the Government, I say that the response of Corus represents short-termism at its worst. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli pointed out, that response is defeatist; it is a short-term reaction, with no planning for the longer term.
Other manufacturing companies in Wales have taken a different stance. They have taken the long-term view, as my right hon. and hon. Friends pointed out. Toyota and Nissan, in recent weeks, and Ford at Bridgend today have taken decisions on investment in the United Kingdom that are not based on short-term issues.
The Corus decision does not reflect the excellent productivity gains made by the UK steel industry, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli pointed out. In 1999, UK steel output was 571 tonnes per man—compared with 543 tonnes in Germany and 534 tonnes in France. As has been noted, the Government and Corus should get round the table. Corus should reconsider its decision and work with the trade unions, the Government and the Assembly to make progress on the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent is not in the Chamber because he is meeting the Prime Minister—as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—to try to bring some common sense to the matter. They want to discuss with Corus the issues that have been raised in the debate and show the company the correct way forward. Not one steelworker in Wales needs to lose his job. Corus should think again. The company and Corus should consider those issues.
Mr. Caton: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the discussion with Corus will move on? If we cannot persuade Corus to maintain production, it should allow the management and work force to takeover and run the plants themselves. The fact that Corus is frightened of competition suggests that the units can function perfectly well. The work force and management in Bryn Gwyn and Gorseinon in my constituency are considering that option. We must press Corus to allow that to happen, if it is not prepared to carry on production itself.
Mr. Hanson: I hope that Corus will consider those options. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire

713
said, Corus should consider such issues. In fact, proposals have been put to it from several sources, including Llanwern. However, having attended, as a constituency Member, last week's meeting with Sir Brian Moffat, as did many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I doubt whether Corus will consider those issues.
While dealing with Corus, I wish to nail an issue to the floor. In his speech, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned e-mails from the National Assembly. Discussions are under way, but no final decision has been taken on the issues mentioned in the e-mail, which does not represent the final view of officials, let alone those of Ministers or Assembly Members. The Treasury has not been involved in those discussions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to work with the Government to ensure that we deal with Corus on a united front, as we should.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I welcome the Minister's assurance that we have moved on from the information given in that e-mail. Will he assure the House that if the Treasury provides money for Wales as a result of those job losses, it will be in addition to the Barnett block and will not be set off against, or top-sliced from, our current budget? Will it be additional money—yes or no?
Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman would expect me to say that the discussions are on-going. We need to work for a solution for Corus and Wales as a whole.
It is not all bad news in Wales today, as many of my hon. Friends have said. In the past two months, the creation of many new jobs has been announced, including 264 jobs at Wireless Systems International in Cwmbran; 110 new jobs at Pure Wafer in Swansea; 100 new jobs at IQE (Europe) in Cardiff; and 83 new jobs at Surface Technology Systems in Newport. BAE Systems has created many new jobs near my constituency, with Government support. Today, Ford has announced more than 500 new jobs at Bridgend, bringing the production of a new generation of Jaguar V6 engines to Wales. The employment action zones in Preseli, Merthyr and north Wales have been important in bringing employment to Wales.
Ford's £240 million investment in Bridgend is particularly welcome because it shows that the Welsh economy and the British economy are open to major foreign investments, which support and bring employment to this country. That challenges the issues that Corus has brought to the table about the impact of Government policy on the steel industry. If that massive investment can go ahead, I feel confident that other investment will also go ahead.
Mr. Öpik: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hanson: Time is tight, so I am afraid that I shall have to carry on.
The good news is reflected in many Plaid Cymru Members' constituencies. For example, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon, unemployment has fallen by more than 400 and 800 people have started work under the new deal since the general election. In Ceredigion, unemployment has fallen and more than
714
650 have started work under the new deal since the general election. In Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, unemployment has fallen by more than 500 since the general election. In Ynys Mon, unemployment has risen, but more than 1,000 people have benefited from the new deal since the general election.
As hon. Members have said, the resolution of such problems are not easy. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned the legacy of 18 years of Conservative rule, but I noticed that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) did not apologise for many of the problems that have led to social exclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South also made that point. The basic need of deprived communities in Wales and elsewhere is a strong and stable economy. The Government are not complacent about those communities. We are driving forward an active industrial policy, investing in skills, making the most of new technology and supporting industries for the future. We are supplying a platform of economic stability, by cutting public borrowing and ensuring low inflation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South and other hon. Members have mentioned, we now have the lowest level of unemployment since the general election and for many years before. Some 1,000 new jobs are being created every month by the Government in Wales. Youth unemployment has fallen by 63 per cent and long-term unemployment has decreased by more than 12,000. On the basis of those sound economic policies, the Government, in partnership with the Assembly, can tackle social exclusion and begin to target special assistance on the communities that need it most.
The Government's generous settlement in the spending review—£8.5 billion in 2001, increasing to £10 billion in 2003–01— represents a real investment. The securing of objective 1 funding will bring wealth and prosperity to Wales and the country as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has asked on numerous occasions how those resources and objective 1 funding would be secured and matched if Wales were independent. That question has not been answered tonight; nor has it been explained to the Welsh Grand Committee or at any Welsh Question Time. I look forward to hearing the explanation at the general election because, without the strength of the Government behind Wales, those resources would not be invested and we would not be tackling social exclusion.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley said that we should do this and that, but if he were in government after the general election, he would cut public spending. The nationalists could not afford, and the Conservative party would cut, the increases in state pensions and child benefit, the free television licences, the new deal, the working families tax credit and many of the policies that my right hon. and hon. Friends know benefit their constituencies and tackle social exclusion. On the impact of British Government policy, let no one in Wales forget that the Conservative party would cut public expenditure and the nationalists would not have the resources in Wales to make the fundamental shift involved in using the resources of the United Kingdom to ensure that people in the poorest communities in Wales secure a better deal.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion said in both the Welsh Grand Committee and in this debate that we have accomplished no real achievements in Wales. However,

715
as my hon. Friends have pointed out, we have created 40,000 new jobs since the general election. In addition, the number of jobs in Wales has increased by more than 29,000 in the past two years; 67,000 families benefit from the working families tax credit; 27,000 people are going through the new deal scheme; 100,000 workers benefit from the minimum wage; 100,000 pensioner income households benefit from the minimum income guarantee; and 500,000 pensioners benefit from increased winter fuel allowances. Those are the Government's real and genuine achievements in Wales.
The rural economy has also been mentioned, and all the measures that I have described benefit it as well. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's summit on 30 March last year meant that an extra £15 million of agriculture expenditure was made available for less-favoured areas in Wales; £2.2 million was provided for the dairy sector; £2.5 million for the beef sector; and £6 million for the sheep sector. They are important measures that impact on rural and urban areas.
The agenda on social exclusion has become clear from the debate and it is clear that there are issues that the Government need to deal with further. There are measures that we can and will take in our second term to increase inclusion in our society. However, if we follow the Conservative way, we shall have further cuts in public spending and, if we have an independent Wales, the country will not be able to afford the benefits that a Labour Government bring to Wales. I commend our amendment to the House.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 271.

Division No. 103]

[6.59 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

Ballard, Jackie

(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Berth, Rt Hon A J

Kirkwood, Archy

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Livsey, Richard

Brand, Dr Peter

Moore, Michael

Breed, Colin

Oaten, Mark

Burnett, John

Öpik, Lembit

Burstow, Paul

Rendel, David

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

(NE Fife)

Sanders, Adrian

Cotter, Brian

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Fearn, Ronnie

Stunell, Andrew

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Tyler, Paul

Gorrie, Donald

Webb, Steve

Hancock, Mike

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Harvey, Nick

Willis, Phil

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys M ôn)

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Mr. Simon Thomas

Keetch, Paul

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bailey, Adrian

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Banks, Tony

Ainger, Nick

Barnes, Harry

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Barron, Kevin

Allen, Graham

Bayley, Hugh

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Ashton, Joe

Bennett, Andrew F

Atherton, Ms Candy

Benton, Joe

Austin, John

Bermingham, Gerald

716

Best, Harold

Gerrard, Neil

Betts, Clive

Gibson, Dr Ian

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Blears, Ms Hazel

Godsiff, Roger

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Goggins, Paul

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Golding, Mrs Llin

Borrow, David

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Bradshaw, Ben

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Grocott, Bruce

Browne, Desmond

Grogan, John

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Hain, Peter

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hanson, David

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Healey, John

Cann, Jamie

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Caton, Martin

Hendrick, Mark

Cawsey, Ian

Hepburn, Stephen

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Heppell, John

Chaytor, David

Hill, Keith

Clapham, Michael

Hinchliffe, David

Clark, Dr Lynda

Hodge, Ms Margaret

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hoey, Kate

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hope, Phil

Clelland, David

Hopkins, Kelvin

Coaker, Vernon

Howells, Dr Kim

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stnetford)

Coleman, Iain

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Colman, Tony

Hurst, Alan

Connarty, Michael

Hutton, John

Cooper, Yvette

Iddon, Dr Brian

Corbett, Robin

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Corston, Jean

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Cox, Tom

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Jamieson, David

Crausby, David

Jenkins, Brian

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Cummings, John

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Dalyell, Tam

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Joyce, Eric

(B'ham Hodge H)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dean, Mrs Janet

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Denham, John

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Dismore, Andrew

Kemp, Fraser

Dobbin, Jim

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Doran, Frank

Kidney, David

Dowd, Jim

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lammy, David

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Edwards, Huw

Leslie, Christopher

Efford, Clive

Love, Andrew

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McAvoy, Thomas

Ennis, Jeff

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Etherington, Bill

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Field, Rt Hon Frank

(Makerfield)

Macdonald, Calum

Fisher, Mark

McDonnell, John

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McFall, John

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Flint, Caroline

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Flynn, Paul

Mactaggart, Fiona

Follett, Barbara

McWalter, Tony

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McWilliam, John

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Foulkes, George

Mallaber, Judy

Galloway, George

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Gapes, Mike

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

717

Maxton, John

Roy, Frank

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Ruane, Chris

Meale, Alan

Ruddock, Joan

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Salter, Martin

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Sedgemore, Brian

Miller, Andrew

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mitchell, Austin

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Moffatt, Laura

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Skinner, Dennis

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

Smith, Miss Geraldine

(B'ham Yardley)

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

(Aberavon)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mountford, Kali

Snape, Peter

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Soley, Clive

Mudie, George

Spellar, John

Mullin, Chris

Squire, Ms Rachel

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Stevenson, George

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Norris, Dan

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Stoate, Dr Howard

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Stringer, Graham

O'Hara, Eddie

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Olner, Bill

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pearson, Ian

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Pickthall, Colin

(Dewsbury)

Pike, Peter L

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Pond, Chris

Temple—Morris, Peter

Pope, Greg

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pound, Stephen

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Timms, Stephen

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tipping, Paddy

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Todd, Mark

Primarolo, Dawn

Touhig, Don

Prosser, Gwyn

Trickett, Jon

Purchase, Ken

Truswell, Paul

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Quinn, Lawrie

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Rapson, Syd

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Robertson, John

Ward, Ms Claire

(Glasgow Anniesland)

Wareing, Robert N

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Watts, David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Rogers, Allan

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

(Swansea W)

Rooney, Terry

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

718

Wilson, Brian

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Winnick, David

Wyatt, Derek

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wood, Mike

Tellers for the Noes:

Woodward, Shaun

Mr. Mike Hall and

Woolas, Phil

Mr. Tony McNulty

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the Government's central aim is a fair and prosperous society that offers opportunity for all, and that both economic prosperity and social justice depend on people being able to achieve their full potential; endorses the Government's commitment to eradicating child poverty, to providing employment opportunities for all who can work, to rewarding saving, and to ensuring that older people live secure, active and fulfilling lives and to tackling the root causes of poverty and social exclusion; further notes and expresses concern at the announcement by Corus on 1st February 2001; believes that the Corus action is a short term solution which is damaging for the individuals affected and the communities concerned; and calls on the company to think again about the planned closures and redundancies and instead work with the trade unions, Government and the National Assembly for Wales to identify a better way forward.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the close friends and associates of the Deputy Prime Minister have today organised a tube strike that has caused the most appalling suffering and inconvenience to the travelling public. There have been scenes of complete carnage on the streets and the strike has been a grotesque inconvenience. Have you received an indication from any Minister, however lowly, of a wish to explain to the House what has happened and what has been done to try to restore the travelling privileges of the British public?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): As the hon. Gentleman might suspect, no such information has been supplied to me. However, his remarks will have been heard.

Care for the Elderly
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.13 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the NHS Plan's commitment to a care system founded on the principles of equity and fairness; regrets that the Plan discriminates against older people with chronic and long-term illness by continuing to means-test them for their own care; believes that the Plan creates a fault-line between nursing and personal care; further believes that the Plan fails even to provide nursing care free on the basis of need, limiting the concession to registered nurse time; and calls on the Government to implement the Royal Commission's proposals for personal and nursing care to be provided on the basis of a person's assessed need instead of means.
Three and a half years ago, the Government established the royal commission on long-term care. Liberal Democrats welcomed the initiative, which offered the prospect of a fresh start and an end to the scandal of people being forced to sell their homes to pay for their care. The royal commission was asked to conduct its inquiry and report quickly, and it did so. In little more than a year, it published a detailed report that analysed the problems, offered a practical blueprint and set out how long-term care could be reformed for the future. The report was published in February 1999, and it is now more than three years since the commission's work was initiated. In those three years, a discredited and unfair system of means testing has remained in place, people's means have determined the care that they receive and more homes have been sold to pay for care.
The royal commission said that charges for personal and nursing care should be scrapped. Liberal Democrats agree. We recognise that charges
"increase the proportion of funding from the unhealthy, old and poor compared with the healthy, young and wealthy"
and that they
"discourage the use of necessary services."
Those are not my words, but those of the NHS plan. We should be mindful of them in this debate.
Those who argue for means-tested care say that personal care has always been means tested, but that is not true. This debate does not concern luxury goods and services that people choose to obtain, but essential and intimate care—tasks that frail, sick or disabled people would carry out for themselves if they had the necessary strength, will or knowledge. Long-term care is a contingency, not a probability. Its costs fall disproportionately on the sick, frail and disabled. That is why the royal commission said that personal care should be free, but on the basis of an assessment of need.
Care costs will not run out of control. As royal commission member Claire Rayner said in a letter published in The Times today, the tasks in question include
"intimate personal care such as washing, feeding and help with lavatory needs".
People will not demand to be washed more often or to be helped to be fed more regularly merely because the service has become free. Care costs will balloon only if the level of unmet need in this country is far greater than
720
the current Government or any previous one have been willing to admit. The royal commission did not say that all costs should be paid by the state. It made it clear that the board and lodging costs of care should be met by individuals and said that we should expect to need to meet our housing costs throughout our lives. Liberal Democrats believe that the costs of care are a risk that should be met collectively.
By rejecting the royal commission's central recommendation, the Government are continuing a means test that discriminates against older people with chronic and long-term illness. The Government's position is clear: wealth, not health, will determine what care a person receives. If one has lifetime savings of £18,000 in a bank account, a pension or a home, the Government's message is clear. They say, "Don't get frail, sick or old, because if you do, you'll be charged." Our care system should not be a substitute for our tax system. If the Government want to redistribute money from the wealthy people in this country, they should not use poor health as the criterion for accessing it. Our care system should transfer wealth from the well to the sick, with no ifs or buts along the way.
What are the Government doing in practice? They would like hon. Members and people outside the House to believe that they are acting on the royal commission's proposals for free nursing care, but that is not the case. They have chosen a very narrow definition of nursing care and their proposals do not even make all nursing procedures free at the point of delivery. Only the costs of registered nurse time that is spent providing, delegating or supervising care will be met by the NHS, which will not pay for the time of the health care assistant or care worker who carries out the bulk of long-term care work.
That most mean of definitions, which treats nursing as registered nurse time, is clearly provider based and is a long way from being people centred. How are the Government to disentangle the costs of nurse-provided care from those of nursing care that is provided by others? Care homes will find themselves forced to measure costs and to cost the amount of nursing time that somebody receives. That will produce a system that is not only costly and bureaucratic, but which rewards dependence and drives people into dependency.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in residential care require more nursing support as they get older, but not enough to justify their being transferred to the nursing care sector? That is imposing on the residential care sector great cost burdens that are not reflected in the income that it receives.
Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Indeed, in many cases it is entirely appropriate for people to continue to live in what they regard as their home, rather than to move to another place to receive nursing care, and for the care to be brought to them. There is a problem with the fees for many residential homes, which is one of the reasons why there has been a collapse in confidence in the residential and nursing home sectors—a collapse that has led to the closure of many nursing homes.
Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I think that he is making some sensible points. Does he agree that the

721
Government's arbitrary and capricious distinction between nursing and personal care is rejected not only by the Liberal Democrats, as he made clear, and the official Opposition but, at least as importantly, by the Royal College of Nursing and the Patients Association?
Mr. Burstow: It is certainly rejected by a long list of organisations, including the RCN, Age Concern and Help the Aged. However, perhaps the speech of the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), will establish whether the Opposition view the distinction between the two items as capricious. We need a clearer idea of the Conservatives' policy on long-term care.
Mr. Bercow: Our policy is very clear.
Mr. Burstow: I have seen the future of care, and it is a barcode. In the USA, a definition similar to that proposed by the Government has resulted in a barcode system being used so that care homes can electronically account for the time spent by members of staff, and residents can be billed accordingly. In some states, care staff carry hand-held barcode readers and laminated sheets of barcodes for residents' names, each task that is performed and the start and finish times.
A health care assistant will arrive to help Mrs. Smith, for example, to get up in the morning. She will scan the barcode for Mrs. Smith, the barcode for the start time for the job, the barcode for dressing and the barcode for the finish time. At the end of her shift, she will go to the desktop computer and download the data from her scanner so that, task by task, the care that Mrs. Smith receives can be itemised, analysed and charged. In America, that was described as a pioneering system for managing nursing time in care homes. I think that it simply turns care homes into supermarkets and care into a commodity.
Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend is describing an absolute dystopia. With conditions such as dementia, is there any realistic distinction between nursing care and personal care? They seem to me to be exactly the same in many instances.
Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Earlier today, Methodist Homes came to Portcullis House and staged a short play to demonstrate that if we are serious about people-centred care and about removing the divide between health and social care, we need to focus on individual needs. Unfortunately, maintaining a charging system for personal care makes it impossible to provide seamless care to the individual, and the result is discrimination against people with dementia, Parkinson's disease and many other chronic, long-term conditions. That undermines the Government's claim that they want a seamless service, because until they deal with the issue that the royal commission was asked to address, they will not achieve that seamless service.
Following the intervention by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I want to tackle the Conservatives' policy, which he said is clear.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman rose—
Mr. Burstow: I will happily take the hon. Lady's intervention because I am interested to hear precisely what
722
the Conservatives' policy is and whether they will be sticking to the Government's spending plans for social services.
Mrs. Spelman: I can probably save the House a great deal of time by pointing out that during the Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made it perfectly clear that we would match the Government on personal care and NHS funding. We share the hon. Gentleman' s concern about the definition of nursing care.
Mr. Burstow: That is why I felt that the policy was not clear. What the hon. Lady said is as clear as mud. Taking their classic position, the Conservatives want it both ways; they want to be concerned about the definitions, and we share that concern, but they want to stick up for the Government's position on financing care rather than committing themselves to the necessary finance. Are they prepared to find the extra resources to deliver free personal care?
Mrs. Spelman: We may be taking things out of sequence. I shall make our position perfectly clear. I repeat that we will match NHS spending, as we said on Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill. My hon. Friend made it clear that we will match the Government's spending on the provision of nursing care, as more accurately defined, which I shall come on to later. When I make my speech, I will explain the reasons for that position.
Mr. Burstow: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's further clarification. She has told the House that she and her Front-Bench colleagues wish to sustain the capricious separation of definitions to which the hon. Member for Buckingham referred. By taking the position outlined by the hon. Lady, the Conservatives will stick with the definition, which the Government are introducing, of registered nurse time only and the costings for that. The hon. Lady has well and truly buried the Conservatives' policy on free personal care. The Government's proposals mean that there is no money in the system to provide free personal care, so the Conservatives will not deliver that if they stick to the Government's spending plans, unless they make lots of cuts to other services. I shall come on to that point later.
Until the hon. Lady intervened, it was unclear whether the Conservatives supported the status quo, an insurance-based system, which seems to be their preference for other parts of the NHS, or the Government's position. We now understand that, for the moment at least, their position is the same as that of the Government.
Where do the Conservatives stand on what I regard, using their language, as a stealth tax on the elderly and the sick? We have a tax that penalises people for being sick and disabled. It is clear from reading speeches in this House, the Lords and elsewhere that the Conservatives are all over the place, as we have seen this evening. Despite the hon. Lady's comments, it is hard to find a definitive statement by a Conservative Front Bencher that clearly sets out the party's position on the royal commission's proposals. Even during the Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill, the exchanges about the

723
Conservatives' commitment to social services spending made it clear that they were not prepared even to match the Government.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Does he agree that it is interesting that the Conservatives' policy, announced today, to make tax free any income from savings for older people, contrasts rather badly with the continuing idea that older people must sell their home, which may be the bulk of their savings, to get personal care?
Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend highlights another inconsistency in the Conservatives' health policy.
Speaking of inconsistencies, the shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), complained that Labour now has two policies on long-term care and talks of a two-tier health system, but he forgot to mention that a two-tier system is exactly the policy that his party now espouses. In Scotland, the Conservatives have supported the Liberal Democrats and backed the royal commission in full. They will play a part, with the Liberal Democrats and others, in securing free personal care in Scotland.
Until tonight, to find out the position of the Conservatives in England, one had to look to their lordships House for a definitive statement. We should thank Earl Howe, the Conservative health spokesman in the Lords, for setting out that policy. He confirmed that the Conservative party would stick with the Government and implement the same policy.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is characteristically generous. He seems to think that there is something slightly strange about the fact that there might be a difference of emphasis between Conservatives in Scotland and Conservatives here. In the other two Parliaments in this country, the Liberals keep the Labour party in power, but they are pretending today to be opposed to Labour.
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman should take up that point with the hon. Member for Meriden, who has effectively attacked his colleagues in Scotland for allowing the creation of a two-tier system. He should check his lines before delivering them in the House.
It is hardly surprising that Conservative Members are all over the place on the subject of our debate—they caused the mess. They closed long-stay wards in the 1980s and 1990s without a thought for the thousands of older people who would have received free NHS care, but were confronted with means-tested care. It was a cost-cutting measure that was dressed up, with warm words, as community care. During their 18 years in government, the Conservatives drew the boundaries of state-funded care ever tighter. Thank God they were not re-elected at the last general election; otherwise, the fate of the public sector would have been to act as the 21st century administrators of a new poor law.
Before the election, the Conservatives set out plans for a private, insurance-based solution to the problem of long-term care. They were complex and, as the royal
724
commission pointed out, it was difficult to perceive the benefits and to whom they would apply. The American experience of similar schemes shows that their take-up is low and that, in practice, many pensioners would be too old, too poor or too great a risk to qualify for immediate private cover.
Those who oppose the royal commission's recommendation to scrap charges for personal care say that it would do nothing to improve services. They are wrong; they have accepted the Treasury mantra hook, line and sinker. Let us consider the report of the Scottish Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee, which undertook a comprehensive inquiry into the royal commission's proposals. It found evidence that convinced all its members that for health and social care to form a genuinely seamless service, the two systems of charging and assessment—indeed, the multiplicity of assessment systems around the country—should be brought together.
The Royal College of General Practitioners presented evidence to the Health and Community Care Committee's inquiry to show that people had refused the most appropriate care in the most appropriate setting because they would be charged. Removing the obstacle of charging would therefore ensure that people received the most appropriate care. That means a better outcome for them and their families.
The Government found money to pay for free television licences for the over-75s. No means test was used. Collective responsibility led to the provision of a welcome universal benefit. They also found the money for a winter fuel allowance. Again, no means test was employed. A universal benefit was provided and collective responsibility acknowledged. If the Government can find approximately £2 billion to fund those initiatives, it must find the political will to take responsibility for the chronically sick and disabled in this country.
When the Select Committee on Health considered long-term care in 1999, it quoted the royal commission chairman, Sir Stewart Sutherland, who said:
"We need to change. The status quo is not acceptable."
That was in April 1999. The Committee's report stated that it supported the royal commission's approach. It issued a warning:
"Failure by the Government to act urgently would be a serious dereliction of duty."
That view was formed two years ago.
Liberal Democrats believe that the royal commission offers a fair, sustainable and workable basis for organising and funding long-term care in the United Kingdom. Instead, the Government, with Conservative support, are imposing an unfair, unsustainable and unworkable system. The message is simple: those who get sick had better get well quickly. Those who do not get better, those who suffer from a chronic disease, dementia or Parkinson's will have their life savings bled away before the state offers a helping hand.
For a Labour Government to do nothing to end such injustice and to take a Parliament in which to do it is a serious dereliction of duty. Liberal Democrats will campaign throughout the country to make people aware of that and to ensure change.
7.34 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health(Mr. John Hutton): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the NHS Plan's commitments to a care system founded on the principles of equity and fairness; welcomes the measures the Government has announced to reform the funding of long term care and to invest in new health and social care services for older people; notes that this matches the extra spending on long term care recommended by the Royal Commission; believes that the implementation of free nursing care on the basis of need and not ability to pay will bring an end to a major injustice affecting tens of thousands of older people in nursing homes; welcomes the new investment announced in the NHS Plan of £900 million annually by 2003–04 in new intermediate care services for older people; supports the priority the Government has rightly attached to improving front line services for older people; and calls on the Liberal Democrats to set out what services they would cut in order to fund their proposals."
It is common knowledge that we live in an ageing society. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) acknowledged that. Today, one member in five of the population is over 60, and the trend is upwards. Many people are living much longer. Between 1995 and 2025, we expect the number of people over 80 to increase by almost half, and the number of those over 90 to double. That reflects the achievements of organisations such as the national health service, social services and the voluntary sector. It is something to celebrate. However, it also poses real challenges and choices.
As the primary user of long-term health and social care services, older people account for approximately 50 per cent. of the resources that are consumed in health and social care services in England. They occupy approximately two thirds of general hospital beds and are responsible for at least 50 per cent. of the recent increase in emergency hospital admissions.
As a society, we face the challenge of ensuring that, in future, health and social care services better meet the needs of older people to lead healthy independent lives, thus avoiding unnecessary institutional care and the costs associated with it. We must find a fairer way of funding long-term care for older people. It should strike the right balance between what the state should fund and the responsibility of the individual, ensure that people are not forced to sell their homes to pay for their long-term care costs, and that older people lead healthier lives for longer.
All that obviously requires major new investment and the redesigning of our care services—I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam accepts that—and the Government are committed to doing it. That is why the NHS plan outlined a major expansion in care services for older people: £900 million by 2003–04 and a further £360 million a year on making the funding of long-term care fairer. It will not be possible to achieve those objectives if we divert spending elsewhere.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend mentions fairness. I accept that the Government have inherited a problem that the previous Conservative Government created by withdrawing free long-term nursing care from the health service and introducing privatised social and nursing care in care and nursing homes. Is it fair or right that people who have paid all
726
their lives and expect to receive free NHS long-term nursing care have to pay for it again because of the previous Government's withdrawal of free NHS care?
Mr. Hutton: The answer is no, it is not fair.
Mr. Burstow: Change it.
Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman must be patient. I will tackle that shortly, but I have only just started my remarks. I intend to deal with continuing long-term, NHS-funded care later.
Dr. Peter Brand: The royal commission correctly pointed out that there is no prospect of a demographic time bomb and that most of the expenditure on health and personal care happens during the last six months of people's lives, irrespective of age. That weakens the Minister's argument about the awful prospect that the Government cannot cope without extraordinarily high expenditure.
Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a lot of respect for him. I do not mind repeating that tonight, even if it embarrasses him. However, I was not making the argument that the hon. Gentleman suggested. If he will bear with me, he will follow my comments more clearly.
There is no demographic time bomb; that is not the heart of the Government's response to the royal commission. I shall return to that point shortly. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows from his practice that the health and social care needs of frail older people in our ageing society are becoming more intense. People often require nursing and residential care much later and their needs are more intensive and extensive.
Priorities lie at the heart of our debate. There are no easy choices, and it is foolish to pretend otherwise. Those difficult choices have been recognised by the Scottish Executive, and they include the impact on other spending priorities and the benefits system, to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam did not refer. However, the hon. Gentleman, in an otherwise characteristically good speech, fell into the trap. Liberal Democrat Members try to pretend that there are no difficult choices. The system that the hon. Gentleman advocates, as he rightly said, would still involve a means test, and the difficulty of defining personal care would remain. He will need to spell out his proposals in more detail in future.
Making personal care free does not avoid boundary issues between what is free and what should be means-tested. It simply shifts the boundary. If food preparation, which is a daily cost that everyone has to bear, were charged for under the hon. Gentleman's proposals—as I think he would say that it should be—but help with eating were free because that might be considered to be personal care, he must say at what stage help with eating would become free. Would it be when the care worker lifted the food on to a fork or spoon, or when he or she put the food into a liquidiser?
The hon. Gentleman will need to be able to devise an accurate way of distinguishing between food preparation that he thinks should be treated as personal care and food preparation that should not. I look forward to hearing his answer. It is inevitable that his system would be based on

727
a list of tasks. Any such list would generate controversy and argument about what should be included and what should be left off.
Mr. Burstow: The Minister is developing an important point about definitions. Does he agree, however, that the Government have ducked the debate about definitions by saying that the registered nurse's time will be free and that the decision will depend on what the registered nurse does? For example, if the nurse put the food into the liquidiser, the service would be free, but if a care assistant did so, it would not be.
Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman has put forward such arguments before, and he is wrong. I shall explain why in a second.
Given the simplistic way in which the hon. Gentleman has presented some of the choices, it strikes me that his arguments are more opportunistic than principled. That is made even clearer when we consider the record of the hon. Gentleman's party on the matter. The Liberal Democrats' manifesto at the previous election contained no hint that they believed that personal care should be free. Exactly the opposite was the case. It might be a long time since the hon. Gentleman has looked at his manifesto, and it might be inconvenient for him and his right hon. and hon. Friends to do so.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: We have taken the royal commission's recommendations into account.
Mr. Hutton: I shall come to that point in a second, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
I quote from page 39 of the Liberal Democrats' manifesto:
"We will introduce national charging and eligibility guidelines to ensure a 'level playing field' of provision and charges … We will, as resources allow, raise the threshold at which older people are required to make a contribution to their long-term care."
There is no suggestion that personal care should be universally free. I wonder whether the U-turn that the Liberal Democrats have undergone has anything to do with a calculation about perceived political gain. It is not just the Tories who like to leap on bandwagons.
When the hon. Gentleman was a Liberal councillor in Sutton—
Mr. Burstow: I wondered when we would get to this.
Mr. Hutton: Indeed; I think that it is worth getting to. When the hon. Gentleman was a councillor, I understand that it was his party that first introduced means-tested charges for home care services. A little less posturing from him on the subject would, therefore, be advisable. No one has a monopoly on compassion—certainly not the hon. Gentleman and his party.
Mr. Burstow: I wondered when the Minister would get to that part of his speech, because I had heard that his officials had been busy winding up council officers in Sutton on Friday to provide him with a brief for this debate. His facts are incorrect. The charging policy was first introduced by the council in the early 1980s, when the Conservatives were still running the borough.
Mr. Hutton: I am aware of that. However, the hon. Gentleman and his party introduced a means-tested
728
charging regime. Before that, the policy introduced by the Conservatives provided for a flat rate. The hon. Gentleman and his party changed the system. They did not decide not to charge; they introduced a different charging policy.
It is also worth bearing in mind that in Wales, the hon. Gentleman's party supports the view that we have taken in England on these issues, which is that the right priority at present is to invest in better NHS and social care services for older people and to end the unfairness of means-testing people for their nursing care in care homes. There are, therefore, disagreements between and within political parties on the issues. It might have been better if the hon. Gentleman had referred to that in his remarks.
Of course, the funding of long-term care must be fair and reasonable. No one disputes that. However, the acid test that we should use in deciding to increase public spending, given what we know about the existing range of services for older people that are on offer, is whether any option leads to improved and better health care for older people. We should also ask whether more older people would receive the help that they need at home to remain independent for longer, surrounded by their friends and family in the community, where they want to be. We need to ask who would benefit from any extra spending and why, because—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear last week—we cannot spend the same resources twice. That is how we should judge the proposal that personal care should be universally free.
Mr. Mike Hancock: Does the Minister agree that three significant things have happened since the previous election? First, there has been a recognition that more resources are available, and that we can, therefore, do more; secondly, there has been a royal commission that supports that view; and thirdly, when people come into care now, they do so with greater needs than they did five or six years ago—a point to which the Minister has already agreed. We have not changed; we have simply moved on.
Mr. Hutton: I am tempted to offer some comment on the hon. Gentleman's last point. Of course his party has changed its position; he should not worry about that.
Mr. Hancock: We have moved on.
Mr. Hutton: The Liberal Democrats have moved on, and they have changed their position. They have moved from a position in which they believed in charging for personal care at all levels—at home and in residential care—to one in which they no longer believe in so doing. We are entitled to ask, when a party changes its position like that, precisely why it has done so.
Mr. Phil Willis: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hutton: No, I will not.
I understand that the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was that the royal commission has subsequently reported. That is a perfectly fair argument. However, we have to consider not only the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Sutton and

729
Cheam, but his record in local government, where Liberal Democrat councils did not refuse to operate charging regimes. We must consider all the issues in the round.
Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hutton: No, I will not.
The NHS plan sets out how the Government intend to rise to the challenges. It starts with a vision for improving the health and well-being of older people and of those who care for them. It goes on to spell out a comprehensive programme of service modernisation backed by an investment of £1.4 billion of additional spending by 2003–04. That new investment will fundamentally change the way in which our care system supports older people. In future, we want NHS and social care services to provide a wider range of more flexible care options for older people that will actively promote better health, encourage faster recovery from illness, support independence and avoid unnecessary institutional care or hospital admission.
New services will provide new choices and opportunities that will better meet the needs of older people and their carers. They will also help us to address the many criticisms that older people have made of the NHS and social services and to lay the foundations for a healthier older age. By 2004, that new investment will help an extra 130,000 people a year. By that year, there will be a 50 per cent. increase in the number of people benefiting from community equipment services that will help more people to stay at home safely for longer. Through additional home care support, 50,000 more older people will be enabled to live more independently at home. For many, the new services will prevent or delay admission into costly long-term care. The new intermediate care services will be free at the point of use, whether they involve residential or home-based care. We envisage that the services will typically last for six weeks.
If we are to succeed in refashioning those vital services, we need to ensure that standards of care are universally high and consistently observed. We want older people to have greater confidence in the ability of health and social services to meet their needs more effectively. We want them to have confidence that, in the future, the focus will be on maintaining their independence and preventing unnecessary ill health, and confidence that the care system will be there to support them properly when and where help is needed. We want them to have confidence that care agencies will treat them fairly and view their carers as equal partners. That is why we are doubling the carers special grant from £50 million this year to £100 million by 2003–04, allowing more carers to take a break from their caring responsibilities, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security recently announced a £500 million package of extra financial support for carers, which will benefit up to 300,000 carers over the next three years.
The national service framework will back up that investment and modernisation for older people, which will set new national standards for the care and treatment of older people, including those with mental health problems such as dementia.
The Care Standards Act 2000 provided for a new National Care Standards Commission, which will start work next year and operate to standards consistent with
730
the national service framework. In creating a single National Care Standards Commission and broadening its role beyond regulation, the Government responded to the royal commission's unanimous call for a national care commission to take a strategic overview of long-term care to represent the interests of older people.
Those new standards will be sensible and realistic and care home providers will be given sufficient time to prepare for their introduction. Our main priority is to ensure that there is enough capacity across all care sectors, including residential care, to enable older people and their carers to receive the care and support that they need. We are working closely with the independent sector to ensure that that happens.
The NHS plan also commits substantial investment to develop services that will promote older people's independence and respond to an ageing population with more chronic disease. The system of care across the NHS and social services must work together much more effectively as getting older and frailer becomes more common. Partnership is one of the keys to success. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will agree that, all too often, older people find themselves in an accident and emergency department or a busy ward at their local hospital not always because they need to be there and not because there is no real alternative, but because there is simply nowhere else for them to go.
The investment that we are making in intermediate care will help to provide a new range of services, which can offer a new alternative. Intermediate care is about providing the right services in the right places and at the right time to meet patient needs—services as close to patients' homes as possible; services in patients' homes where that is appropriate; services that avoid, in some cases, the need for people to enter residential care; services that genuinely promote independence. None of those services will be able to develop if those resources are diverted—for example, to make more personal care free for some people who are charged for it as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The hon. Gentleman spoke at length about free personal care. Let us be absolutely crystal clear about that. At present, most personal care is provided on a means-tested basis and three quarters of care home residents already receive some or all their personal care free. Those in greatest need of help with care costs receive that help. Of course, we could have chosen to spend the £1.4 billion that we are making available under the NHS plan on implementing the royal commission's recommendation that all personal care, as well as nursing care, should be free irrespective of a person's wealth. That would not have improved front-line services in any way, shape or form. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman strongly on that. Under his proposals, not one extra older person would receive any extra care or any additional support to remain independent for as long as possible.
Dr. Brand: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hutton: No.
Nor would the proposals of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam benefit the least well off as seven out of 10 people in residential care already have all or some of their personal care paid for. Instead, his proposals would lock in place the existing range of often inadequate

731
services that have frequently been criticised by many older people. They would not allow us to develop a wider range of services much more effectively to meet the health and social care needs of older and disabled people.
Dr. Brand: The Minister clearly recognises that personal care is very much part of keeping someone at home, hence the teamwork of an integrated intermediate care package. If that would work for a short-term intervention under his new proposals, does he believe that lots more people could be kept at home by taking away the main barrier to them accepting help, which is usually personal care rather than nursing care—their fear of means-testing?
Mr. Hutton: I have tried to deal with that point, but it strikes me that the hon. Gentleman and his party have a simple choice. They have not made themselves clear, however. In response to the royal commission, we are making £1.4 billion worth of extra money available to improve long-term health and social care services for older people, including £360 million that will go to address the unfairness of the means test. As I understand it, his party wants all that and another £1 billion. That is the position of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. They have not said that tonight, but that is absolutely their bottom line.
The Liberal Democrats want to accept all our proposals and then say to the Government, "Can we have another £1 billion as well?" We have been round that course many, many times. All Labour Members and some Opposition Members will be aware of the argument that the Liberal Democrats have an uncanny ability to spend the same billion pounds in about 14 different directions, while saying to people, "We won't have to put up your taxes." Well, I have to say to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that he and his hon. Friends have to grow up on such issues in politics. It is all right to blame everyone else—they are good at that—but they have to take responsibility for their own decisions. He should say clearly that they want the £1.4 billion and another £1 billion. That, at least, would be progress. I suspect that that is their real position, although he did not say so. Perhaps the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) will make that clear later.
We are investing £360 million in a full year—by 2003–04—to make the funding of long-term care fairer. We shall extend free nursing care to all settings, and I shall discuss that in a moment. We shall take action to ease the burden of residential care costs. We shall act to prevent people from having to sell their homes against their wishes on admission to care or during their lifetime. We shall tackle the unacceptable variations in charges for home care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) will be interested to hear that new guidance is being prepared on NHS continuing care responsibilities, which will help to deal with concerns being expressed about the needs of those with chronic illness.
People often feel rushed into selling their homes when they enter care. That adds to the stress of what is certain to be a difficult time. It can also remove the possibility of returning home if the situation improves. That is why, from April, for the first three months after admission to a
732
care home, the value of a person's home will be disregarded from the means test. That will allow valuable time for the person and the family to take stock and keep their options open. A person who goes into care owning a house, but with few other assets, will save between £2,000 and £2,500 during the first three months of the stay and we estimate that about 30,000 older people will benefit from that change.
From October, councils will be given an additional £85 million over three years to encourage them to offer deferred payment arrangements for those entering care. That will mean that, following admission, people will not be forced to sell their homes during their lifetimes against their wishes. In addition, our proposals to extend free nursing care to all settings recognise the need to remove the major anomaly whereby people in nursing homes are charged for care from nurses while those in all other settings receive it free on the NHS.
Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill, which is before Parliament, from October everyone who needs the care of a registered nurse will have it paid for by the NHS. That will include registered nurse time spent on providing, planning, delegating or supervising and monitoring care and meeting the costs of specialist equipment used by those nurses.
Mr. Mark Todd rose—
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Mr. Hutton: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd).
Mr. Todd: My hon. Friend is making a powerful and cogent speech, but one thing has been lost on him. I know of no other example in the NHS of the definition of whether a service is free being based on whether the person involved is a registered nurse.
Mr. Hutton: I shall come to that, but I reassure my hon. Friend that that is precisely what the royal commission asked us to consider. In contrast with the points made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, we have in no way departed from what the royal commission said about nursing care.
Mr. Nicholls: I appreciate the Minister's dilemma and he appears to be doing his level best to address it, but surely it comes down to the fact that there is no watertight acceptable definition of the distinction between nursing and personal care. If he tries to base what he considers to be an improvement on the system of finding a workable watertight definition, either he or his successor will be dragged back to the Dispatch Box to justify that for as long as the Government are in office. Is not now the time to take a deep breath and say that both will have to be funded? Is not that where his logic will take him?
Mr. Hutton: That is an interesting argument from a Conservative Back Bencher. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman ought to discuss the proposal with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who sits on the Front Bench, as I understand that that is not the view of his party. I disagree with him, as does the royal commission, and he might like to refresh his memory by reading paragraph 6.26 of the report.

733
Of course, the royal commission recommended free personal care—that was its main recommendation—but it made it clear that if we decided not to proceed, introducing free nursing care was none the less still feasible and practicable. The royal commission considered the issues carefully. On that one, it takes a different view from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. It believes, and I agree, that it is possible for the distinction between nursing and personal care to be made and made in the way that we propose in the Health and Social Care Bill.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has made a good point, but we should consider home care services. For example, community district nurses—NHS nurses—can arrive at the home of a frail older person to make decisions about what is necessary for that person's nursing care. Alongside that, social workers make assessments about what is personal care.
To the hon. Gentleman and those who say that it is impossible to make this distinction, I say that it is not. It happens and it can be made to work. I accept the wider point that the hon. Gentleman makes—that, ultimately, the argument about being unable to make a distinction is made by those who favour free personal care. However, it is a fundamentally dishonest argument because, as I said earlier, the argument about free universal personal care does not avoid those boundary issues and disputes coming to the surface. There would be just as many difficulties surrounding the definition of free personal care and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has tried to gloss over those. I do not believe that those boundary issues disappear simply by making all personal care free alongside nursing care.
The changes that we are making to free nursing care will save a person up to £5,000 of the annual fees for a year's stay in a nursing home. That means that residents in nursing homes will, in the future, be treated in the same way as people who are being cared for at home—with NHS services and equipment being provided according to need, not according to their ability to pay.
That major reform is long overdue. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam could not find it within himself to say anything positive about the reform. He shakes his head; he thinks that there is nothing positive about it. That speaks volumes about his attitude to this whole debate tonight. It is not principle that he is pursuing, but political point scoring—once a Liberal Democrat, always a Liberal Democrat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' What I am trying to say is that leopards do not change their spots.
The assessment of an individual's current and future nursing care needs will be undertaken by NHS staff using a standard approach, which will ensure that people with the same level of need receive the same level of care. As I said to the hon. Member for Teignbridge, I do not believe that it is impossible to develop a fair system of assessing nursing needs. The royal commission accepted, at paragraph 6.26 of its report, that even if we rejected its recommendation on personal care, making nursing care free should still be pursued. That is what we intend to do. We are working with the Royal College of Nursing and others to ensure that the assessment process will be able to take into account the particular needs of individuals.
It is wrong to suggest, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam again tried to do, that the reforms will not be needs-led. They will be. No artificial limit or ceiling will
734
be placed on how much nursing care a person needs. The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about how we have defined nursing care, implying that we have chosen a deliberately narrow concept of nursing for these purposes. That is absolutely not the case. The only suggested definition of nursing care was put forward in the minority report. We have taken that considerably further in clause 48 of the Health and Social Care Bill. It is very clear from the majority report that it, too, was concerned about people being charged for the services of a registered nurse. The hon. Gentleman should look at paragraph 6.22 if he has any doubts about that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Tory Opposition. It has all gone very quiet over there. They are the ones who devised the present unfair system of funding long-term care. They cut 40,000 beds from the NHS, many of them long-term care beds for the elderly. They charged people for their nursing care. They had 18 years to devise solutions, but failed spectacularly to do so. Their only suggestion was to extend long-term care insurance, which was rejected by the royal commission in one sentence as being
"complex and difficult to see where the benefits lay and to whom."
In our last debate on this subject on 2 December 1999, the hon. Members for Meriden and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) mentioned the detailed policy work they were doing on long-term care. The hon. Member for Meriden said:
"We are working on our own policy for long-term care which will go much wider than the terms of reference given to the royal commission."—[Official Report, 2 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 519.]
The Conservative research department provided a helpful briefing for its Back Benchers on 2 December, which said:
"Over the next few months the Party will develop new areas of policy which will be ready well before the next general election".
There is no sign of them so far, and no one should hold their breath. We heard from the hon. Member for Meriden one of the most disastrous attempts that I have ever heard from a Front-Bencher to explain her party's position. It would have left everyone who heard her remarks slightly the worse for wear. She did not explain her position. The one commitment that we have waited for from the Tory Opposition is a commitment to match our spending on social services. They have spectacularly failed to make that commitment. Anyone with an understanding of Tory social policy knows that, when they are looking around for cuts in public spending, they will punish those who use social services.
At the beginning of my remarks, I said that this debate was about choices. For us, the choices are about where best to invest the extra resources that are now becoming available to improve the health and well-being of older people.
Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hutton: No. I have already given way twice to the hon. Gentleman.
It is not easy to strike the right balance between assuring standards of care, extending access to new services, promoting independence in old age and ensuring fairness in what people are asked to contribute and what the state itself should assume responsibility for. However, I strongly believe that, within the resources available to

735
us, we have made the right choices: to invest more in better front-line services that will give older people greater care and improved health, avoiding institutional care wherever possible, while making the funding of long-term care fairer at the same time; to give carers more support; and to get health and social services working more closely together. I do not believe that making personal care universally free would help us in achieving any of those objectives. In fact, it could be provided only at the expense of these more pressing objectives.
We are intent on making fundamental changes to health and social care services for older people, whose lives will be significantly better as a result of the decisions that we have taken.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reject this motion tonight.
8.6 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: It has been an odd evening because various alliances have formed and then dissolved. I suppose that I should feel vaguely flattered that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, chose to use 80 per cent. of his speech to attack the Conservative party. I suppose that that is a veiled form of flattery.
I found myself in agreement with much of the Minister's speech. It was only towards the end of it that a partisan element crept in. Perhaps the House should not be surprised that it is occasionally possible for the official Opposition and the Government, who have a much stronger possibility of, and closer responsibility for, government than the Liberal Democrats have, to weigh up matters carefully and come to similar conclusions.
I certainly did not know that a Liberal Opposition day meant a day when the Government were hardly mentioned at all as a target of analysis. It was literally in the last minute of his speech that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made some analysis of Government policy. Given the brevity and lightweight nature of his speech, I should have thought that some of it might have been devoted to analysing the policy of the Government of the day.
The Minister stole some of my best lines when he looked into the Liberal Democrats' record in local government, where they get a little closer to real power. I need not repeat the damning analysis of what in practice Liberal Democrats decide to do with limited resources when they get into a position where they are able to decide how to spend them.
Dr. Brand: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Spelman: No, I should like to make a little progress.
The important issue underlying this debate is that of funding care for the elderly. I remember saying, when we were debating a statement on the royal commission, that it is rather like a big hole in the ground around which the major parties are circling. The big issues are how to spend this kind of money and what are the wise decisions for the future.
We should not be surprised that there is a minority report within the royal commission report. It may be for the benefit of this debate and that of the Liberal Democrats who skirted over the note of dissent struck by
736
Joel Joffe and David Lipsey if I repeat what those two people said. They state some important truths that should be read into the record of this debate. The dissenting note makes it clear that
"To make personal care free for all those who are assessed as needing it would"
aggravate the financial situation considerably. They continued:
"In essence, it would transfer initially at least £1.1 billion"—
it is a while since the royal commission reported, so we should use the Minister's figure of £1.4 billion, which is likely to be more accurate—
"rising to at least £6 billion in 2051 from the private to the public purse. This huge addition to the burden on public expenditure would not, however, increase spending on services for elderly people by a single penny."
The Minister is nodding: we agree on that analysis. The two continued:
"Because it would make personal care free for those who qualify for it, it would add to the demand for such care, imposing an additional cost on top of that driven by demographics."
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam disputes the demographic argument. I do not know his exact age, but I think he belongs to the generation that constitutes a considerable bulge. When he and I reach retirement age, we will put pressure on the system for the provision of services. If we have the good fortune to live to 100—which is not beyond the realms of possibility, given our increasing life expectancy—we will be one of the statistics in 2051 leading to the estimated cost of £6 billion. We are not talking about small sums of money, so we should not be surprised at the significant minority report.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I shall be dead by 2051, so I take a dispassionate view on this issue. My concern about the figures that the hon. Lady quotes from the minority report is that they assume that by 2051 we will be sticking to what I regard as expensive, outmoded, institutional models of care that other countries have moved away from. I am anxious to know what assumptions she is making. Perhaps she will clarify her earlier intervention, because it baffled me. What assumptions is she making about the future of institutional care? Will we be like Denmark and move away from care homes and nursing homes to support for people in the community or care with housing schemes?
Mrs. Spelman: For once I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it brings us on to a helpful point. Changes in society have led to the position that we are in today. Grandparents increasingly rarely live with their children. The hon. Gentleman was quick to condemn the previous Conservative Government. He said that it was entirely their responsibility that we were in this position, but that is factually not true. During the 18 years that the Conservatives were in government, there was a significant shift in our society. Job mobility increased, so people moved away from where their parents live. That is a simple social and cultural change.
I cannot stare into a crystal ball and tell the hon. Gentleman that in 2051—or even 2021, which is a bit more realistic—one of my three children will be prepared for me, as an old lady, to live in their home. They might be living anywhere on the planet. Job mobility and the nature of

737
business today make it difficult to assume that the clock will be rolled back to a time when grandparents once again live with their children, desirable though that may be in the family context. Therefore, we must consider the placement of a significant proportion of the elderly population in nursing or residential care when they need it.
All the health trends show that life expectancy has increased, and a deterioration in health comes towards the end of our lives. What used to be the end of our lives has been pushed back further, and the acuity of care in nursing homes has risen. People in nursing homes and residential homes are sicker than they were, but may not be in those homes for as long as they used to be because the level of care in the community to sustain the elderly until such time as they need that extra shelter of residential accommodation—
Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Spelman: No, because I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point in detail.
This is an important issue, and it difficult to see how the figure in the minority report is an overestimate—quite the reverse. The £6 billion may prove to be an underestimate by that time. It is difficult for any of us to say accurately what that figure will be in 20 years' time. What we can say with more confidence is that such care will cost the state a great deal of money, and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam gave no indication of where the Liberal Democrats would find that money. It has to be found, and any utterance about an extra penny on income tax providing the sums involved is unrealistic.
It is interesting to consider how this matter was approached in the Scottish Parliament. As confidently predicted, under devolution different models are emerging. The Scottish Parliament has chosen to go in a different direction. Some Labour Members have gone out on a limb and have supported taking a different direction. Now the Scottish Parliament must find where to make the savings to provide that care. The Liberal Democrats need to do that work, and should have done so before bringing this matter before the House.
It will not be easy to find £1.4 billion. Even if it can be found now, the consequences some way down the road in 2021 or 2051 would alarm any party with a responsible attitude to its role in government. In fairness, the Government have tried to do that. We should not ignore what the Prime Minister had to say on this matter. He said:
"We believe that the money would be better spent elsewhere in the national health service."—[Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 300.]
That was the position taken by the Minister, and we agree with it. The Government have chosen their priorities—that is their prerogative. We would also set our priorities if we were the Government, whereas the Liberal Democrats have abrogated their responsibility for setting priorities.
Mr. Hutton: The hon. Lady said that she agrees with the Government's response to the royal commission. An important element of that is the additional spending on intermediate care services, approximately half of which
738
will come from social services spending. I understand that she will not match our social services spending, which is funded through the standard spending assessments. Will she give a commitment to match the rise in the social services SSAs that the Government have made?
Mrs. Spelman: I shall come on to that, if the Minister does not mind. I shall deal with it in some detail, rather than as a response to an intervention.
This is a Liberal Democrat Opposition day, so for their benefit we should bring to their attention matters that may alter their view, and perhaps make them do a 360 deg turn—who knows. The NHS Confederation has said clearly:
"We do not support making personal care free as this would consume a significant amount of additional resources without any noticeable improvement in the quality of services."
I suggest that the Liberal Democrats put that in their pipe and smoke it before they finalise their policy on this subject.
Behind this debate is the problem of how to make services for the elderly sustainable in the long term. We think that the Government, in their Health and Social Care Bill, could have done more to address the longer-term perspective. If the Government and the official Opposition are agreed that the Liberal Democrats are wrong and that the provision of free personal care in England is not the best use of NHS resources, we must find a way to deal with the state's inability to pay.
How do we encourage future generations to make provision for themselves and their loved ones? Not in the way the Liberal Democrats have suggested. If free personal care were extended to England, it would disincentivise those affected and their relatives from taking on that responsibility. It would also lead to disappointment. We are led to believe that free personal services are a panacea, but they are not. They are only a portion of what it costs to provide adequate services for the elderly. The accommodation either in nursing homes or in a residential setting is a significant part—if not the largest part—of the cost of providing care for the elderly.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend will know of my long and deep interest in this subject. Does she agree that the problem arose for two reasons? First, there was the need to provide the elderly with better nursing and social care; secondly, over a period, Government dramatically reduced, by thousands, the number of geriatric beds. No one was asked whether they wanted that to happen. Government made a decision as a result of which many elderly people, whatever their position in life, feel that they are being unfairly treated.
What discussions has my hon. Friend had with groups representing the elderly, and how do those groups feel that the current injustice can be put right? I think that the Government have gone some way down the path, but as yet many elderly people do not consider the proposed solutions to be truly fair.
Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend's intervention is relevant, despite straying a little beyond the strict title of the debate.
As I am sure my hon. Friend recalls, a year ago those on the official Opposition Front Bench held an "age summit" with all charities concerned with the provision

739
of services for the elderly. It was interesting for us to hear what elderly people would like. Certainly, we heard that they had been led to believe that there would be cradle-to-grave provision, and had found that that was not the case in practice. We also heard, however, that they wanted dignity in old age, and we have a responsibility to try to provide that.
Those requirements must be weighed in the context of the Government's overall responsibility to decide the right priorities for health care, but one thing came over very strongly: people wanted to remain in their own homes for as long as possible, because their own homes tended to be full of memories of raising a family. To maintain them safely in their own homes, however, requires considerable support, and sometimes a difficult decision must be made, often involving medical staff. Although an elderly person would prefer to remain in his or her own home rather than going into institutional care, it may become unsafe for that person to do so.
It is precisely such sensitivities that my party is trying to take on board in crafting its own solution to the problem of long-term care, which we shall present before the election. Of course, if we had the Government's advantage of knowing when the election might be, we should be able to choose the moment much more judiciously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has reminded me of what Age Concern said to us at the age summit. The Liberal Democrat call for free personal care involves a terrible inconsistency. The provision of free personal care would leave other aspects of essential health care for elderly persons uncovered: chiropody and physiotherapy, for instance, might have to be paid for separately. Even necessities of later life such as incontinence pads are still charged for in nursing homes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made a good point. It is sometimes very difficult to find free personal care, or free personal services. For an elderly person with incontinence problems, products such as incontinence pads are essential, and anyone who has had to pay for them will know that they are not cheap.
Moreover, the practice of GPs' charging for call-outs to nursing and residential homes is not covered by this definition. Where do we draw the line in defining what constitutes a personal service provided for an elderly person in care?
Mr. Tom Clarke: I listened with interest to the hon. Lady's response to what I considered to be a comprehensive and convincing speech by my hon. Friend the Minister. She and the House seem to accept that great progress has been made in Scotland. That is marvellous, as the House decided to devolve such matters to Scotland. What the hon. Lady has not yet done, however, is address—as my hon. Friend did—the issue of carers. Will she tell us what commitments her party gave in the consultations that she mentioned earlier to the millions of carers in this country?
Mrs. Spelman: With respect, I did not say that great progress had been made in Scotland. I said that Scottish Members of Parliament had chosen to go out on a limb and make a different decision; they would have to weigh
740
up the financial consequences themselves, and establish where they would find the money to pay for a decision that they were free to make.
The role of carers is very important, and is catered for in our comprehensive policy on long-term care. I have already spoken for 20 minutes, and do not want to go into the issue in detail; suffice it to say that carers often bear the burden of providing personal services. Even those not covered by the present definition may have to wait for a registered nurse, but if a member of the family is involved the relative concerned will be more likely to provide personal services, because account must be taken of close family members.
The present definition is shot through with inconsistencies. The Royal College of Nursing is right to say that, owing to those inconsistencies, discrimination is likely. The example has been given of a demented patient who may not require personal services from a registered nurse—but is that patient to be discriminated against in favour of a person suffering from cancer because both happen to be in a health setting in which such services are provided by a registered nurse?
Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Spelman: No, I am about to finish my speech.
There are terrible inconsistencies, which need to be resolved as the Government work out the practical implementation of their commitment to making free nursing care available.
Mr. Paul Goggins: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Spelman: No; I am about to finish my speech, and a number of Members wish to speak. This is, after all, a Liberal Democrat Opposition day, and I do not think that the Liberal Democrats would be too grateful if the Minister and the official Opposition spokesman took up most of the available time between them.
Let us return to the people who are at the end of the system, as it were. I have a 92-year-old father and an 88-year-old aunt, both in residential care. They had to use all their capital to pay for their nursing care. I, as a relative, had to explain why that was—why 1, with a demanding job, could not care for them in my home. That is not an unusual situation: that is Britain today.
We need a fresh look at the way we care for the elderly in this country. The provision of free nursing care is like a sticking plaster over a substantial problem that needs to be resolved. It would be straying outside the framework of the debate to go into the whole question of why the care home industry is in crisis, why there are bedblockers in our hospitals, and why insufficient funding from central Government has forced local authorities to means-test and constrain elderly people who need services.
The terms of the debate were to look specifically at the Liberal Democrats' pledge, which will no doubt be in their election manifesto, to provide free personal care throughout England. If they want to put that in their manifesto, they will have to be able to say how on earth they will fund it. Nothing I have heard tonight gives any clue as to how they would realistically achieve that. A party that cannot realistically say how it intends to foot such a substantial bill is not fit to govern.
8.29 pm
Ms Ann Coffey: I am no wiser about the Conservative party's policy now than I was 20 minutes ago.
The Liberal Democrat motion arises, I am sure, out of a genuine wish to consider again the recommendations of the Sutherland report on long-term care, which was published in March 1999, nearly two years ago. I am equally sure that the timing of the debate arises out of the Liberal Democrats' concern for elderly people, not from any opportunist motive on their part. After all, they keep telling us that they are the party committed to raising standards in public life and that the dividing line between them and the Tories is that they are not bandwagon politicians.
The report by the royal commission on long-term care comprehensively examined issues around providing services to support older people in both the community and residential care. The report was thought provoking, particularly in examining existing standards in both domiciliary and residential care, which vary considerably throughout the country.
The royal commission's main task was to look at the provision of care for the elderly at home and in residential care and to recommend how the cost of that care should be sustainably and affordably apportioned between public funds and individuals. "With Respect to Old Age: Long Term Care—Rights and Responsibilities" was the title of the report. I am sure that all of us would want to achieve the objective of dignity and respect for older people. How we treat older people today will determine how we as older people are treated tomorrow.
I welcome the implementation by the Government of the royal commission's recommendation to set up a national care commission, the introduction of the Care Standards Act 2000, which will improve standards of care, the increased investment in prevention and rehabilitation, and the introduction of free nursing care, which deals with a major injustice, where nursing care was free at home or in hospital, but not in nursing homes—a legacy of the previous Government.
Another major impact on improving services will be brought about by the closer co-operation between health and social services through section 31 agreements or new health and social care trusts. The delivery of services by different agencies with different priorities has been a major contributor to bureaucracy and to frustration among many elderly people and their families. It does not make sense to be assessed first for health care and then for social care by different people working in different agencies, often having no communication with each other.
Under the system in Stockport, a social worker based in casualty at Stepping Hill hospital will, when an elderly person is admitted to casualty, assess with medical and nursing staff the need for social care. The result is that the person goes home with a proper package of care that recognises that social and health care are inextricably linked and important for that person's recovery.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Lady is making a rational speech. When elderly people have had a stroke and are discharged from hospital either back to their home or to a residential home, will physiotherapy be available? Is that a social care treatment, or a medical nursing care treatment? The one thing that worries me is the scarcity
742
of physiotherapy, which can dramatically improve the quality of life of elderly people, whether they be in their own home or a residential or nursing home.
Ms Coffey: I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman looks forward to continuing Government investment in the NHS, which will make the provision not only of health care but of associated services more widely available. As he will be aware, the legacy that the Government have to deal with is one of years of underfunding by the Government of which he was a member.
The royal commission accepted that care in old age must be a partnership between the individual and public funds. I am not convinced that its main recommendation to make personal care free and to continue means testing for other services, including cleaning, housework, laundry, shopping services, transport to day centres and sitting services, necessarily achieves fairness or justice in that partnership.
Fairness must take account of income. To each according to their need, from each according to their means, is the basis of our tax system and public spending. It should also form the basis of redistributing wealth. Everyone should share fairly in the wealth of the country, but in that fair share account must be taken of the individual's wealth and the share that they have already had, which has provided assets and savings for them in retirement and also for their children, who will inherit those assets.
The commission, supported by Liberal Democrat Members, proposes redistributing public money to those who already have private means. I cannot see the argument for social justice in that. It may be an emotionally attractive argument, and in certain Liberal Democrat constituencies it may even be a politically attractive argument, but it is not a just argument. Of course the state must take its fair share of responsibility for care of the elderly, especially for those who cannot provide for themselves, but it is also fair that some account be taken of the private means of the person concerned.
It is right that the state should provide free care in homes for the 70 per cent. of elderly people who have not had the advantage in their working lives of accumulating assets in the form of savings or income. In my local authority, it is about the same percentage for domiciliary care. It is absolutely right that no one should be denied a service that they need because they have no money for it.
The state also provides a non-means-tested, non-taxable benefit in the shape of the attendance allowance, which recognises the extra cost of disability in old age and therefore provides a basic benefit to those in need to help with the costs of care, regardless of income. The proposal supported by Liberal Democrat Members, to give free personal care, would not give one extra penny or provide one extra service for my less well-off constituents. Indeed, it would provide no extra services for those who were well off. Where is the social justice in that?
There may be legitimate arguments about what private assets and what income and capital should be taken into account in an individual's contribution to personal care. I am therefore pleased about the changes on that matter that my hon. Friend the Minister announced earlier. There has to be a fair partnership between the individual and the state in which people do not perceive that they are

743
unjustly disadvantaged for saving; in which options are available to people to plan for their financial future; and in which the state, in return, as part of that partnership, ensures that the care that individuals are offered in old age provides both dignity and respect, and the same quality of care for those who cannot afford to pay for their own care.
If we put on one side the arguments about whether universal provision in a society of unequal incomes is fair, the question becomes one of whether making personal care free would end injustices in provision. We have spent a long time arguing in the United Kingdom about the dividing lines between health and social care, for one is free and one is not, and the unfairnesses that are perceived to arise because of those definitions. However, how much more difficult are the dividing lines between personal care and non-personal care?
Under the commission's proposals, which are supported by Liberal Democrat Members, the provision of meals is a living cost and is therefore not free, whereas help with eating is personal care and is free. Where should we draw the line? If an elderly person needs personal help to eat, that is fairly straightforward—it is personal care. Let us suppose, however, that an elderly person needed more help than just the delivery and serving of a meal—for which they would be charged and which directly involved touching the person, which is the commission's definition of personal care. People may, for example, need propping up with a cushion, or, if they are blind, help with finding a plate or utensil; but otherwise they may be perfectly capable of eating by themselves. Are they receiving personal care or a service that one would expect from a meals on wheels delivery? Is it a mixture of both? If so, how much of it is chargeable?
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) described a system in America that entails metering and clocking on and off. He is simply transferring the problem of defining social and health care to that of defining personal and non-personal care. Staff in care homes will be clocking on regardless of whether care is regarded as personal and free or is not so regarded and is charged for.
I would not like to have to make such an assessment. I worked as a social worker for 20 years, and earlier in my career I did make assessments of the need for services. Assessments are not easy to make because the criteria are not simple or straightforward. It is difficult, not simple, to assess whether to provide personal care. I would also not like to have to explain to an elderly person, or to his or her relatives, the dividing line in the example that I have quoted. What would they say? The comment "this is ridiculous" comes to mind.
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Lady's comment about its being ridiculous is surely the very comment that elderly people will make to a nurse who assesses their nursing care needs and tells them that, on this occasion, a care assistant will undertake the task and that they will therefore have to pay.
Ms Coffey: The motion concerns a proposal that personal care should be free. The hon. Gentleman is simply transferring the difficulty of defining social care and health care to definitions of personal and non-personal care. He does not seem to understand that.
The definitions become even more difficult, as sitting services are excluded from personal care. If, during the sitting services, the person suddenly needs help with the
744
toilet, does that turn into personal care? Also, we have not mentioned the definitions of "enabling and psychological support" from a "knowledgable and skilled professional" which the commission and the Liberal Democrats say should be free. That is personal care, but the work of a volunteer who is working for an agency with a blind person, but who is also providing psychological support, would not be defined as personal care; that would not be free. We are now in the realms of the wholly ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the royal commission was not a lot of help in unravelling this problem; it preferred to stick to the big picture. Nor have the Liberal Democrats been a lot of help. If they had tried a bit of unravelling, they might have come to the conclusion that such a system did not offer, after all, a logical, workable and above all just approach to the issue of funding. Such a system would be quickly bogged down in definitions which would be incomprehensible to the people who are being assessed, and it would be seen as unfair. Definitions would vary from authority to authority, as obtaining universally agreed definitions would be almost impossible. Discontent would be high, as people would see their neighbours getting something for free that they were having to pay for. That is not a good recipe for justice.
Nor am I sure how the funding for free personal care would work. Would local authorities total up the cost of the assessments of need and then submit the bill to the Government? If they did, it would be an extraordinary departure. I cannot imagine even the Liberal Democrats advocating that. Are they advocating something similar to what happens at the moment: an assessment of needs through the SSA, with local authorities having a sum to spend on personal care? I rather suspect that the result of all that would be an assessment judged not by service, but by affordability of service within the inevitable limitations.
The result could be that the services that my less well-off pensioners are now getting free would not be provided to them at all because of tighter criteria owing to an increased demand for a free service; whereas their better-off neighbours might get their personal care free, while buying extra services with the money that they have saved. Is that fair?
Dr. Brand: If the hon. Lady is so concerned about a social services budget closed to any extension to free personal care, is it her understanding that the nursing budget given to health authorities is to be open-ended? Will the Government's definition of nursing care not also have its restrictions?
Ms Coffey: I would have thought it self-evident that all budgets had restrictions. The debate here is about the setting of priorities within a given budget. As the Minister of State said earlier, if we decide to spend money on one area, we cannot spend it on another. However, I am glad that the Liberal Democrats have recognised that budgets are limited.
What will happen under the Liberal Democrat proposal to the attendance allowance, which benefits 1.3 million pensioners and is given to people to help them buy personal care? Is that to be abolished? Is there no longer to be any direct payment system? If personal care is to be free, the allowance becomes unnecessary. That would be extremely unpopular with my constituents, as the

745
allowance gives them the freedom to make decisions about priorities in their own lives and to decide what care they need. It also enables them to pay for informal care from relatives and friends. I do not think that they will be too pleased to find out the Liberals are planning to deprive them of the allowance.
What would be the result of this cynical motion? The expectations of the public would not be fulfilled; their perception is that they would get for free what they now pay for. Try telling care home residents or their families that, contrary to their expectations, not all care in a home is personal care, that they will still be required to pay hotel charges and for some services, and that, if they stay there long enough, their capital will still be exhausted. The fact that some people feel that their houses as capital assets should not be included in any assessment of means will not be dealt with under the Liberal Democrat proposals for hotel and living charges.
The proposals in the motion include no extra investment in services for the elderly, which is what we need above all. We need year-on-year investment. Instead, we would get endless assessments, open to challenge, about what constitutes personal care. The only people who would marginally benefit are richer people.
A system that, in arriving at a fair partnership between the individual and public funding, takes into account the assets that people have accumulated is clearer and more transparent for those who are planning ahead than a system that relies on vague delineations of personal and non-personal care.
Instead of going down a road that is unfair and unworkable and has no basis in social justice, we should ensure that the money that the Government will continue to make available goes into improving the range and quality of domiciliary and residential care services and into making them more responsive to the needs of elderly people and their carers.
That is the ultimate fairness, because rich and poor will have access to equality of services in their old age. The dignity and respect that we accord old people is surely defined, above all, by that.
8.46 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I thoroughly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey). I was getting quite worried towards the end, because I thought that it would cause us both considerable embarrassment if I had to say that I accepted everything that she said. Luckily, she finally came to the heart of the matter, where there is clear disagreement between us—so let us state it, to reassure us both, and then move on.
I have a great deal of trouble with the idea that, because people have accumulated assets over a lifetime, they should be means-tested in their twilight years. People who have worked all their lives will have contributed in taxes, all the more so if they paid tax at the higher rate. Even with the higher rate tax inherited by the Government from their Conservative predecessors—the top rate is still effectively 50 per cent.—that is a substantial contribution for people of perhaps 85 or 90 to have made during their working lives. On that, if on nothing else, I disagree with the hon. Lady.
746
The debate has been useful in concentrating on an issue that comes up in all our constituencies. I deliberately said issue, rather than problem. Sometimes, when elderly people listen to these debates—I am thoroughly in favour of elderly people, because I fully intend to be one in due course—they ask why they are regarded as a problem, when in fact they are a success story.
The elderly—if they make it—are indeed a success story. Doing some research for another speech some time ago, I found that the male who was around at the age of 65 to claim the five-bob pension introduced by Lloyd George would, at the time of his birth, have had an actuarial life expectancy of somewhere in his late 40s. Today, people are living to ages unimaginable to our grandparents and great-grandparents. Once upon a time, people would draw their pension only if they lived 20 years beyond their actuarial life expectancy, but these days one can claim one's pension 20 years before it. We have to think through the implications. At times, that may mean some new thinking, which may be extremely expensive.
Even if, in part, I come to a conclusion not dissimilar to that of the Liberals, I hope that it will be accepted that I got there by a different route. I recognise cynicism when I see it. The Minister did an effective hatchet job, in simply doing what any young party worker will have done: anyone who has ever followed a Liberal canvasser down the road and said, "The chap who was in here just now—what did he say?" knows that the answer, in summary, is: anything that people wanted him to say.
Whatever view one may take of the Liberals' conclusions, let us not for one moment mislead ourselves, or let them mislead themselves, into thinking that they come to it from a point of principle. One does not get a point of principle from the political equivalent of what happens when one lifts up a flat stone. As kindly as we can, therefore, let us put the Liberals to one side.
Some members of my party, from what one might call the sado-monetarist wing, might ask how we can justify giving free nursing home care to someone who is very wealthy. What would be the point of allowing someone to preserve assets for their children? If they have the money, they should not be a burden to the state. I accept the logic of that argument to the hilt, but it is no longer accepted by those to whom it must be applied.
Something in excess of 50 years of socialised medicine lie behind us. We cannot put the clock back. People do not think it right that they should, in their twilight years, see the assets that they have built up—modest or otherwise—being used up for care in their old age. We can give them the fiscal logic, but they will not accept it. Eighteen years in the House have taught me that one can, to some extent, lead one's constituents over a five-year Parliament. However, when those for whom one is trying to care, in one's own way as a parliamentary representative, simply say that one is wrong, it is wise, for one's own salvation if nothing else, to listen to them. One may even think that they are right. Over and over, I hear from my constituents that the idea that their assets will have to be used up in their twilight years is not acceptable. We must move away from that idea.
I always enjoy debate with the Minister. He is not at his best when he is trying to be horrid. I, on the other hand, am at my best when trying to be horrid, so perhaps there is no problem. I appreciate his dilemma. To give

747
him his due, he is dealing with what may be the major part of the issue. Nursing care will be paid for, he says, and that will reassure some people, since it will account, probably, for the lion's share of the cost. The Minister is acting in a fiscally responsible way, saying that if he goes further it will cost a great deal of money. Full marks to him for that: it would indeed cost a great deal.
Ultimately, however, how can the Minister or his successors deal with this issue? He began to start snarling and trying to be horrid because, being an honest man, he realised where the weaker point of his argument lay. The definitions that he offered simply will not work. He need not take my word for that—indeed, I am certain that he would not. He quoted the royal commission at me, selectively, just as I could selectively quote it back at him. However, it may be more useful to consider the remarks of Claire Rayner, who works at the practical end of the issue. I do not mean to disparage the Minister by saying that; she simply knows more about the practical end than he or I do. Claire Rayner said:
"If you need someone to wash you, if you need someone to feed you, if you need"
help in using a lavatory,
"then you are ill. Nobody in good health would want a stranger to do it. It's only when you are so helpless that it is necessary that you need someone to do it, and if that isn't nursing then I don't know what is. Yet the government has decided in its wisdom that it is not and they are wrong."
Frankly, that sums it up: one need not be a humble country lawyer, as I am, to know the fun that can be had with definitions when we try to work out the difference between nursing and personal care. I am almost tempted to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt by saying: let us try to do that. Let us try to hone the definitions to create some rational way of deciding what is nursing and what personal care. However, I do not think that that will work. At some stage, some Minister will stand at the Dispatch Box—sooner rather than later, I suspect—trying to get to grips with the definition.
On the Scottish experience, I speak with all the insincerity I can command in saying that I sympathise with the Minister over the jam into which the Government have got themselves. The difficulty over this issue illustrates the way in which devolution is causing unfinished business. The Labour Administration in Scotland, presumably because they believed it right—and a case can be made—defended to the last ditch the idea that they would not make personal care free. They then realised, however, what happens when one lives in a ditch, and the sort of people with whom one must share one's principles. At that point, they suddenly decided to change their policy.
A remarkable situation will arise. Edinburgh, once the Athens of the north, is set to be the Florida of the north. A marvellous trade in elderly people will be carted over the border.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Nicholls: I want to hear an interest being declared here, as I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Clarke: I enjoy many of the hon. Gentleman's comments—especially those on the film industry. On Edinburgh, does he not agree that a consensus
748
emerged in the Scottish Parliament and that it produced good policies? I am sure that he does not want to sound envious, so does he not accept the argument that we in the House should try to raise the standard of provision?
Mr. Nicholls: Bearing in mind the fact that the Labour party and the Liberal party are already in alliance in Scotland—I can see that the right hon. Gentleman hankers after a time when they can be allied in this place as well—I do not think that consensus emerged in Scotland; cop-out emerged. The Labour Administration took an honest view, although I do not agree with it, that that was not the right way to order their priorities. They then found that, if they did not do a deal with Liberal Members, they could not continue their Administration. I greatly respect the right hon. Gentleman and always enjoy debating with him. However, I do not think that such deals produce good government or good policy.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend advances a strong and positive case. Does he not agree, however, that infirmity and dementia should be treated in the same way throughout the United Kingdom, even in its devolved areas? The taxpayers of the UK as a whole continue to pay for the vast majority of the resources used throughout the country—whether in England, in Scotland, which has its own Parliament, or in Wales and Northern Ireland with their Assemblies. When dealing with what are clearly illnesses—whether on the borderline of social or personal care, or medical care—is there not a need for justice to be perceived?
Mr. Nicholls: The honest answer is yes, I largely agree—except that sometimes we cannot put the clock back. Scotland has its own real Parliament; we cannot put that scrambled egg back into the eggshell. The Scottish Parliament cannot be unmade—it is real. We must draw a harsher conclusion. If the Scots want to pursue that course, as clearly they do, there really is unfinished business. At present, the Barnett formula—I do not want to digress too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but Barnett is about resources and that is what we are debating—ensures that Scotland receives disproportionately more money from the English taxpayer; indeed, it enshrines that. How long will the English taxpayer put up with that? If, ultimately, the Scots really do want to go their own way, they will have to raise their own revenue as well. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the matter will give rise to great bitterness and division.
The Minister expresses great confidence—or does his best to—that the definitions are workable. However, many of the organisations working in the field do not agree. Organisations that the Minister would usually be able to pray in aid are extremely concerned about what has happened in the light of the Scottish experience. I will not list them all, but in a press release issued after the Scottish debacle, Age Concern states:
"Of course we now have a vastly iniquitous situation with older people north of the border enjoying peace of mind when it comes to the costs of care, while in England and Wales older people will still be faced with a complex system which forces them to pay. A significant number of members of the Government and their parents will now enjoy a system which they are unwilling to extend to the rest of us."
That neatly sums up the dilemma. It is why I come to the following conclusion on the first limb of the problem: sooner or later, it will be realised that the definition does

749
not work, so the state will have to pick up the tab. So far, so good—but that conclusion would make any Treasury Minister shudder.
The important point about the policy that the Conservatives have been developing—there is no secret about it—is that we are saying, in effect, that we cannot go on in such a way. That is why our policy is right. I pointed out that we have had socialised medicine for more than 50 years. People of my age assumed that we would be looked after from the cradle to the grave, but no one in the House could honestly tell our children that, in due course, at the end of their life, the state will be able to provide them with a standard of care or of residential care with which they would feel comfortable.
I have two children at university and one taking A-levels. I do not pretend for a moment that they can rely on the state's resources in their twilight years. The Conservative party has therefore rightly told young people, who still have ample time, to provide for their twilight years; it is an extremely good idea. We talk about having to pick up the tab now, but we are not talking about doing so for ever; we are saying that the state cannot now go back on the arrangement or understanding that it has entered into with people of a certain age. It would be completely unreasonable to ask hon. Members here today suddenly to make realistic arrangements for their nursing home care, but it should be possible to encourage young people to do so.
In the end, such matters come down to sheer practicalities. If we try to temper principle with definitions, that simply will not work—it will lead to no fate other than the grizzly fate of belonging to the Liberal Democrat party. In the end, it is better to face up to the fact that there are opportunities as well as problems and to say that, between us, we have bitten the bullet on nursing care. I suspect that, in early due course, we shall have to do the same thing on personal care as well.
9.1 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome the debate, but I am disappointed that, although the Liberal Democrats initiated it, they have focused too narrowly on institutional care. That has been a weakness in the social policy of successive Governments. We have tended to determine our policies on long-term care according to the demands of the private institutional care sector. I was sad that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) referred to home closures. In many instances, home closures arise from effective alternative policies that enable people to remain independently in the community. I agree with much of what he said, but he focused on the wrong tack.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the mess that the Government are trying to clear up arises entirely and directly from the previous Conservative Government's policies on long-term care. I carefully listened to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who made some important points in interventions and in his speech. He said that Conservative policy is right. I listened to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who spoke for nearly half an hour, but I have not got a clue about the Conservative party's policy. I intend to send copies of her speech to the elderly people in my constituency who ask
750
me about Government policy and the alternatives. If they can work out what the Conservatives stand for, they have obviously more insight into her thoughts and ideas than I have.
The current difficulties are the direct result of what happened during the previous Government's 18 years. First, they deliberately removed long-term care from the NHS, as the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), outlined. Some 40,000 beds, many of which were long-term care beds, were removed from the NHS. My constituency lost two hospitals that specifically offered long-term and intermediate care for elderly people. One of those hospitals has long been demolished, and the irony is that its site is now occupied by a private nursing home, where people pay for the care that was provided free in the original hospital. Under the previous Government, while free NHS long-term care was being run down, the private care nursing home market was being stimulated through huge public subsidies.
People forget that the private care home industry has been produced not simply by the market; the taxpayer has subsidised its expansion. When I covered community care for the then Opposition Front-Bench team, I calculated that between 1981, when the then Government decided to extend supplementary benefit to top-up fees in private care and nursing homes, and 1993, when they attempted to unravel the mess that community care had become, £10 billion of public funds was spent on pumping money into the creation and extension of the private home care market. That was nonsense. During that time I dealt with numerous individual cases and found that people desperately wanted a small amount of money to stay in their own homes and to remain independent, but they could not get it. Once they had made up their minds to give up the ghost and to go into institutional care, the public money flowed. The policy was absolute nonsense and resulted in the mess that we are trying to unravel now. The previous Government were prepared to support private institutional care but not the preventive alternatives that everyone needed.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Meriden has disappeared, but I heard her speech so I should not be surprised by that. I do not like talking about hon. Members when they are not present. It is a pity when they cannot remain to listen to the responses to their contributions. The hon. Lady referred to the horrendous costs that people like myself will cause for the state when we are ga-ga in a few years' time. However, her assumptions are based on the most expensive models. She is making all the mistakes that the previous Conservative Government made in their 18 years in power.
The consequence of the privatisation of care of the elderly that took place under the previous Government is that older people pay for care that they have already paid for and that they assumed would be free when they paid for it. As I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Minister, it is wrong in principle and profoundly unfair that people should find themselves in that position. In effect, they are paying twice.
A number of developments have taken place recently. I had a little bit to do with the royal commission, because the Labour party came up with the idea when I was the Opposition spokesman on community care. I claim no credit, because the idea came from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) in

751
about 1994. It was a sensible way to attempt to unravel the shambles that we had got into because of Conservative policy.
The Sutherland report made some sensible suggestions and, to be fair to the Government, they are implementing many of them. The one issue on which I differ from them is personal care. I thought that the definition of anything involving touch was a sensible way round the nonsense that we have debated for generations on what is nursing care and what is social care. That is an impossible distinction to make. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), I worked in social services so I have experience of assessing people. I know that one cannot draw such a dividing line; it simply does not exist. It is wrong for us to attempt a definition.
The Sutherland report talked about free nursing consistent with that on offer outside in the community. It made sensible proposals on capital limits and property ownership and I welcome the fact that, through the national plan, the Government have acceded to the proposals on free nursing care, capital limits and property.
I was particularly interested in the idea of deferred payments that my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned. They are a sensible way of dealing with circumstances in which people in a care home do not know whether they want to remain there. They should not have just three or six months to make up their minds about giving up the home in which they lived most of their lives. That is intolerable. Deferred payments are a sensible alternative, and I commend the Government on that suggestion.
The issue about which I am most concerned is one that I mentioned in the debate on the Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill. Personal care is still to be means-tested. I understand the Government's point that, if they have to decide between offering preventive measures in the community or supporting people in their own homes and only one package of money is available, it makes sense to invest it in preventive measures. If that is the dilemma that they face, I support them in their decision. However, my concern is that it is impossible to offer a sensible distinction between nursing care and personal care.
The Government's definition that nursing care is anything that qualified nurses do will lead to a huge amount of contention and controversy. The definition is open to different and wide-ranging interpretations. I am worried about the pressure that will be placed on nursing staff to accede to requests to undertake functions that are not required of qualified nurses.
Dr. Brand: The hon. Gentleman is making a great deal of sense. Does he not agree that the Government's definition would undermine desirable team working between nurses and nursing assistants? They all have high status and do a proper job. However, once nursing actions are carried out by non-registered nurses and people are charged for them, those members of the teams will be treated as second-class citizens.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I agree that that problem will arise.
We must recognise the importance of holistic care. It makes no sense to carve up people's care. People cannot be helped to the toilet in the morning, only then to be told that their hair cannot be combed. I am worried by a further inconsistency in that respect. If the division between
752
social and nursing care is to be pared down with regard to people in care homes, will the same principle apply in the national health service? Will people in long-term NHS beds be charged for the personal care element of their hospital care? We need a consistency that has not so far been evident.
I am critical of that aspect of Government policy, but I strongly welcome the £900 million that they are offering for intermediate care. That contrasts with the Tory tax cuts announced today. When people consider Conservative party policy and its promised tax cuts, which will attract elderly voters, they must think through the consequences: cuts in personal social services and more means-testing on care for older people.
I make a plea for us to think radically about preventive measures. I am worried that the debate has been far too concentrated on institutional and permanent care settings. I ask hon. Members to consider what sort of care they want when they can no longer care for themselves. Do they want to end up as my mother did, and sit locked up in a home full of incontinent, deranged people? Is that the best that we can do for elderly people? I want us to move away from such a model.
We now have the opportunities, through developments such as those in communications technology, to maintain elderly people in their homes. We should extend the care-link schemes that apply in so many areas and provide an instant response to requests for home adaptations. People should not have to wait six months to get a ramp, or encounter all the other such nonsense about which hon. Members occasionally hear. Housing-with-care schemes have been introduced in Denmark as an alternative to institutional care. Why cannot we use the equity that elderly people have in their houses to make available intensive care packages that allow them to remain in their homes? More investment is needed in day-care and warden schemes.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, which I, too, chaired for a limited time. Will he join me and other hon. Members in different political parties in making representations to the Government on expanding criteria relating to the personal and social medical conditions that qualify for free treatment? He made a good point: providing treatment and care today can prevent worse illness in future. If care is provided now, it can save the health service a great deal of money in due course. Will he join me in making an all-party representation on that issue?
Mr. Hinchliffe: There is more cross-party consensus on the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers than on many others. Of course, I shall be happy to make appropriate representations. In my surgery on Friday evening, I spent the best part of an hour with a lady who was probably in her early 60s and whose husband has senile dementia. It was extremely difficult to try to distinguish between personal and nursing care in respect of her husband. The woman was dealing with a tragic situation. We must consider the practicalities of the Government's policy, and I shall certainly be happy to support any representations along the lines that he suggests.
Other hon. Members want to contribute, so I shall conclude my remarks shortly. I believe that the Government have taken many positive steps. I shall

753
support their amendment because I believe that they are heading in broadly the right direction. I am critical about the difficulty to which I have referred, but I hope that it will be resolved in a positive manner.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), will pick up my plea. To me, care of the elderly is essentially a matter of human rights. My human rights are about my independence and my ability to choose what sort of care I want. Care should not be given to me because the private market thinks that the best thing for me when I am ga-ga is to be incarcerated with a number of other ga-ga people in some sort of lock-up establishment. We can do better than that, and I have every confidence that the Government will do so. I wish them well in applying their thoughts to the royal commission recommendations, but I hope that we might go that little bit further in due course.
9.15 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution to what has been a good debate. It is a privilege and a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, if I may call him that, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), a fellow Select Committee Chairman, whose distinguished knowledge has greatly added to the debate. He is absolutely right to say that we should not concentrate solely on residential and institutional care. Community and domiciliary care are an essential part of the package of measures that we must implement. He is right also to talk about the need for prevention. The Government have done a great deal about that, and I shall return to the matter in a moment.
The heartening thing for me is that, apart from the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who made a powerful speech, there are not many people who are intrinsically opposed to the principle of personal care provision. The hon. Lady was slightly unfair in accusing us of being cynical in initiating the debate at this time. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we receive only three Opposition days a year, and we rightly gave a half-day to the Welsh nationalists. We do not control when we will get these opportunities, but our desire to have this debate was certainly driven by the importance that we attach to the subject.
Not enough consideration was given to the work done by Sir Stewart Sutherland and his royal commission. The report was a seminal contribution to the debate. Some might say that the Government's initial response was grudging. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) came up with the idea; it was right to pursue that idea, and the Government seemed to be absolutely committed to it. They then seemed to go very cool when the report was published, and we have had only one debate on the subject, in December 1999. The Liberal Democrats need therefore make no apologies for initiating this debate, which has been very good so far.
The Government are right to claim that they have made progress. Compared with the previous Government, they have made enormous progress. Our motion sets out substantial differences in the directions that we are taking, but ours is a perfectly proper position and we will argue our case eloquently, as the royal commission argued its
754
case. We are right to support its recommendations. The Conservatives have a lot to answer for, and if I had more time at my disposal, I could expand that proposition almost infinitely. Like the hon. Member for Wakefield, I watched with dismay the evolution of policy under the stewardship of the previous Conservative Administration.
Having said that, I remember the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, making a powerful speech in 1996 at the party conference before the last general election. He said that he was ashamed to live in a country where people had to sell their house to pay for their long-term care. That gave me a lift. I watched his speech on the television, and that was a powerful point well made. Like me, many people had their expectations raised by that statement by the head of the incoming Government and by the establishment of the royal commission. We were right to be disappointed that it took the Government almost as long to read and respond to the report as the royal commission had taken to write it.
The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), rightly ribbed us about past changes in Liberal Democrat policy. However, for me at least, the royal commission changed everything. There are six volumes of research evidence, and I did not read them all, but those that I read certainly demonstrated that the commission's work changed people's perspectives on this important subject.
The Government have not done enough to consider the options in detail and to debate them in the House. They took the line of least resistance and they split the difference. As I said, they have made progress, and it would be churlish to quibble about that, but they took fright at the amounts of money that they thought, wrongly, were involved. North of the border, research will continue between now and August into the implications and the delivery of the policy of paying for people's personal care. I am deeply disappointed that the Government took fright.
The royal commission showed that providing solutions on an individual basis was not viable. Individual solutions, whether through independent insurance or under other schemes, would not make the necessary provision. Sir Stewart rightly said that the only solution was to pull the risks and cover the costs through general taxation. That is the fairest, long-term solution.
Dan Norris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kirkwood: I am sorry, but I have no time. Other hon. Members want to speak and I am trying to be as quick as I can.
Sir Stewart's point is crucial, and I hope that hon. Members from all parties will consider it. The Government will struggle to deal with fairness in future if their policy continues in the same direction. We have had some exchanges about people's treatment and whether they consider it to be fair when compared with that of others.
Problems of definition will always exist. I respect the hon. Member for Stockport, who knows a great deal about social services from her professional experience. However, it diminished the argument to mention some of the issues that she raised. Boundary problems will always exist, and Sir Stewart Sutherland and the royal commission report recognised that. There are ways round the problem if we act in good faith and with good will.

755
If the Government's proposals are accepted, we will have a two-tier system. However good it is, it will be unstable in the long term. The Minister was wrong to say that the royal commission had devised the narrow definition of long-term care that he described. Dr. Chi Patel contributed to the minority report. I have talked to Sir Stewart and it is wrong to say that he had such a narrow definition in mind when he considered the proposition for gatekeeping.
If the Government considered the fact that the state already pays 75 per cent. of the costs, there is at least an argument for saying that, as pensioner provision improves in future and people retire with larger occupational pensions, the money available to pay hotel costs may generate more money than was perhaps anticipated five years ago when research for the royal commission report began. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), will be able to deal with that point in her winding-up speech. Slide rules should be applied to some of the figures and an option for personal care sometime in future should be kept open. That is all I ask of the Government this evening. If they are prepared to consider that, I will be content with the results of our debate.
9.23 pm
Mr. Paul Goggins: I thank the previous two speakers for creating space for me to squeeze into before the winding-up speeches. The debate is important and I am happy to have the opportunity to contribute to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) spoke eloquently about the way in which our treatment of older people is a sign of our society's values. It should reflect the way in which we expect to be treated when we are old.
I acknowledge the huge progress in the care of some of my older constituents in the past three or four years. When I was elected as a Member of Parliament, the first issue to hit me was delayed discharges. I remember the letters that I received, the tearful relatives and the patients, whom I visited in Wythenshawe hospital. It was dreadful for them to be trapped in an inappropriate setting. It also prevented others who desperately needed operations from being treated. It was demoralising for the staff because they were not able to give appropriate care in such a setting.
In August 1997, there were 200 delayed discharge patients in Manchester, and there was just £500 a week of new money with which to fund care packages and placements for them. I am pleased to say that, with better management, more cash from the Government and more partnership working, there is now between £6,000 and £7,000 a week of new money in the kitty, and there are only one or two delayed discharge patients. That is an immense step forward, and it has also been repeated in the Trafford area of my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) always speaks passionately about the need for prevention in the care of the elderly, in terms of the prevention of the use of the residential care and hospital care options. I concur wholeheartedly with him on that. All our efforts should go into trying to prevent admissions into residential care and hospital care whenever possible. That means more neighbourliness and
756
better care in the community. It also means good, professional social work care and nursing care in the community.
When people need to go into the hospital, as the majority of older people will at some stage, the care available needs to be of a high quality. When the treatment is over, the patient then needs to be placed appropriately in the right kind of setting. That might involve residential care or nursing care, but it is to be hoped that the patient will be back home sooner rather than later.
On that issue, I have some good news for my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. The Southwold nursing home in my constituency would, in the past, have received patients from hospital who would have stayed there almost for ever. Now, it is sending one in three patients—even some who are quite dependent—home into their own community with a care package. That is an encouraging development in nursing care.
The main focus of the debate is the decision not to provide free personal care to all. It has been made clear from the debate that that is a serious and controversial issue. There are no perfect solutions to such questions. In politics, there are only priorities and hard choices, and I shall briefly cover some of them.
First, the initial cost of the proposal would be more than £1 billion, as my hon. Friend the Minister said. That is a similar investment to the one that the Government are making in the intermediate care package, which will provide 5,000 places by 2003. The first hard question to answer is whether we should provide existing services more cheaply for some, mainly better-off, people or fund new and extended provision for all. As has been said, we cannot spend the same money twice.
Secondly, the £1 billion cost would not remain at that level. The royal commission made it clear that by 2050, the figure would have risen to at least £6 billion. The second question is, therefore, whether such costs would be sustainable. Reference has been made to the negative impact of having a funding regime that would not be sustainable in the long run. That would be totally disruptive to the care of elderly people, and we should shun such an option.
Thirdly, expectations change. That powerful point was made by the authors of the note of dissent to the royal commission's report. Older people will not now accept the care packages that were on offer in the 1960s. Equally, older people in 2050 will not accept the kind of care packages that are available now. The third question, therefore, is whether we should risk putting a cap on quality and variety by enshrining into our system a principle that would never provide enough of the right kind of care in the long run.
The issue is controversial. Difficult choices have to be made, and there will undoubtedly be all kinds of teething problems with the provisions. I acknowledge and accept that there is now a new settlement between the individual and the state in relation to pensions and other matters. It is a settlement that protects the poorest as a first priority, which is just. It asks the better-off to make a bigger contribution, which is fair, and it guarantees quality for everyone, which we all expect. Those principles are reflected in the new arrangements for personal care, and I fully support them.
9.29 pm
Mr. Nick Harvey: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate, which has been useful to explore the issues involved and to identify where the political parties will position themselves in the run-in to the general election.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said, the Liberal Democrats do not control the timetable for when we get the chance to raise matters on Opposition Supply days. Nevertheless, events in Scotland are, for Liberal Democrats, a cause for celebration. We celebrate the success of devolution, because those events represent devolution working, and working well, and the fact that people in Scotland will be able to use the long-term free personal care that the Scottish Executive and, in the end, all parties in the Scottish Parliament recognised that it was right to offer. That does not mean that we have to offer free personal care in England, but it does mean that those of us who believe in that have a duty to argue for it in England. That is what we are doing.
It is wrong for people such as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who is the Conservatives' key spokesman on these matters, to appear on television to say that it is an absolute scandal that different things will happen in Scotland and in England, only for it to creep out that that is their position as well. The Conservatives in Scotland believe in free personal care, but it has emerged in today's debate, as it has before, that the Conservatives at Westminster do not support it. Small wonder that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who was bouncing up and down enthusiastically at the beginning of the debate, left the Chamber on hearing what his Front-Bench spokesman had to say. I am not surprised by his attitude because he would have been gravely disappointed to discover that that was the position.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Where is she?
Mr. Harvey: Where indeed is the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)? She could have returned to listen to the conclusion of the debate.
The task for those of us in England who believe in free personal care is to campaign and argue for it, and that is what we are doing tonight. I shall address a few remarks to the Minister, who defended the Government's position and said that our proposals are not the right way forward in England.
On the demographic time bomb, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) made a stout defence. As the Minister said, as time goes on there will be more people of retirement age and in their eighties, but it is equally true, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that the greater part of the expenditure on such care services occurs in the last six weeks of life. Unless the population is bound to expand in some unrecognisable way, the basic costs involved will remain broadly the same.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) said that, over time, the original estimate would, in cash terms, reach a sum six times that estimated by the royal commission. Of course it would. Sums increase as time goes on and inflation makes figures rise, but the estimate will remain broadly stable as a proportion of gross domestic product. The idea that there is a
758
demographic time bomb and that we will not be able to afford our proposals was comprehensively dismissed by the royal commission, which went into those matters in great detail.
The Government say that they have introduced a comprehensive package of intermediate care and that, somehow, it is an alternative because in this world it is possible to do only one thing or the other—it is not possible to do both, nor should one have the ambition to do so. Let me make it perfectly clear that the Liberal Democrats support the new priority that the Government want to give to intermediate care. We welcomed that on the day that it was announced and we have welcomed it in the House since.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Health Committee, was right to say that we do not want hon. Members to get into the cul-de-sac of thinking that all care has to be residential. The more intermediate, short-term care and longer-term care that we can offer to enable people to be cared for in their own homes, the better that will be for everybody concerned and for society as a whole. We welcome the Government's intermediate care package. We recognise, however, that free personal care involves expenditure over and above that. It certainly does not involve the original £1 billion that the royal commission estimated.
If one was to proceed on that basis, one would be assuming that the free nursing care that the Government are introducing would achieve nothing and that the intermediate care package itself would achieve nothing. Yet the Government's own brief about intermediate care specifies that one of their objectives is to reduce the number of people going into long-term residential care. The Government are clearly confident that that will succeed, and so are we. The cost of introducing a policy of free personal care falls as a result.
Dan Norris: Exactly how much will it cost for the additional strategy that the Liberal Democrats propose? How will they raise the money, given that one of their proposals is to have a higher rate of income tax for people earning more than £100,000 a year? I calculate that that has been spent 11 times over, given what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has said. Putting that to one side, how much will the proposal cost the taxpayer?
Mr. Harvey: If one starts with the original royal commission estimate and nets out of that what will be spent on nursing care, taking account of the extent to which intermediate care will relieve some of the pressure on that, the cost will be about £750 million a year. The hon. Gentleman refers to our separate policy of putting a 50p tax rate on incomes above £100,000. Let me point out that that would raise £3.5 billion in a year. He may have counted the money as being spent 11 times over, but even at that rate it can be spent almost five times over and it will pay for a great deal more than that. Nevertheless, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.
Both the Minister and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) made some spurious arguments to the effect that it is impossible to draw up a definition of personal care. That is simply not true. The royal commission report had a good stab at doing so. As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, it used as its basic principle the fact that

759
the person being cared for had to be touched. If hon. Members think that that sounds vague, they should look at the report, which lists exactly what would be provided.
I am not saying that a trouble-free list can be drawn up, but it is nonsense to say that a definition cannot be made. Equally, it is nonsense to say that a distinction between nursing care and personal care cannot be made. That does not mean that no difficulties arise. In practice, it will prove very difficult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam stressed in his speech, where the Government choose to draw the lines in establishing that definition is not what the royal commission had in mind in its report.
All those involved in this sector, including the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association, in an announcement that it made yesterday, have arrived at the same conclusion: that the Government have opted for a mean and narrow definition. It is based not on the tasks that will be carried out or on the condition of the patient but, bizarrely, on who will carry out the care. It is a most unsatisfactory definition, which will cause many difficulties in practice. However, it is a definition, which proves that a definition can be made.
The Minister made a completely ludicrous point about the activities of the London borough of Sutton in the middle of the Thatcher regime. For goodness sake, a council trying to run its services in the middle of the Thatcher regime when some 85 per cent. of its budget was determined for it by the Government—[Interruption.] As if problems were not bad enough, Lady Olga Maitland was the local Member of Parliament. The Minister cannot suggest that the Liberal Democrats, in proposing an election manifesto, would try to do exactly the same as we did in the 1980s in the London borough of Sutton when Mrs. Thatcher was controlling the budget. The two are not remotely comparable. In any sane country, an organisation as big as a London borough would determine its own policies and raise its own taxes to pay for them. However, Britain does not work like that; everything has to be spoon fed from above. Matters have improved slightly over the years, but not an awful lot.
While we are on the subject of local government finance, the Minister was right to ask the Conservative party whether it would match Government spending on social services. It is worth taking a moment to look at what the Government are doing with social services funding. This year, all. social services departments have budgets above the standard spending assessment. Despite that, as of last week they were collectively overspent by £205 million. The settlement for next year will be insufficient to cover repayment of the debt and to cope with the increased demand on social services.
The Government have estimated that their new four-year plan to end bed blocking will cost £900,000. Much of that will have to be paid for out of social services budgets, and no extra is provided for it in this year's budget. Therefore, there is a great gap, so the Conservatives should be able at least to match the Government's proposals. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said that the whole thing comes down to funding. She was right when she said that there is a big hole, but she contrived to dig an even bigger hole and jumped into it. She said that the solution to the funding hole was not provided by the Government's proposals or by the Liberal Democrats' suggestion, because that would "disincentivise" people from making provision on their own account. When we sat on the edge of our seats
760
waiting to hear her solution, there came absolutely nothing. We were told that the Conservative proposal would appear in due course, and we would have to contain ourselves.
It was all too much—or rather too little—for the hon. Member for Buckingham, who fled into the night. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is made of stouter stuff. He told us what he thinks the policy should be. It was remarkably similar to the Liberal Democrat policy that we have enunciated this evening. It will be interesting to see whether, come the election, he stands on the Conservative or the Liberal Democrat policy.
Mr. Nicholls: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to go round the west country claiming that he and I are allies. If I came to a similar conclusion, it was because mine was based on principle.
Mr. Harvey: I thought that the bulk of the hon. Gentleman's rather intemperate remarks about the Liberal Democrats were based on the fact that his majority over the Liberal Democrat candidate at the last election was all of 281.
The hon. Member for Stockport irresponsibly set alarms bells ringing by suggesting that Liberal Democrats were arguing for the removal of existing attendance allowances. That is certainly not part of our policy, and it is not how we would propose to pay for these provisions.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge said that his argument was born out of principle. The royal commission went into this matter in great detail, and explored the principles involved. It considered the practical implications and the costings, and plotted those forward over a period of time. It made a recommendation, which we have supported consistently, and I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman does so, too. I listened to a couple of interventions from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and I got the impression that he also supported that recommendation as an issue of principle.
Liberal Democrats have argued this case in England and in Scotland because it is right in principle. It is completely unjust for someone suffering from a long-term, chronic condition, such as dementia or Parkinson's disease, who is in need of personal help with bathing, dressing, their toilet and other necessities, to have to pay for those services. By any common-sense, layman's definition such chronic conditions would ordinarily be viewed as a health problem. All those who have paid national insurance contributions have believed that they have been buying care from the cradle to the grave. It is an injustice and it is wrong in principle that they should be penalised and asked to pay for personal care.
I welcome the commitments made by the British Medical Association. It believes that the Government's definition of nursing care is too limited. Dr. Dearden, the chairman of its community care committee, said:
"We are pressing politicians to make changes to the Bill so that free care includes personal care as well as nursing care. If someone is unable to wash themselves, use the bathroom or get dressed on their own because of their medical condition, we believe help with these basic things should be free of charge. If individuals have to pay for this increased level of personal care it is akin to a tax on being sick. This goes against the ethos of the NHS."
That is right, and that is why Liberal Democrats believe that personal care should, in principle, be free. We will argue that proudly and strongly at the forthcoming election.
9.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): This has been, mostly, a thoughtful and well-informed debate, and I congratulate those who have taken part. It has been a debate about the challenges we face, and the choices we have to make.
It is clear that we live in an ageing society. Many more people live longer: that is to be welcomed, but the challenge we face is to ensure that our health and social services meet the needs of older people. Older people want to lead healthy and independent lives; they do not want to be in institutions. As a Government, we need to find a fair way of funding long-term care that strikes the right balance—between what the state should provide and fund and what should be the responsibility of the individual, and ensuring that the money, when it is spent, provides better care.
The status quo was clearly unacceptable. We needed to expand services for the care of older people, we needed to make major new investment in those services and we needed to redesign services. We are doing just that. We are providing extra funds—an additional £900 million by 2003–04—for intermediate care and new services, and a further £360 million year on year to finance nursing care costs. We are thinking about expansion and redesign. That is why we have developed national service frameworks for older people, that is why we established the National Care Standards Commission and that is why we are developing intermediate care.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) rightly described the previous system as discredited and unfair, but I could not agree with much that he said subsequently, other than his expressed desire for a fair and sustainable system. I certainly do not agree with his analysis of the solution. Essentially, he said that he supported everything the Government were doing but wanted more. In a sense I would have been surprised if he had not said that, but it would have been helpful had he recognised that some considerable advances are being made.
I am still deeply puzzled by the contribution of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). She described the problem as a big black hole around which we were trying to navigate, and I sense that many of us are trying to navigate around a big black hole following her speech. In fact, she probably fell into the black hole, and we all know what happens when someone disappears into one: it is difficult to get out.
Not the least of the hon. Lady's problems is her continued refusal to clarify the Opposition's policy. She said that she wanted to clarify what her colleague the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) had said about personal care. The hon. Gentleman, however, gave no such confirmation. He said:
"I welcome the Government's decision to make all nursing care free".—[Official Report, 10 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 1100.]
It appears that the hon. Lady herself is not terribly clear about what the policy is.
The hon. Lady offered no solution, other than saying, "We support what the Government are doing, until we come up with our own comprehensive policy." That is a policy that we were promised as long ago as December 1999, but we still have not heard anything. We wait with bated breath, but, given that social services are such a
762
vital component, it would be helpful if, for a start, we could hear whether the Opposition will match NHS and social services funding.
Mrs. Spelman: I am sure that, as a professional politician, the Minister understands that tactically it was worth waiting to see whether the Government would have a knee-jerk reaction, as they did in Scotland.
Ms Stuart: Unlike the Liberals, who are now jumping on every bandwagon that comes their way, the Conservatives will sit on the fence to see which way the wind blows, and will then decide in which direction to jump. We all look forward to that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on her thoughtful speech. She gave strong support to what the Government are doing. I particularly appreciate her support, which she gave not because of political allegiances but because of her experience of working on the ground. She acknowledged the difficulties with definition and that it was not straightforward, but she made it clear that no alternative was offered—someone who has worked on the ground recognised that that was the right way forward.
I was fascinated by the contribution of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who told us that his was a principled statement. If I understood the principled statement correctly, he was arguing along the lines not of justice but of the right of inheritance for the wealthier, and, if that did not work, insurance would be a way forward. In many ways, it did not add up.
I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said. He has tremendous experience and is a highly respected Chairman of the Select Committee on Health. He made a powerful point about the failure to invest in alternative provisions for care. He acknowledges the difficulties. We know that we have some differences, but he is broadly in support. Just because it is difficult to make that distinction does not mean that it is impossible.
My hon. Friend specifically requested that we move away from institutional settings and look radically at the matter, recognising people's human rights and supporting their right to live independently. I hope that, when he looks at what we have done, he will realise that we have taken that on board. I am grateful for his contribution.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—as a former member of the Select Committee on Social Security, which he chairs, I almost called him my hon. Friend—suggests that what is happening in Scotland indicates a two-tier system. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the driving force behind what we are doing. We decided to take that route in England because it delivers better care and addresses some of the inequalities of the previous arrangement.
Mr. Kirkwood: I was not making myself clear. I was talking about the two tiers between personal and nursing care, not between north and south. I apologise.
Ms Stuart: I am grateful for that intervention.
The hon. Gentleman welcomed the royal commission, but we rejected the proposal on personal care not because of cost, but to deliver better care. May I briefly come back to Scotland? Different solutions for funding will not

763
provide one extra nurse, one extra doctor or one extra provision north of the border, so it is not logical to conclude that there will be better care.
Mr. Donald Gorrie: Does the Minister accept that all the six parties represented in the Scottish Parliament support the proposition and that all the people who gave evidence, who really know about the subject, to the Scottish Parliament's Committee all favoured the policy? Therefore, the policy is not as insane as she makes out.
Ms Stuart: I was not for one moment suggesting that. I am simply saying that that is a logical conclusion of devolution: different choices are made. The debate is about making choices, but I am still somewhat puzzled about why the Liberal Democrats support the proposal in Scotland, but have different views in Wales and are not sure about England. There may be some inconsistency there. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may not like it, but may I make a little progress?
My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) described powerfully the changes that he has seen on the ground and the benefits to his constituents as a result of bringing in the new models of service, which deal with such things as delayed discharges. He has seen what home care packages are doing for people on the ground.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) made an interesting observation about what the debate was really all about: it was about political positioning. He made that clear. I am grateful for that honesty. I am delighted that he has put on the record his support for the royal commission because, in 1999, when we had the previous debate, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson would not be drawn on whether the Liberal Democrats supported it. Again, it was a case of sitting on the fence, seeing how it played and suddenly saying, "We fully support it."
The hon. Gentleman questioned the arguments about the demographic time bomb. There is a whole line of arguments to be made, but what he does not deal with is the fact that what we are putting forward is based not on cost, but on better services that provide a better response.
Extraordinarily, the hon. Gentleman questioned the £1 billion cost figure. Underlying his assertion that the change would not cost that sum was the good old Liberal Democrat approach of accepting everything that the Government are doing and our extra investment and asking for more. He said that the change would not cost £1 billion, but would be much cheaper, because of all the Government's action in intermediate care. That is the bottom line.
Mr. Harvey indicated assent.
Ms Stuart: I am glad that we have put that on record.
Nothing that we have heard today has shed any light on the Opposition's policies or on how they would fund them. It is very easy to make proposals without saying where the money will come from. Liberal Democrat Members say that extra tax on those making more than £100,000 would fund both their care proposals and their education proposals, but I would like to see the calculations. Liberal Democrat Members want more money, but they do not say where they will find it.
764
Conservative Members broadly agree with the Government and will probably do so until they have developed their own comprehensive policies. However, they have still not said whether they will match our vital social services funding. The Opposition might therefore find it helpful—I always try to be helpful—if I outline the real action that the Government have taken using real money, not sweet aspirations and empty words.
The NHS plan outlines a vision of health and well-being for older people and for those who care for them. I do not think that we have said enough today about carers. That vision is backed by real investment of an extra £1.4 billion by 2003–04. With that investment, we will promote better health, encourage faster recovery from illness, support independence, avoid the increasing institutionalisation of the elderly and deal with hospital admissions. We offer not only new choices and new opportunities, but the money necessary to realise those opportunities.
By 2004, the new investment will help an extra 130,000 people annually. By 2004, the number of people benefiting from community equipment services will increase by 50 per cent., helping people to stay at home safely for longer. Although all hon. Members want that outcome, we are actually achieving it. Not only will 50,000 people be able to live more independently at home, but we will support the carers.
Opposition Members asked the interesting question what will happen when we are 90 and our children have to look after us. I remind them that, by then, our children themselves may well be 70 and require support. We are therefore supporting carers by doubling the carers' special grant from £50 million to £100 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has also announced a package worth £500 million to back up our words. That money will benefit 300,000 carers in the next three years. The national service framework will back up those investments and support older people with mental health problems and dementia sufferers.
Those measures were created to deal with the individual concerns of people whom we need to support. It is also essential that those services are reconfigured. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, simply doing more of the same is not a long-term strategy. We are therefore providing money to reconfigure services and to provide essential independence. We are extending free nursing care to all settings to promote independence.
It would have been gracious of the hon. Member for North Devon to acknowledge that some progress is being made, and that the Government will be preventing people from having to sell their homes against their wishes. As the Prime Minister said, such a situation is disgraceful. I wish that Opposition Members would even partly recognise that we are moving in the right direction. We are tackling unacceptable variations in charges for home care. We are also providing guidance on the NHS continued care responsibilities.
The Government are taking action to provide a fair and sustainable way forward. Opposition Members have a long way to go to convince anyone that they have any credible policy and funding options that anyone could accept. What we have heard today will convince no one, either in the Chamber or outside it. It has been an entirely missed opportunity.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 271.

Division No. 104]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Baker, Norman

Keetch, Paul

Ballard, Jackie

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

Berth, Rt Hon A J

(Ross Stye & Inverness W)

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Kirkwood, Archy

Brake, Tom

Livsey, Richard

Brand, Dr Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Breed, Colin

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Burnett, John

Moore, Michael

Burstow, Paul

Oaten, Mark

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

Öpik, Lembit

(NE Fife)

Rendel, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Cotter, Brian

Sanders, Adrian

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Fearn, Ronnie

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Tyler, Paul

Gidley, Sandra

Webb, Steve

Hancock, Mike

Willis, Phil

Harris, Dr Evan

Harvey, Nick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Mr. Andrew Stunell and

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Mr. Donald Gorrie.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clapham, Michael

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Clark, Dr Lynda

Ainger, Nick

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Ashton, Joe

Clelland, David

Atherton, Ms Candy

Coffey, Ms Ann

Austin, John

Coleman, Iain

Colman Tony

Bailey, Adrian

Connarty, Michael

Banks, Tony

Cooper, Yvette

Barnes, Harry

Corbett, Robin

Barron, Kevin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Battle, John

Corston, Jean

Bayley, Hugh

Cox, Tom

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Crausby, David

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bennett, Andrew F

Cummings, John

Benton, Joe

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Bermingham, Gerald

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Best, Harold

Davidson, Ian

Betts, Clive

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Borrow, David

(B'ham Hodge H)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Dawson, Hilton

Bradshaw, Ben

Dean, Mrs Janet

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Denham, John

Browne, Desmond

Dismore, Andrew

Burden, Richard

Dobbin, Jim

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Butler, Mrs Christine

Doran, Frank

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Cann, Jamie

Edwards, Huw

Caton, Martin

Efford, Clive

Cawsey, Ian

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ennis, Jeff

Chaytor, David

Etherington, Bill

766

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Fisher, Mark

Love, Andrew

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

McCabe, Steve

Flint, Caroline

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Flynn, Paul

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Follett, Barbara

(Makerfield)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Macdonald, Calum

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McDonnell, John

Foulkes, George

McFall, John

Galloway, George

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Gapes, Mike

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

McNulty, Tony

Gerard, Neil

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gibson, Dr Ian

McWalter, Tony

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McWilliam, John

Godsiff, Roger

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Goggins, Paul

Mallaber, Judy

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Maxton, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Meale, Alan

Grocott, Bruce

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Grogan, John

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hain, Peter

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Miller, Andrew

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Mitchell, Austin

Hanson, David

Moffatt, Laura

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Healey, John

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Morley, Elliot

Hendrick, Mark

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

Hepburn, Stephen

(B'ham Yardley)

Heppell, John

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

(Aberavon)

Hill, Keith

Mountford, Kali

Hinchliffe, David

Mullin, Chris

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hoey, Kate

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Norris, Dan

Hope, Phil

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hopkins, Kelvin

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

O'Hara, Eddie

Howells, Dr Kim

Pickthall, Colin

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Pike, Peter L

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pond, Chris

Hurst, Alan

Pope, Greg

Hutton, John

Pound, Stephen

Iddon, Dr Brian

Powell, Sir Raymond

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jamieson, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jenkins, Brian

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

Primarolo, Dawn

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Prosser, Gwyn

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Quinn, Lawrie

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Rapson, Syd

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Robertson, John

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

(Glasgow Anniesland)

Joyce, Eric

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Keeble, Ms Sally

Rogers, Allan

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Rooney, Terry

Kemp, Fraser

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Roy, Frank

Kidney, David

Ruane, Chris

Kilfoyle, Peter

Ruddock, Joan

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Salter, Martin

Lammy, David

Sarwar, Mohammad

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Savidge, Malcolm

Leslie, Christopher

Sedgemore, Brian

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

767

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Tipping, Paddy

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Todd, Mark

Skinner, Dennis

Trickett Jon

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Truswell, Paul

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Snape, Peter

Ward, Ms Claire

Soley, Clive

Wareing, Robert N

Spellar, John

Watts, David

Squire, Ms Rachel

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Stevenson, George

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wilson, Brian

Stoate, Dr Howard

Winntek, David

Stringer, Graham

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Wood, Mike

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Woodward, Shaun

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Wray, James

(Dewsbury)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Wyatt, Derek

Temple—Morris, Peter

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Tellers for the Noes:

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Mr. Graham Allen and

Timms, Stephen

Mr. Ian Pearson.

Question accordingly nagatived.
Question, that the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order NO. 31 (Questions on amendments): —
The House divided: Ayes 270,Noes 41.

Division No. 105]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clapham, Michael

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Clark, Dr Lynda

Ainger, Nick

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Ashton, Joe

Clelland, David

Atherton, Ms Candy

Coffey, Ms Ann

Austin, John

Coleman, Iain

Bailey, Adrian

Colman, Tony

Banks, Tony

Connarty, Michael

Barnes, Harry

Cooper, Yvette

Barron, Kevin

Corbett, Robin

Battle, John

Corston, Jean

Bayley, Hugh

Cox, Tom

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Crausby, David

Bennett, Andrew F

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Benton, Joe

Cummings, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Best, Harold

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Betts, Clive

Davidson, Ian

Blears, Ms Hazel

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Borrow, David

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

(B'ham Hodge H)

Bradshaw, Ben

Dawson, Hilton

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Dean, Mrs Janet

Browne, Desmond

Denham, John

Burden, Richard

Dismore, Andrew

Butler, Mrs Christine

Dobbin, Jim

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Doran, Frank

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Dowd, Jim

Cann, Jamie

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Caton, Martin

Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

Cawsey, Ian

Edwards, Huw

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Efford, Clive

Chaytor, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

768

Ennis, Jeff

Leslie, Christopher

Etherington, Bill

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Uoyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Fisher, Mark

Love, Andrew

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

McCabe, Steve

Flint, Caroline

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Flynn, Paul

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Follett, Barbara

(Makerfield)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Macdonald, Calum

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McDonnell, John

Foulkes, George

McFall, John

Galloway, George

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Gapes, Mike

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

McNulty, Tony

Gerrard, Neil

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gibson, Dr Ian

McWalter, Tony

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McWilliam, John

Godsiff, Roger

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Goggins, Paul

Mallaber, Judy

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Maxton, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Grocott, Bruce

Meale, Alan

Grogan, John

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Hain, Peter

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Miller, Andrew

Hanson, David

Mitchell, Austin

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Moffatt, Laura

Healey, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hendrick, Mark

Morley, Elliot

Hepburn, Stephen

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

Heppell, John

(B'ham Yardley)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

Hill, Keith

(Aberavon)

Hinchliffe, David

Mountford, Kali

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Mullin, Chris

Hoey, Kate

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hope, Phil

Norris, Dan

Hopkins, Kelvin

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Howells, Dr Kim

O'Hara, Eddie

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Pickthall, Colin

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pike, Peter L

Hurst Alan

Pond, Chris

Hutton, John

Pope, Greg

Iddon, Dr Brian

Pound, Stephen

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Jamieson, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jenkins, Brian

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Primarob, Dawn

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Quinn, Lawrie

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Rapson, Syd

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Jowell, Fit Hon Ms Tessa

Robertson, John

Joyce, Eric

(Glasgow Anniesland)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Rogers, Allan

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Kemp, Fraser

Rooney, Terry

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kidney, David

Roy, Frank

Kilfoyle, Peter

Ruane, Chris

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ruddock, Joan

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Lammy, David

Salter, Martin

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Sarwar, Mohammad

769

Savidge, Malcolm

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Sedgemore, Brian

Timms, Stephen

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Tipping, Paddy

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Todd, Mark

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Trickett, Jon

Skinner, Dennis

Truswell, Paul

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Ward, Ms Claire

Snape, Peter

Wareing, Robert N

Soley, Clive

Watts, David

Spellar, John

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Squire, Ms Rachel

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Stevenson, George

Wilson, Brian

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Winnick, David

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Wood, Mike

Stringer, Graham

Woodward, Shaun

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Wray, James

Sutclitfe, Gerry

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Wyatt, Derek

(Dewsbury)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mr. Ian Pearson and

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Mr. Graham Allen.

NOES

Allan, Richard

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Baker, Norman

Keetch, Paul

Ballard, Jackie

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

Berth, Rt Hon A J

(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Kirkwood, Archy

Brake, Tom

Livsey, Richard

Brand, Dr Peter

Uwyd, Elfyn

Breed, Colin

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Burnett, John

Moore, Michael

Burstow, Paul

Oaten, Mark

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

Öpik, Lembit

(NE Fife)

Rendel, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Cotter, Brian

Sanders, Adrian

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Fearn, Ronnie

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Gidley, Sandra

Tyler, Paul

Gorrie, Donald

Webb, Steve

Hancock, Mike

Willis, Phil

Harris, Dr Evan

Harvey, Nick

Tellers for the Noes:

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Mr. Andrew Stunell and

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Mr. Don Foster.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the NHS Plan's commitments to a care system founded on the principles of equity and fairness; welcomes the measures the Government has announced to reform the funding of long term care and to invest in new health and social care services for older people; notes that this matches the extra spending on long term care recommended by the Royal Commission; believes that the implementation of free nursing care on the basis of need and not ability to pay will bring an end to a major injustice affecting tens of thousands of older people in nursing homes; welcomes the new investment announced in the NHS Plan of £900 million annually by 2003–04 in new intermediate care services for older people; supports the priority the Government has rightly attached to improving front line services for older people; and calls on the Liberal Democrats to set out what services they would cut in order to fund their proposals.

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

  SUPREME COURT OF NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 11 th December, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  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 (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Ordered,
  That this House, at its rising on Thursday 15th February, do adjourn till Monday 26th February 2001.—[Mr. Dowd.]

  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 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. Dowd.]
  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. Dowd.]

  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 Mc William, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
  Motion made,
  That—

  (1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and

  (2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales:, the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

  Hon. Members: Object.

  Unsolicited Mail
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  10.25 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise the important matter of unsolicited mail. Members of political parties—that is most of us in the House—may have occasion to use unsolicited mail over the next few months, but I wish to refer to something that has a rather more malign intent than most of the material that is produced by political parties.
  It may seem to most of us that 8 February will be an ordinary parliamentary day. We will discuss the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill—which has its merits, but it is certainly nothing out of the ordinary. However, anyone in the position of my constituent, Mr. K. Bond of Castle Cary, who received a letter some weeks ago from an Eva Damus, clairvoyant, medium and astrologer, might take a much more serious view about the prospects for that day. That is the date on which Mrs. Eva Damus believes that she needs to undertake a grand mystic ceremony on behalf of Mr. Bond and the many thousands of other people to whom she has written. She must do that because those people are
  "born under the disastrous influence of a very harmful lunar coil which has kept you imprisoned in a negative circle".
  Curiously enough, that negative circle can be lifted by the application of a mere £20 to the account of Eva Damus and the placing of a few magnets around the home. It is curious that not only has she discovered that dark secret by extensive work on a person's birth and personality chart, but has managed to do so without knowing the date of birth of the person involved. One is requested to send that information with the £20 should one be foolish enough to respond to the request.
  The subject would be funny if it were not so serious. Many people take the receipt of such a letter extremely seriously; they would consider it a genuine threat. The letters are all the more insidious because they are so carefully personalised. The recipient is named throughout the letter, and the letter's heading states:
  "What I have just discovered about you has left me speechless."
  It leaves me speechless that people can prey on vulnerable people in the way that the organisations that send out such letters do. Mr. Bond was absolutely right to draw this letter to my attention, and it was one of the reasons—if not the only one—why I sought this debate.
  Once I had secured this debate, I was overwhelmed by colleagues who have told me that their constituents have received similar material through their letter boxes. To give one example, a letter from a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) purports to be a payment validation for a sum of £200,000. It appears on an official looking form that is clearly designed to mimic a Government document; it looks very like a pension slip. It asks only for the recipient to send what it calls an actuation fee of £16. The money can be sent as cash, or by cheque or postal order. It is only when we turn over the document and read the small print that we realise that all that is on offer is a draw, albeit one with a £16 entry fee. Even if the letter is not a criminal deception, it is certainly a scam that it is intended to deceive and is something that we could do without.

  773
  My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) gave me another bundle of letters this morning. By coincidence, she received the letters today from a constituent of hers, Mrs. Margaret Treacher, to whom they have been sent during the past week or so from places throughout the world. They come from Australia, Singapore, Canada and other places. Some of them appear to originate in Britain. All of them purportedly bear the good news that their recipient has won a cash prize, but they are junk mail that is designed to extract money under false pretences. If the letters do not ask for a cheque by return of post for so-called validation, they request that recipients ring a premium number that will keep them on the line for a number of minutes, very expensively, in order to receive a paltry prize such as a Biro. Curiously, some people seem to be identified as potential victims of such material and receive not one or two such requests, but dozens.
  Other scams have been conducted through the post. A favourite is the letters originating in west Africa. They come principally from Nigeria and ask people for money to unlock supposed capital that would, they claim, otherwise be held in trust or in a west African company. They are, of course, nonsense and if one were foolish enough to send the money, it would never be seen again.
  I believe that such scams are a serious problem for all our constituents and that the House and the Government would do well to deal with them. I have corresponded on the matter with the Post Office and with the Office of Fair Trading. The Post Office supports the mailing preference system and has what it calls the door-to-door scheme, which enables people to opt out of unwanted material by ensuring that it is taken by the postman. However, I believe that the Post Office could do a lot more to deal with letters that originate from outside this country, pass through the Mailsort system and often use London post office box numbers—a practice that appears to give them a vestige of respectability.
  I am, however, disappointed by some of the responses that I have received. There is a clear suggestion that the marketing exercise in question is fairly profitable for the Post Office, and that it is not anxious to intervene if it can help it. Although Royal Mail accepts the need to deal with mailing that infringes legislation or advertising codes, it states in its letter to me that it
  "would not be aware of this as we have no prior knowledge of the contents of mailings; we would instead rely on law enforcement agencies to bring such mailings to our attention."
  Fair enough; I do not expect Royal Mail to be aware of the contents of every letter that passes through the mail system.
  However, some of the mailings can be clearly identified from previous experience. What action is taken if such mail is identified or brought to Royal Mail's attention? It states:
  "In such an instance we would of course stop the mailing, if we were able to do so."
  However, it goes on to state that it would
  "work with the overseas company to ensure that future mailings are acceptable to a UK audience."
  It further states:
  "In the unlikely event of a third such incident we would withdraw mailing discounts and use of a UK PO box from that company for a specified period of time."
  774
  I think that three strikes are a little too many before people are out in respect of the sort of letters to which I am referring. It is not unintentional infringement of advertising regulations but a deliberate attempt to deceive, and the Post Office should treat it seriously.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of a leaflet published by Royal Mail, entitled "Fair Play. Making the most of competitions—a guide to winning", which has a photograph on the front of two young people who are enthusiastic about letters that they have received. Although the leaflet refers to the Advertising Standards Authority and the Office of Fair Trading in relation to scams, it tells the reader:
  "How to get more of what you want",
  saying:
  "If you're fed up with hearing about how everyone is winning something these days except you, you may have to think about increasing your chances by upping the number of competitions that you enter."
  That can be interpreted as clearly encouraging action that relates to some of the scams that the hon. Gentleman is describing.
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I know that he has taken up the matter, most recently in the Whitsun Adjournment debate last year. I am amazed that Royal Mail's advice is couched in those terms. It is not appropriate, and I hope that the Minister will have something to say about that.
  The Minister may also have something to say about whether it is possible to work within the international postal system to deal with these occurrences, because it clearly cannot be done entirely within the United Kingdom or the European Union, as many of the countries of origin are outside the EU. I wonder whether the Universal Postal Union, for example, could be a vehicle for at least discussing these matters and drawing up concordats with Commonwealth countries that are involved, if nowhere else.
  The information that the Office of Fair Trading has sent me shows that it takes a rather more robust line. I applaud its press release last August which drew attention to the so-called psychic scam that I have mentioned. However, the legal apparatus within which the OFT works is also limited. There are the Control of Misleading Advertisement Regulations 1988, but if those are to be activated, there must be a complaint
  "in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply or transfer of goods or services".
  That is all right if the courts will accept that it is a trade or profession to try to defraud innocent members of the public, but otherwise it is a worrying limitation.
  The OFT's great problem is getting court orders to act overseas. That is where the injunctions directive comes in. I understood that it was to have taken effect from 1 January, but it has not done so and there are still problems with it. That directive is crucial if we are to take effective action against such material, at least within the European Union. What has happened to that directive? Can it be extended beyond the EU, if and when it sees the light of day? How does the Minister expect it to be used?
  The last legal sanction available is the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which makes it an offence to convey information that is known or believed to be false

  775
  with the intention to cause distress and anxiety. The material that I have mentioned is clearly false information that is intended to cause distress and anxiety with the purpose of extracting money from people. I should like the Minister to tell the House how many times that law has been used recently, and whether it will be used more extensively in future, as I hope it will.
  This is a short debate and it is impossible to cover the whole subject, but I want to mention two other concerns before I ask the Minister to respond. The first concerns communications sent not by post but by fax. We are all victims of this. The fax machine goes off in the middle of the night and a fax emerges from an unknown source, which is a waste of paper and wakes one up, if one happens to have a fax machine in the house, to no good effect. That is a nuisance, rather than an attempt to extract money under false pretences such as those that I have described, but it is a costly nuisance. It is often used to support fallacious opinion polls of no statistical value. People sometimes feel constrained to answer those faxes on premium lines if they want to make their point.
  Such faxes are often received by junior members of companies who feel obliged to respond, for example, to a request to maintain an entry in a non-existent directory. That is a common form of exploitation. What can be done about it?
  My final point is about unsolicited e-mail, which is infamously known as spam. I applaud British internet service providers for taking the subject seriously. However, 30 per cent. of all e-mails are unsolicited, and research by Nortel suggests that tens of millions of pounds are wasted in the United Kingdom and Ireland on dealing with them. In America, it is estimated that 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of internet service providers' disk space is filled with spam. If nothing else, that shows that spam and chips are not compatible. The issue should be tackled through international action.
  We have a problem about which most hon. Members and, I am sure, the Government are aware. I have several questions to ask the Minister. How many prosecutions or court orders have been made in the past year or so to tackle the matter? When will the injunctions directive be operational so that jurisdiction can be extended throughout the European Union? Can Royal Mail take a more aggressive and more responsible stance on the abuse? Can international action be taken through the Universal Postal Union or any other organisation to achieve a concordat at least between Commonwealth countries and perhaps the wider community? Can the Government take effective action on nuisance faxes? Clearly, concerted international action needs to be taken, especially in conjunction with the American Administration, so that nuisances that clog up the e-mail and internet systems and are detrimental to businesses and private users throughout the world can be tackled. When can that be done?
  I am grateful for the opportunity to make those points. I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
  10.42 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for raising an important matter. He is right to say that many hon. Members have approached him and me about it. I share the anxiety of
  776
  many people about mailings sent to British consumers which, in many cases, are designed to frighten them into parting with their money. I shall try to answer some of the hon. Gentleman's questions, although I could not write them all down fast enough.
  More often than not, the mailings come from so-called clairvoyants who are based overseas. They allege that they have had a mystic revelation about the individual to whom they are writing. A common theme is that the author has an insight into potential problems that will affect consumers' well-being—either a threat from someone else or the fact that some unidentified bad luck will befall them. He or she offers to provide the solution to those difficulties in return for a payment. As the hon. Gentleman said, payments are typically of £20 or more. The Welsh Rugby Union paid a great deal more than £20 to try to avert identifiable bad luck. However, judging from the way Wales played last Saturday, it seems that the WRU might as well have paid £20 to Peter the Magician. The result would probably have been far better.
  The approaches are clearly designed to prey on people's vulnerability and are, by definition, unacceptable. Another theme is that some good fortune awaits the recipient, whether through lottery winnings or some other life-enhancing event, and that the key to success is available at a price. I have seem many such letters in my postbag, from people rejoicing in such names as Eva du Maurier, Paula Zikorski and Peter the Magician. I know a Pete the chemist in Pontypridd, but he has five children and is clearly no magician.
  From time to time, unfortunately, the mailings are sent to the deceased, which must surely throw considerable doubt on the psychic skills of their authors. The advice from the Office of Fair Trading, which I would commend to anyone who is concerned about the practices, is never to send money, and to pass the correspondence to the local trading standards department so that appropriate action can be taken. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pass that suggestion on to his constituents.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what action could be taken on behalf of consumers. Two pieces of legislation may be applicable: the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. At present, action can be taken against operators based in this country by the Advertising Standards Authority or the Director General of Fair Trading using those two pieces of legislation.
  The Advertising Standards Authority can also arrange for the investigation of overseas operators with the help of other members of the European Advertising Standards Alliance. The alliance has 28 members, including all the EU member states, and comprises the national bodies responsible for administering the states' self-regulation systems and codes of advertising practice, based on those put in place by International Chamber of Commerce principles. Recently the ASA, with the backing of Royal Mail, has begun intervening directly in complaints about mailings originating outside the alliance's sphere of operations, and has made encouraging progress. I hope that that provides some kind of an answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions on how many successful prosecutions or enforcements have been conducted.
  We are also aiming for the earliest possible implementation of the European injunctions directive—we are almost there now—which will empower the

  777
  Director General of Fair Trading to take cross-border action. The hon. Gentleman was keen on such action being taken, and I agree with him. The action will be taken in conjunction with counterparts across the European Union to impose "stop now" orders, which are an additional enforcement mechanism for use when the collective interests of consumers are threatened.
  For operators based further afield, the Office of Fair Trading works closely with its counterparts in the 30 or so Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, through the international marketing supervision network. The member bodies have had some success in stopping some of the worst cases targeting UK consumers. I assure the House that I shall continue to monitor the matter with a view to reducing consumer detriment arising from these undesirable practices.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about Royal Mail and about his dissatisfaction with some of the efforts that it has made to try to deal with the delivery of unsolicited mail. Royal Mail is contractually obliged to deliver items posted at home or abroad, unless it is established that the contents contravene EU or UK laws. If a mailing breaches EU or UK regulations, Royal Mail can refuse to carry it, but it has to be notified first. The bodies or groups that can notify Royal Mail are the ASA, the police, trading standards officers and magistrates. That brings me back to a point I made earlier, when I suggested to the hon. Gentleman that, whenever such a case as this arises, it is imperative that notification is made to trading standards officers.
  Mr. Heath: I understand that Royal Mail has to carry what it is given, unless there is a direction to the contrary. Surely, however, it must enter into some sort of contractual arrangement when it provides a PO box number. Given the hoops through which we all have to jump to get material distributed by Royal Mail, is there some control that Royal Mail could exercise when giving an organisation a PO box number?
  Dr. Howells: Yes. I shall deal with that now. If any UK PO box is used illegally or for fraudulent purposes or if customers break the service terms and conditions, which they must sign, that PO box can be withdrawn. Once that happens, all subsequent mail addressed to the box is returned to sender. Royal Mail is not permitted to intercept or open mail that quotes or is addressed to a PO box, but if permission for the box is withdrawn, all mail sent to it is returned to sender. The majority of mailings from abroad conform with UK legislation and the British codes of advertising and sales promotion.
  Mr. Barnes: For Royal Mail, that is not just a matter of PO box numbers. It also offers HQ code provision, which allows a HQ number and "Royal Mail" to be added to the front of an envelope. That contractual arrangement enables cheap delivery of post from all over the world to people in this country. Such scams are being operated under HQ code provision and surely action can be taken. Royal Mail should be shown what is in such envelopes. That would stop the arrangement for such companies.
  Dr. Howells: That is a good point and I shall try to deal with it. Should a mailing infringe either legislation
  778
  or advertising codes, Royal Mail would rely on law enforcement agencies to bring that mailing to its attention and stop it if able to do so. That is where those contractual obligations are so important. If a company was working within the law, but not complying with the British codes of advertising and sales promotion, Royal Mail would work with the overseas company to ensure that future mailings were acceptable to UK customers. Further failures to comply would result in withdrawal of both mailing discounts—as my hon. Friend said, boxes are cheaper in such circumstances—and the use of a UK PO box for a specified period. The problem can be approached from both those angles.
  On the distance selling directive, some protection can be offered. The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 do not specifically implement article 10 of European directive 97/7 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, which of course relates to unsolicited commercial communications from a business to consumers by phone, fax, mail or e-mail. On phone and fax communications, implementation has already been achieved by means of the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999.
  I return to the point that I have made twice already about making sure that such incidents are notified to the authorities. All too often they are not. People receive mail and grumble about it, but do not take action. On mail and e-mail, my Department considers that the self-regulatory schemes that are in place provide a degree of necessary protection. That approach accords with article 11.4 of the directive, which provides for voluntary supervision by self-regulating bodies.
  I return briefly to the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made about Royal Mail's "Fair Play" leaflet, which he drew to my attention some months ago. Since then, my officials have discussed with Royal Mail whether the leaflet gives the most appropriate advice. I tend to agree with my hon. Friend—I do not think that it does. There is too much ambiguity and it leads people on, especially in view of the consequences for consumers of falling victim to the numerous scams in operation.
  Unsolicited direct marketing faxes are banned under the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999, unless the individual has given prior consent. For the purposes of the regulations, the term "individual" refers to both private individuals and sole traders anywhere in the United Kingdom as well as the partnerships in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We could add MPs to that, because we probably receive as many of those communications as any firm.
  The regulations introduced an opt-out scheme primarily for corporate subscribers who do not want to receive unsolicited direct marketing faxes. The Direct Marketing Association was appointed by the Office of Telecommunications to run the opt-out scheme, which is called the fax preference service. Under the regulations, no one can send a direct marketing fax—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Drugs (Weston-super-Mare)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations he has received and from whom in the past 12 months on solutions to the drugs problems in Weston-super-Mare. [148371]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have received no correspondence in the past 12 months on solutions to the drugs problems in Weston-super-Mare. The UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell, has recently replied to correspondence from the local drug action team Co-ordinator concerning funding for a research project, and will shortly be replying to correspondence from a practitioners group and local MPs about the structure of the local drug action team.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crime Victims
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 489W, on victims, how the Crown Prosecution Service will phase in the implementation of a system to ensure that victims are informed of decisions for which the CPS has responsibility; and if he will make a statement. [148581]

  The Solicitor-General
  Pilot sites in six CPS areas were established in November 1999 to assess the costs and operational implications for the CPS in implementing a system to ensure that victims are informed of decisions for which the CPS has responsibility.

  From October 2000, the same pilot sites began to conduct a scoping/options study to identify the best practice for national rollout. The final evaluation report will be completed in March 2001.

  The first phase of national rollout will commence in the six pilot areas in April 2001. A programme of phased national implementation will follow in the other CPS areas to be completed by October 2002. Details of the implementation plans will be finalised in the light of the final evaluation findings.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the responsibility of(a) his Department and (b) the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in respect of research undertaken into the effects of depleted uranium use. [147387]
  358W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) undertakes whatever research is required of it by its customers, of which the Ministry of Defence is a main customer. The MOD draws on all available authoritative scientific knowledge on the effects of depleted uranium use, including information from DERA.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the armed forces first used depleted uranium ammunition; which units were involved; when such ammunition was used in action in the last 10 years; by which units; and if he will make a statement. [148113]

  Mr. Spellar
  Depleted uranium (DU) based ammunition was first brought into service by the Royal Navy in 1982 for use in its Phalanx close-in weapons system. The Royal Navy (RN) has 36 Phalanx systems, which are in service on all Type 42 destroyers, HMS Ocean, one aircraft carrier, HMS Fearless and the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries Fort Victoria and Fort George. The RN has not fired Phalanx in combat. It is regularly fired for maintenance and system checks, however, including small quantities in the Gulf conflict in 1990–91, and in the Adriatic. All these firings are into the sea.

  The first operational use of DU munitions by UK armed forces took place in 1991, during the Gulf conflict. Limited amounts of 120 mm DU munitions were issued to the three Challenger-equipped UK armoured units in the Gulf: the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, the Queen's Royal Irish Hussars and the 14/20 Hussars. Additional rounds were fired by UK forces during earlier work-up training to establish the round's mean point of impact.

  The army has not fired DU munitions on operations or in training since the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence his Department has collated about the effects of(a) the use, handling and firing and (b) the clearing up of cartridges from depleted uranium ammunition; and if he will make a statement. [148116]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  S and T Class Submarines
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the state of readiness and expected date of return to full serviceability of each of the Royal Navy's S and T class submarines. [147570]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Triumph, a Trafalgar class submarine, is ready for operations (although currently undergoing short-term maintenance) and the remaining S and T class submarines are at 90 days' or more notice for operations undergoing either defect repair or long-term maintenance. We anticipate that eight submarines (Superb, Sceptre, Splendid, Trafalgar, Tireless, Torbay, Turbulent and Talent) will be available for operations by the end of this year, at which time the current operational boat, HMS Triumph, will be undergoing maintenance. The remaining three submarines (Sovereign, Spartan and Trenchant) will be in longer-term maintenance or refit. The exact state of readiness of individual submarines is withheld under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  359W

  Satellite Communications Systems
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of the five Satellite Communications Systems is; what the total number of units to be purchased is; when they all will be in service; and if he will make a statement. [148102]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is assumed that the question relates to the proposed SKYNET 5 military satellite communications system. SKYNET 5 is envisaged as a service provision contract under PFI arrangements. The contractor will provide and own the satellites and associated ground infrastructure. The nature of the assets and the number of satellites that will be used is a matter for the selected contractor.

  Bids for the SKYNET 5 service implementation contract were submitted by two competing consortia on 10 January 2001 and are currently being evaluated. It would be inappropriate to comment on the likely cost of the service provision while the competition is taking place. On current plans we expect the service to start in the middle of the decade.

  Equipment Disposal
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aircraft the Royal Air Force has sold to Poland in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [148115]

  Dr. Moonie
  Aircraft and helicopters no longer required for service by the Royal Air Force are disposed of on their behalf by the MOD's Disposal Services Agency (DSA). Disposal can be achieved in a number of ways, including sales to legitimate overseas Governments, although no such sales to Poland have been made by the DSA in the last five years.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantity of surplus small arms has been destroyed in each of the last two years to conform to the UN resolution covering weapons; if surplus weapons have been sold to other countries to avoid being destroyed; and if he will make a statement. [148104]

  Dr. Moonie
  In conformity with UN resolution 54/54R the United Kingdom has reported that the total number of surplus small arms it destroyed in 1999 was 31,939. The majority of these were armed forces weapons (some 28,000) with the balance from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Metropolitan police. Comparable statistics for 2000 are not yet available. Our current policy on the disposal of small arms declared surplus by the Ministry of Defence is to restrict transfers to those which meet the legitimate defence and security needs of overseas Governments. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on 22 June 2000,Official Report, column 242W. In the absence of approved transfers in line with this policy, surplus small arms are routinely destroyed. It is not, nor has it ever been, our policy or practice to arrange sales of surplus weapons on the ground that this would avoid their destruction.
  360W

  Javelin Missile
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the cost of the purchase of the Javelin missiles is; how many have been ordered; and if he will make a statement; [148101]

  (2) what the estimated cost is of the US test for the Javelin missile; when it will take place; and if he will make a statement. [148114]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume the hon. Member's questions refer to the Javelin anti-tank guided weapon system. The Ministry of Defence is conducting a competitive assessment of the US Javelin and Israeli Gill/Spike systems, to establish whether they are capable of meeting the UK's light forces anti-tank guided weapon requirement. The extra-mural cost of the assessment phase, which is due to complete in 2002, is currently estimated to be around £3 million for each of the competing systems.

  A small number of each system will be procured for assessment. Orders for operational quantities would be placed following a successful outcome to the assessment phase. The cost would be dependent upon the final system selected and the total number of systems ordered.

  Arctic Campaign Star
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the awarding of an Arctic Campaign Star, in official recognition of the contribution made by servicemen taking part in the Russian convoys. [148506]

  Dr. Moonie
  Service on the Arctic convoys to Russia during the second world war has already been recognised by the award of the Atlantic Star. There are no plans to institute a new Arctic Campaign Star, or any other medals for second world war service. This is in accordance with the long-standing policy of the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals that it will not consider the retrospective institution of medals for service given many years ago.

  Defence Bills Agency
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid out in total by the Defence Bills Agency to contractors in the UK in 1999–2000. [148212]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 February 2001]: The amount paid out in total by the Defence Bills Agency to contractors in the UK in 1999–2000 was £12,353,730,369.11.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies are under way which are examining privatisation of his Department's tasks and agencies. [148346]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: The Ministry of Defence public service agreement commits the Department to review all services and activities regularly and systematically over a five-year period. This five-year review cycle will include the quinquennial review of agencies, as well as services currently carried out within the MOD headquarters and by top level

  361W
  budgets. The reviews will look at all aspects of improving performance through in-house and private sector solutions, which include outsourcing, private finance and privatisation. Government policy on the review of services has been set out most recently in the Cabinet Office handbook on better quality services, published in 1998.

  British Servicemen (Sierra Leone)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what illnesses have been reported by British servicemen who are serving or who have served in Sierra Leone. [148350]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: There are 112 confirmed and three suspected cases of malaria among service personnel who deployed to Sierra Leone. There was also one person suspected of having lassa fever, which was subsequently found not to be the case. These are cases of notifiable communicable diseases, reported by the Ministry of Defence in accordance with UK legislation. As of 31 January, available central records of illnesses among service personnel who deployed in Sierra Leone showed 36 reported cases of additional types of illnesses, among some 7,500 personnel deployed to Sierra Leone. These illnesses were: nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, headaches, fever and chills, dizziness, photophobia, viral meningitis, herpes zoster, severe stress, acute pharyngitis, chronic sinusitis, noninfective gastroenteritis and colitis, enteritis, right sided pleuritic chest pain, pyrexia, nasopharyngitis, viral illness, possible parasite infestation, possible appendicitis, chest infection, infection in finger, acute tonsillitis.

  US National Missile Defense
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 100W, on US National Missile Defense, what concerns his Department voiced to the previous US Administration with regard to US National Missile Defense; and what discussions took place with regard to the use of (a) RAF Fylingdales and (b) other military bases in the United Kingdom. [148874]

  Mr. Hoon
  We made it clear to the previous US Administration that we understood why the US is concerned about the threat from weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery and why they were considering deployment of a national missile defense system as one aspect of their response to the threat. We received no formal request from the previous US Administration for the use of facilities in the UK as part of their proposed system.

  Army Training Estate (Otterburn)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the proposals for improvements to the Army Training Estate at Otterburn requiring approval from a public inquiry remain of urgent national importance; and if he will make a statement. [148433]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave him on 7 July 2000,Official Report, column 338W. The decision remains with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
  362W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  TV Licensing
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the compatibility of TV licensing's inquiry and enforcement methods with the European convention on human rights. [147610]

  Janet Anderson
  Statutory responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the television licensing system rests with the BBC. TV Licensing carries out the day-to-day administration, including inquiry and enforcement activities, as agent for the BBC. The Government and the BBC are on the whole satisfied that TV Licensing's inquiry and enforcement methods are compatible with the European convention on human rights, but in order to put one matter beyond doubt the Government intend to bring forward an order under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to regulate the use by TV Licensing of apparatus designed or adapted for detecting the installation or use of television receivers.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) on what date the then Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was informed that the Hinduja brothers might provide funding for the Millennium Dome, and by whom; and if he will make a statement; [147477]

  (2) on what date the Hinduja brothers first gave an indication that they would consider providing funding for the Faith Zone of the Millennium Dome. [147478]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 31 January 2001, Official Report, column 223W.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the net amount of sponsorship received from the Hinduja brothers was in respect of the Faith Zone in the Millennium Dome. [148019]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: The New Millennium Experience Company announced on 3 June 1999 that the Faith Zone would receive £4 million in sponsorship—£2 million from the Laing Family Trusts (Christian charitable foundations); £1 million from the Hinduja Foundation; and £1 million from other Christian trusts including the Jerusalem Trust.

  Sports Stadiums
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much his Department is making available to new major sporting stadiums; what events this funding will permit; and for how long each stadium is expected to be operational. [147022]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: My Department does not fund stadium development. However, Sport England has provided grant in aid for three major stadium projects through the Lottery Sport Fund.
  363W
  A grant of £120 million was awarded in November 1998 for purchase of the land for the English national stadium project at Wembley. Wembley National Stadium Ltd. has agreed to return £20 million of this amount following the decision to remove athletics from the stadium.

  A grant of£77 million was awarded to the City of Manchester stadium. The stadium is due to hold the athletics and rugby sevens events for the 2002 Commonwealth games. Thereafter, the stadium will be used for football, and for community use with Manchester City football club as anchor tenant.

  Grants of £1.57 million have been awarded to the Lee Valley national athletics centre for feasibility studies, which are to be completed by 31 May 2001. A budget allocation of up to a total of £60 million has been allocated for this project, subject to the receipt of a satisfactory grant application which will be assessed against Sport England's usual criteria. The stadium has been selected by UK Athletics to host the 2005 world athletics championships, which has been awarded to London by the International Amateur Athletics Federation.

  Under the funding agreements for Wembley and Manchester, the project applicants are obliged to operate the projects for 50 years from opening. It is envisaged that the Lee Valley stadium will have the same operational life.

  Millennium Dome (Sponsorship)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the role of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was in procuring and negotiating sponsorship deals for the Millennium Dome; and if he will make a statement; [147996]

  (2) when the first discussions were held with the Hinduja brothers about sponsorship of the Millennium Dome Faith Zone by the Hinduja Foundation; and if he will make a statement. [148029]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: It was the responsibility of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), as the operator of the Dome, to negotiate and secure sponsorship for the Dome.

  I understand from NMEC that the Hinduja Foundation first approached NMEC in February 1997 about the possibility of incorporating the "Concordia Project" into the Dome. This was to be an interactive visitor education centre focusing on the world's different cultures.

  The then Minister without Portfolio was the shareholder of NMEC. In that role it was perfectly proper and reasonable that, as shareholder, he should meet sponsors and be kept fully informed of progress. However, the detailed negotiation of sponsorship arrangements was the responsibility of NMEC and individual sponsors.

  Free Television Licences (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households in the Jarrow constituency have a free television licence under the scheme for pensioners aged over 75 years. [148613]
  364W
  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 4,700 people aged 75 or over in the Jarrow constituency.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cheney Pension Scheme
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will conduct an inquiry into the handling of the case of the Cheney pension scheme by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. [149272]

  Mr. Darling
  With the agreement of the board of the occupational pensions regulatory authority, I have asked Sir Gerald Hosker QC to conduct an independent inquiry into the handling within Opra of the Cheney case and also to consider and report on whether changes in procedures are necessary to assist in the detection of misuse of pension funds.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Morecambe and Lunesdale benefit from the minimum income guarantee; and what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners in the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency who fail to claim the minimum income guarantee. [149132]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  There are around 2,800 recipients of the minimum income guarantee in the parliamentary constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale.

  Notes:

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

  2.Pensioners are defined as where the claimant, and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  3.Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  4.Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 2000 version 1 ONS Postcode Directory.

  5.It is not possible to produce reliable estimates of numbers not claiming their entitlement at constituency level.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2000.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people living in Crosby have benefited from the minimum income guarantee. [148333]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are around 2,600 recipients of the minimum income guarantee in the parliamentary constituency of Crosby.

  Notes:

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

  2. Pensioners are defined as where the claimant, and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.
  365W
  4. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 2000 version 1 ONS Postcode Directory.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2000.

  Annuities
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the study of annuities carried out by the Retirement Income Working Party; and if he will make a statement. [148337]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Retirement Income Working Party report is one of a number of proposals that have been put forward as alternatives to the annuity purchase requirement for pension schemes. An announcement will be made in due course if it is decided that any changes to the current rules are needed.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make an assessment of the extent to which those who have deferred purchasing an annuity and have opted for income drawdown have found themselves subsequently dependent on means-tested benefits. [148742]

  Mr. Rooker
  No. The information is not available to make such an assessment.

  Pensions
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the proposed increase to be paid to existing state pensioners were to be applied to men aged 60 to 65 years, how much that pension would be for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [147845]

  Mr. Rooker
  Men currently do not receive a basic State Retirement Pension before the age of 65 years and entitlement is dependent upon the individual's National Insurance record. It would not be dependent upon the numbers of pensioners.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the basic State Pension in 2040 as a percentage of(a) full-time average earnings in 2040, (b) male full-time average earnings in 2040 and (c) female full-time average earnings in 2040, (i) before the changes announced in the pre-Budget statement and (ii) following the changes in the pre-Budget statement assumptions on price and wage inflation. [148375]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: The information is in the table.

  The assumed value of the basic State Pension as a proportion of average full time earnings, before and after the changes
  announced in the pre-Budget report (PBR)—2040–41

  Percentage

  Before PBR

  After PBR

  Average earnings

  9

  10

  Average male earnings

  8

  9

  Average female earnings

  11

  12

  Notes:

  1.Projected average earnings figures are based on the New Earnings Survey 2000.

  2.The future value of the basic State Pension is based on pre-Budget report assumptions.

  3. Long-term real earnings growth is assumed to be 1.5 per cent.
  366W

  Income Limit (Benefits)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the cost of increasing the savings limit for(a) Severe Disability Allowance and (b) Income Support to (i) £5,000,(ii) £6,000, (iii) £10,000 and (iv) £15,000; [146734]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the savings limit on Severe Disability Allowance and Income Support claimants in relation to (a) the Government's social inclusion priorities and (b) the efficient deployment of public resources. [146735]

  Mr. Bayley
  Severe Disablement Allowance does not have capital limits. The capital limits in the income-related benefits are kept under review.

  The current rules have an upper and a lower limit. We have not made estimates of the cost of moving to single capital limits of the kind envisaged by the hon. Member.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) of 18 January 2001,Official Report, column 384W, on benefit fraud, if he will calculate on the same basis the data for (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) the United Kingdom. [148332]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Percentage of children living in workless households

  year

  England

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  1996

  19.4

  20.4

  22.7

  19.4

  1997

  17.8

  21.1

  19.5

  17.9

  1998

  17.9

  19.9

  19.0

  17.9

  1999

  17.4

  20.4

  18.6

  17.3

  2000

  15.6

  19.5

  20.1

  15.8

  Notes:

  1. Children refers to all children aged under 16.

  2. A workless household is a household that includes at least one person of working age where no one is in employment.

  3. The percentages given in the reply for England, Wales and Northern Ireland have not been adjusted for the small proportion of households where the household economic activity is not known An adjustment has been made to the UK figures, so the methodology for calculating these figures is slightly different.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Spring Quarters (covering March to May). The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a quarterly sample survey of over 60,000 households in the United Kingdom.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police(Appointments)
  Mr.McNamara
  To ask the secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Chief Constable of the RUC will appoint district commanders for each of the reorganised policing districts in Northern Ireland; what the job specification is for the posts; what criteria and selection procedjres are to be used in making the appointments; if independent assessors will take part in the appointment process; and if the posts are to be advertised outside the RUC [144380]
  367W
  Mr. Ingram
  It is the Chief Constable's intention to appoint commanders for the new district command units with effect from 1 April 2001. The criteria for appointment, post criteria and person specification are detailed in the list and have been applied following consultation with the Superintendents' Association for Northern Ireland and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. Both have been involved throughout the selection process. Because of the very tight time scales imposed, advertising for these positions outside the Royal Ulster Constabulary was not practicable on this occasion; however, it will be considered for future appointments.

  District Command Units

  Criteria for appointment

  Career profile

  Leadership/management skills

  Knowledge/experience/strategic vision of role sought

  Match against post criteria

  Match against person specification

  Eligibility for appointment to Chief Superintendent/ Superintendent where post holds that rank

  Individual needs (including expressed preference and domestic circumstances)

  Organisational needs (while considering individuals' needs)

  Post Criteria—District Commander

  Job description

  Job title:

  District Command Unit (DCU) Commander

  Responsible to:

  Regional Assistant Chief Constable

  Staff reporting to jobholder:

  Functional heads within DCU

  Main purpose:

  To be responsible for the delivery of a quality policing service to a District within the framework of force policy and in a way that reflects local needs.

  Duties

  Develop strategies and policies for the policing of the District.

  Foster and maintain consultative relationships with the public and external agencies.

  Be responsible for the financial resources of the DCU.

  Be responsible for the welfare, development, performance and discipline of all District personnel.

  Plan and command significant operations where appropriate.

  Ensure the effective and efficient deployment of personnel.

  Serious incident cover.

  PACE and RIPA cover.

  Contact with outside agencies:

  Local councils and community representatives.

  Statutory agencies.

  Local non-government organisations.

  Military personnel.

  Other police forces.

  Hours of work:

  Normally Monday to Friday, 09:00–17:00 with Saturday and Sunday rest days.

  24 hour cover required on a rota basis in relation to serious incidents and PACE.

  Physical make-up:

  The postholder should present a professional image of the force.

  368W

  Specialised aptitudes:

  Capable of taking a realistic and logical approach to problem solving.

  Understand human resource management issues.

  Understand financial management matters.

  Ability to balance competing demands and prioritise solutions.

  Disposition:

  Possess good interpersonal skills and be able to work as part of a team.

  Possess good oral and written communications skills.

  Demonstrate commitment along with the ability to motivate and influence others.

  Able to balance competing demands.

  Able to make impartial decisions in accordance with law, policies and available information.

  Capable of remaining focused in the face of opposition.

  Capable of assimilating new information, concepts and ideas and converting these to workable practice.

  Circumstances:

  The postholder will be based at district headquarters and may be required to use his/her private motor vehicle as part of his/her duties.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to ensure a wide range of candidates apply for the posts of district commander in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [144381]

  Mr. Ingram
  Given the time scale imposed and in order to apply a fair and equitable selection process, all eligible superintendents and those on the select list for promotion to superintendent were assessed against specific criteria. The process necessitates taking into account officers at these ranks whose current posts are to be suppressed following restructuring of the organisation in accordance with the implementation plan.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will instruct the present Police Authority not to make more than one appointment to the rank of Assistant Chief Constable; and if he will permit the incoming police board to advertise the post of Assistant Chief Constable and officers without obligation to consult the list of candidates prepared by the current Police Authority. [144382]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police Authority for Northern Ireland is presently running a competition for a position of Assistant Chief Constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The process was initiated because of the retirement of an ACC and following advice from the Chief Constable, who indicated that there was an urgent operational need for the post to be filled.

  Since the competition was initiated, a second post has been identified as becoming vacant in the near future. It will be for the Police Authority, with the advice of the Chief Constable, to decide on the operational need if the second post should be filled at this time.

  Police Ombudsman
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the establishment and seniority structure of investigative officers in the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland; how many officers have been appointed;
  369W
  how many appointees came from (a) RUC (i) serving and seconded and (ii) former officers and (b) other United Kingdom police forces (a) serving and seconded, (b) former officers and (c) Garda Siochana (1) serving and seconded and (2) former officers; and if he will list the nationality, background and previous experience of other appointees. [144383]

  Mr. Ingram
  The composition of the investigating officers of the Office of the Police Ombudsman is fairly typical of the usual team and ranking structures established to undertake the investigation of complaints and other matters made against the police. The investigation group is headed by a chief investigating officer assisted by senior investigating officers, each of whom are responsible for investigation teams comprising a number of investigating and assistant investigating officers.

  Currently the ombudsman has appointed 32 investigating officers across all ranks. Of those appointed, none are serving, seconded or former officers of the RUC or the Garda Siochana; one is a former officer of a United Kingdom police force; one is a former officer of HM Forces Military Police; and eight are serving officers seconded from other United Kingdom police forces.

  The majority of investigating officer appointees are United Kingdom citizens with the remainder being made up of nationals from America, Australia and South Africa. Although not all of the investigating officers are from a police background, all have investigative experience in other areas of employment.

  Mr.McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has drafted and agreed operating protocols for investigative officers. [144384]

  Mr.Ingram
  For the Office of the Police Ombudsman to fulfil its investigative function it is necessary to establish protocols with a number of agencies, some of which have already been established, e.g. with the Forensic Science Agency, and a number of other protocols are currently in negotiation. A series of internal protocols have also been established.

  Mr.McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints have been received by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland; and how many investigations have been initiated. [144385]

  Mr.Ingram
  Since the Office of the Ombudsman became operational on 6 November 2000 the total number of complaints received by 2 January 2001 was 602, and in the same time 234 investigations have been initiated.

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in relation to the Patten report Implementation Plan, he has sought to quantify the extent and the growth during the past five years of volume crime and of Mafia-style organised crime; and if he will publish a report. [144687]

  Mr. Ingram
  In recent years, Northern Ireland, in common with England and Wales, has experienced an increase in volume crime, that is offences against the person and property damage (burglary, theft and criminal damage). Comparing 1998–99 and 1999–2000, the number of these 370W
  offences recorded increased by 9 per cent. In both years such offences represented 89 per cent. of all offences recorded by the police. The Royal Ulster Constabulary is developing a professional crime and incident analysis capability across the organisation in recognition of the extent and growth of volume crime and reflecting the requirements of the Patten report.

  The police, with the assistance of other agencies, are presently researching the level of scale and scope of the organised crime problem, in both the public and private sectors, in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Government have established a multi-agency task force to tackle organised crime in Northern Ireland, which I chair.

  The Patten report took account of the types of crime to which the hon. Member is referring, and so, indirectly therefore, does the plan. For example, the size, structure, training and co-operation sections of the Patten report all take account of the need to deal with community concerns about rising crime and drug abuse. Indeed, paragraph 13.6 of the report states that
  "… we take (the concerns) seriously enough not to base our calculations of future policing commitments on an assumption that Northern Ireland's level of crime will remain as low as it is now".

  RUC
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the recognised senior command course for RUC officers; what alternatives have been accepted; and what exceptions have been made among the officers who comprise the RUC senior command. [144683]

  Mr. Ingram
  The recognised senior command course required for the appointment of Assistant Chief Constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary is the strategic command course provided by the national police training organisation at Bramshill. The strategic leadership development programme and the senior command course were forerunners to this.

  In the present competition, candidates for appointment of Assistant Chief Constable who can offer successful completion of an equivalent course will also be considered. In deciding what is an equivalent course, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland will be guided by advice from Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary.

  All chief officers presently serving in the Royal Ulster Constabulary have successfully completed either the senior command course or the strategic leadership development programme.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if alternatives to the recognised senior command course are to be accepted for officers from other police forces who apply for senior command appointments with the RUC; and if he will make a statement. [144684]

  Mr. Ingram
  In order to open competition to a wider field, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland has decided to allow candidates applying for posts of Assistant Chief Constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary to offer successful completion of an equivalent course to that of the strategic command course provided by the national police training organisation at Bramshill.
  371W
  In deciding what is an equivalent course, the Police Authority will be guided by advice from HM inspector of constabulary.

  Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what rules he has made under section 56 of the Criminal Justice (NI) Order 1996. [148051]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State has not found it necessary to make any rules under article 56 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

  Police Board
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications he has received for independent members of the Police Board; what is the breakdown of the applicants by(a) gender, (b) perceived community affiliation, (c) age under (i) 30, (ii) 31 to 40, (iii) 41 to 50, (iv) 51 to 65 and (v) 66 and over and (d) sexual orientation. [142274]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total applications received was 347. Nine applicants failed to complete the monitoring form and as a result are not included in the statistics.

  Number

  Gender

  Male

  254

  Female

  84

  Religion

  Protestant

  191

  Catholic

  98

  Other

  49

  The information is available in the following format:

  Age

  Number

  Less than 25

  3

  25–35

  21

  36–45

  70

  46–55

  104

  Over55

  140

  Sexual orientation

  Data are not available on the sexual orientation of applicants.

  Mr.McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of state for Northern Ireland how many applicants for independent membership of the police Board have disclosed criminal convictions. [142275]

  Mr. Ingram
  Seven applicants for independent membership of the Northern Ireland Policing Board submitted sealed envelopes that contained details of criminal convictions.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cane Sugar
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Commission's decision taken on 18 January in 372W
  respect of a new timetable for duty and tariff imports of cane sugar starting from 2006. [148374]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer February01]: The European Commission has said that it is considering amendments to its proposal to grant duty free access to goods from least-developed countries. However, no formal new proposal has yet been tabled.

  Alkaline Hydrolysis
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ask the United States Department of Agriculture for the evidence on which the USDA approved alkaline hydrolysis at elevated temperature as an effective technology for dealing with BSE-infected animals; and if he will make a statement. [147863]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: I understand that the company that produces the technology has requested this evidence from the USDA and intends to give it to my officials. Officials are discussing with the company the possibility of permitting the use of this technology to dispose of animal waste. The Department is also funding a research project to investigate the efficacy of the system in inactivating the BSE agent.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is on legislation at EU level on prevention of use of antibiotics in animal food. [147454]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are aware of concerns about the development of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria affecting humans as a result of antibiotic use in farm-animal production. We supported an EU ban on the use of four antimicrobial growth promoters which were authorised as feed additives, which came into effect on 1 July 1999. We will continue to be guided by the principles established in the report of the Joint Committee on the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry and veterinary medicines (the Swann report) 1969. This report proposed that antibiotics authorised for growth promotion should be restricted to those which have little or no application as therapeutic agents in man or animals, and which will not impair the efficacy of prescribed therapeutic drugs through the development of resistant strains of organisms.

  Inspectors
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspectors were employed within his Department and its agencies in each year from 1992 to 2000. [145247]

  Ms Quin
  The number of staff with powers to enter or inspect property at 1 April in each of the years in question are set out in the table.
  373W

  Inspectors in MAFF 1992–2000as at 1 April

  Department/agency

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Core MAFF1

  1,019

  1,083

  1,101

  1,066

  927

  1,021

  1,029

  1,018

  1,080

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  49

  54

  55

  55

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Veterinary Medicine Directorate

  7

  7

  7

  5

  7

  6

  4

  4

  3

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central Science Laboratory3

  n/a

  n/a

  33

  34

  46

  43

  42

  46

  47

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  19

  18

  13

  15

  Meat Hygiene Service5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  811

  775

  940

  1,098

  1,089

  n/a

  Total

  1,026

  1,090

  1,141

  1,916

  1,755

  2,078

  2,245

  2,225

  1,200

  1 The figures for core-MAFF include staff, in the following functions, who have statutory powers to enter or inspect property;Plant Health and Seed Inspectorate; Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate; Egg Marketing Inspectorate; Sea Fisheries Inspectorate; Fisheries Officers; Field Officers; Veterinary Officers, advisers and managers; Animal Health Officers; Scientific Officers (Nuclear specialists)—with FSA from 1 April 2000.

  2 FRCA was formed as a MAFF agency on 1 April 1997

  3 CSL was formed from MAFF as an agency on 1 April 1994

  4 CEFAS was formed from MAFF as an agency on 1 April 1997

  5 MHS was a MAFF agency from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 2000

  Flooding
  Mrs.Fiona Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to compensate farmers for the losses caused by recent flooding. [147473]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss Mclntosh) on 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 137W.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture,Fisheries and Food if he will list the projects undertaken for his Department by(a) outside consultants, (b) academic researchers and (c) university departments since 1 May 1997, giving the total expenditure incurred in each category. [144072]

  Ms Quin
  From information held centrally, outside consultants have undertaken projects to the value of £41,894,360 in the Department since 1 May 1997. A list of these projects is shown.

  In respect of (b) and (c), I regret that a full reply is not possible without incurring disproportionate cost. As far as research projects are concerned, the Department funds over 1,000 of these each year, many of which are placed with academic researchers/universities. A list of all current research projects can be found on the Department's website at http://www.maff.gov.uk.

  Project

  "Managed set back" research

  360 degree feedback training

  Accountancy projects

  ADAS study on losses to farmers following TB

  ADAS consultancy work arising from the privatisation

  Advice from experts on Flood Defence research

  Advice on countryside stewardship project

  Advice on the selection of a new member of Food from Britain Council

  Agricultural Wages Board

  Animal Health Service Papers Filing Exercise

  Animal Health Service Heads of Divisions Business Plan Workshop

  374W

  Arable Area Payments Scheme

  Annual Staff Reports markings

  Assessment of Radioactive Waste Dumpings at Sea Audit of analytical services

  Audit of catering services

  Barrister (including Pupil and Expenses) in connection with GM Hearing on variety Charndon LL

  Benchmarking against the European Foundation for Quality Management Excellence Model

  Benchmarking workshops

  Better Quality services

  British Potato Council

  British survey of fertiliser practice

  BSE Consultants for Chief Veterinary Officer Group

  British Cattle Movement Service Building

  Building survey

  Selection of deputy chairman for Home Grown Cereals authority

  Catering

  Cattle tracing service

  British Cattle Movement Service Charging

  Charter and Service Standards

  Chief Veterinary Officer Group Filing

  Cattle Herd Registration (AIT)

  Consultancy on GIS data capture

  Consultancy work on the overgrazing MoU

  Consultant's contract as Chairman of the UNECE ammonia panel

  Consultants for new research vessel

  Contract with ATB-Landbase

  CSL Strategy

  Customer satisfaction surveys

  British Cattle Movement Service Data Capture

  Design and Supply software for the Agricultural Minimum Wage Helpline

  Development of a module on the food chain for a CD-ROM for schools

  Direct Selling Seminar

  375W

  Disposal of Waste at Sea

  Diversity audit

  Document management

  End of Year accounts

  Ensuring Millennium Bug preparedness in the food chain

  Enteleca (Research into tourist attitudes towards regional and local foods)

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas contract for bird surveys

  EROS (Non Delta)

  Estates Review

  Evaluation of Processing and Marketing Grant scheme

  Evaluation of the LEADER+ programme for England

  Export promotion advice

  File store study

  Financial advice on tender applicants for new research vessel

  Financial consultancy to set up Capital database

  Fishing Vessel Decommissioning Scheme

  Flood Defence Management services

  Forensic accountancy advice prior to defence of Factortame claims

  FPS and AFQ Link Programmes

  Free Advice Programmes

  General Financial Ledger set-up consultancy

  Global Benchmarking study

  Global Competitiveness study

  Government Secure Internet Implementation Project

  Habitat Scheme monitoring

  Health and Safety initiative

  British Cattle Movement Service Call Logging

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  Horticultural Development Council

  British Cattle Movement Service Image Retrieval

  Independent assessor for the appointment of Board Members to the Wine Standards Board

  Information Age Government Support

  AESIS Review (IT)

  Investors in People assessment(PSD)

  British Cattle Movement Service ISO

  Ispra Wine Sampling Exercise

  British Cattle Movement Service IT

  IT Consultancy

  IT Consultancy for Fishing Vessel Register problem with Cardiff RSS lin

  IT Management

  IT Security Reviews

  IT Strategy Development

  ITAS Strategy

  JEGS 2000 (Job Evaluation and Grading System)

  Liaison (VAT advice)

  MAFF's Energy Efficiency Policy

  Maiden 2000 (MAFF Intranet)

  Management Structures consultancy

  Millennium Bug survey

  British Cattle Movement Service Millennium Cover

  Monitoring of environmentally sensitive areas

  British Cattle Movement Service New Building

  New Regional CAP Systes

  Nitrate Sensitive Areas

  British Cattle Movement Service Numeric Tagging

  376W

  Operation Gangmaster

  Organisation of a two-month study visit for Bosnian students

  Pay and Grading consultancy

  Pay review project

  Pensions Consultant

  Pesticide Register launch

  Pilot training workshops for primary producers

  Plant Health

  British Cattle Movement Service Post Go Live Review

  Post Implementation Review of Doc Management

  Preparation of reports for Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees

  Preparation of Risk and Approval Guidance for Flood Defence projects

  Process Mapping

  Produce Studies (Poll Consultants)

  Provision of legal advice to Agricultural Wages Board

  Provision of meteorological data

  Provision of scientific advice during Branch Head's secondment to the EA

  Public Relations

  QA Audit

  Recruitment

  Relocation

  Report on aquifer response times

  Risk assessment and analysis of ash from small animal incinerators licensed to burn SRM

  Sea Fish Management Development

  Security

  Development and technical support for R-D database and work on e-Science projects

  Softward development

  Staff Attitude surveys (PSD)

  Stage II and III ESAs

  Stage IV ESAs

  British Cattle Movement Service Start-up and Testing

  Statistical training

  Stress study

  Study into fishing vessel engine power ratings

  Surveys of UK foodstocks and Food Vulnerability database

  Systems Review and upgrade

  Technical advice on methods of sampling and analysis for fertilisers

  Technical support to Quality Wine and Vine Variety Classification Committees

  Training (Personnel Division)

  Triad Group (software development)

  Unido Project

  Unix-Lan Operation Continuity

  Website design.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT ANDTHE REGIONS

  Housing Investment
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the investment in(a) council housing and (b) housing

  377W
  owned by registered social landlords in each year since 1990; and what investment is planned in future years. [146835]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The capital resources made available by central Government to support housing investment by local authorities and registered social landlords in the years since 1990–91 are as follows:

  £million

  Housing capital allocations to local authorities1

  Housing capital allocations to registered social landlords2

  s1990–91

  1,706

  986

  1991–92

  1,682

  1,521

  1992–93

  1,579

  2,284

  1993–94

  1,391

  1,761

  1994–95

  1,181

  1,441

  1995–96

  1,147

  1,112

  1996–97

  1,059

  1,007

  1997–98

  926

  667

  1998–99

  1,211

  603

  1999–2000

  1,252

  634

  2000–01

  1,891

  678

  2001–02

  2,552

  787

  2002–03

  2,853

  958

  2003–04

  2,934

  1,274

  1Covers credit approvals, capital grants, PFI schemes for council housing and the resources to be made available under the arms length management initiative but exclude Estate Action allocations (which are now part of Regeneration Budgets). Local authorities housing capital programmes provide resources to improve poor condition private sector housing or develop new affordable housing as well as renovating or improving the council housing stock.

  2Public funded investment in RSL housing through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP) and, from 2001–02, the Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the overseas visits he has undertaken on official business over the last year, with the cost of travel and accommodation in each case for him and his party. [146370]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: This Government have given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 as well as an annual figure on spend by all Ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 969W. The list for 2000–01 which will include my Department's details will be published in due course.

  Environmental Appraisal
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the(a) Bills and (b) draft Bills in the Queen's Speech have had an environmental appraisal undertaken of them. [147317]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's policy is that significant environmental costs and benefits should be identified alongside economic and social considerations, during policy development or review. All Departments have procedures for screening their policies for 378W
  environmental impacts and the systems in place are detailed in Chapter 4 of "Greening Government", the Second Annual Report of the Green Ministers Committee 2000, published in November last year.

  On DETR measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech there has, as yet, been no environmental appraisal for the Homes Bill. It is proposed that seller's packs, introduced as a result of the Bill, will include information on the energy efficiency of homes and this should lead to improvements by buyers that benefit the environment. An environmental appraisal will be carried out when the contents of seller's packs have been determined, following consultation with interested parties.

  Our initial assessment of the proposals for the draft Safety Bill suggests there is no need for an environmental appraisal. If, as the proposals develop, it becomes apparent that there is an effect on the environment, we will review the position.

  DETR also has the lead interest in the leasehold elements of the Lord Chancellor's Commonhold and Leasehold Bill. These relate to the respective rights and obligations of residential long leaseholders and their freeholders, which carry no environmental implications.

  M4 Eastbound Bus Lane
  Mr.Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish figures indicating the average usage, on an hour-by-hour basis, of the M4 eastbound bus lane between Heathrow and the elevated section, for the most recent period for which figures are available. [147388]

  Mr.Hill
  As the hon. Member may be aware, the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) has been monitoring the usage of the M4 bus lane for the Highways Agency. The most recent period for which TRL has provided figures of average usage on an hour-by-hour basis is the week beginning 5 June 2000. Those figures are as follows:

  Time of day

  Taxi

  Minibus

  Bus/coach

  Total

  00:00

  7

  0

  0

  1

  01:00

  2

  0

  0

  2

  02:00

  1

  0

  0

  1

  03:00

  1

  0

  1

  2

  04:00

  2

  0

  3

  5

  05:00

  42

  2

  8

  52

  06:00

  193

  10

  21

  224

  07:00

  286

  17

  43

  346

  08:00

  238

  11

  30

  279

  09:00

  253

  9

  39

  301

  10:00

  259

  9

  45

  313

  11:00

  188

  7

  33

  228

  12:00

  200

  10

  32

  242

  13:00

  190

  7

  29

  226

  14:00

  181

  8

  28

  217

  15:00

  175

  5

  23

  203

  16:00

  211

  9

  48

  268

  17:00

  205

  8

  46

  259

  18:00

  242

  6

  28

  276

  19:00

  242

  4

  17

  263

  20:00

  231

  4

  13

  248

  21:00

  238

  3

  10

  251

  22:00

  178

  2

  8

  188

  23:00

  64

  0

  3

  67

  Total

  3,829

  131

  508

  4,468

  379W
  On average, 3,700 vehicles per day used the bus lane during the first year of operation. It is worth noting that, while this represents an average of 7 per cent. of the traffic on the M4 in to London, the vehicles carried 21 per cent. of the people using the road. During peak periods, each bus has saved on average 3.5 minutes and each car has saved on average 1 minute. Journey times for all vehicles have become more reliable following the introduction of the bus lane.

  A copy of a report entitled, "Monitoring of the M4 Bus Lane: The First Year" prepared by TRL for the Highways Agency covering the first year of operation from June 1999 to May 2000 is available in the House of Commons Library. A synopsis of the report with the same title is also in the Library and it is available on the Highways Agency's website.

  Housing Safety
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to consult on the responsibilities of local authorities for enforcing the housing, health and safety rating system, as set out in the statement on the Housing Green Paper in December 2000. [148056]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  We plan to publish in March a consultation paper setting out our proposals for the framework of legislation and guidance within which local authorities would use the housing, health and safety rating system as the basis for action against unacceptable housing conditions.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that primary legislation to implement a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation can be introduced at the earliest opportunity. [148053]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on Second Reading of the Homes Bill on 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 708.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to strengthen the Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1990, announced by the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South(Mr. Mullin), on 8 November 2000. [148055]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Proposals are being developed and will be discussed informally with local authorities and other interest groups during the next few months.

  Aircraft Movements
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the(a) shortest elapsed recorded, (b) longest and (c) average times recorded between captains of aircraft being given clearance at (i) London Heathrow and (ii) Gatwick airports, and the actual time of touchdown, in the last 12 months. [148137]
  380W
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The information requested is not available. The time differences between aircraft pilots being give clearance to land and the actual time of touch down are not recorded, or stored, at either Gatwick or Heathrow airports.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate of sustainable hourly runway movements is being used in the new aviation policy. [148166]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  In the studies we are undertaking in preparation for the new aviation policy, we are not using a single standard assessment of hourly runway movements. The hourly capacity depends on a range of factors, including the separations and staggers between runways, the provision of parallel taxiways and the extent of taxiing movements across runways. We are therefore assessing the capacity of each option individually.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what incidents of go-arounds and late clearances to land at Gatwick airport have been recorded(a) in the last 12 months and (b) in the previous 12 months. [148165]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The number of go-arounds recorded at Gatwick airport were(a) 501 in the year 2000, and (b) 383 in 1999. Clearances to land are not categorised as to their timing and, therefore, the information sought on "late clearances" is not available.

  The go-around figures for 2000 are currently being analysed by National Air Traffic Services Ltd. and the airport authority (BAA plc) but there are no indications that weakness/failure in the safety system is to blame for the increase.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the statutory duties of local authorities in respect of road safety; [148198]

  (2) what guidance is given to local authorities for the appointment of (a) road safety officers and (b) environmental health officers; [148199]

  (3) what guidance he has issued to road safety officers in the past 12 months. [148197]

  Mr. Hill
  Local authorities have a duty under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 both to promote road safety, and to study road traffic accidents in their areas and take appropriate remedial measures.

  It is for local authorities to decide how to discharge these duties, including decisions on staffing levels and recruitment. However, the Road Safety Strategy, "Tomorrow's Road—Safer for Everyone", recorded the value we place on the contribution that can be made by Road Safety Officers (RSOs), and encouraged National Vocational Qualifications for these officers. We require local authorities to describe, in their Road Safety Strategies, the Education, Training and Publicity programmes being undertaken by their RSOs.

  There are twice yearly Departmental meetings with the local authority Road Safety Officers Association and the Association of London Borough Road Safety Officers,

  381W
  which provide RSOs with guidance on Government policy. The last meeting was in December last year. We also liaise with RSOs over publicity campaigns, so they can carry out complementary activity. Literature of relevance to RSOs is distributed to them as and when it becomes available.

  The role of Environmental Health Officers would not be expected to have a focus on road safety.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the future financial and operational arrangements for the London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [148560]

  Mr. Prescott
  I was pleased to announce last Friday that I have agreed with Bob Kiley, Commissioner of Transport for London, that we will work together and with London Underground on modifications to the Public Private Partnership (PPP). If we can agree mutually acceptable changes then the PPP bidders will be asked to submit revised proposals. The Government, London Underground and Transport for London will jointly evaluate any revised proposals to decide whether they are acceptable to both parties.

  The Commissioner and I have confirmed our determination to reach the best deal for Londoners and secure the long-term increased investment the Tube needs without delay.

  Flight Paths (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what change has occurred in the last three years in the number of aircraft on flight paths above Walthamstow. [148500]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The number of aircraft that overfly Walthamstow and adjoining areas depends on the direction of operations at Heathrow which itself is dependent on wind direction and strength and so can vary from day to day. Due to the prevailing westerly winds, on average Heathrow operates in a westerly direction about 77 per cent. of the time, but this can vary considerably from year to year. The proportion of westerly operations at Heathrow in each of the last three years for which data are available was 1997–74 per cent., 1998–89 per cent, and 1999–66 per cent. As during any period of westerly operations approximately 50 per cent, of arriving aircraft approach Heathrow by overflying north London, it is possible (after adjusting for the proportion of westerly operations in each of the last three years) to give a rough estimate of the numbers of aircraft (including traffic using London City airport) that overflew Walthamstow or adjoining areas the estimates are 1997–89,000, 1999–107,000 and 1999–84,000.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes in flight paths into Heathrow have taken place within the last three years which have affected flight paths above Walthamstow. [148499]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  None. Walthamstow along with adjoining parts of north London is situated beneath the radar manoeuvring area used during westerly 382W
  operations for the tactical integration of arriving traffic descending from holding positions (stacks) located in the vicinity of Lambourne (Essex) and Bovingdon (Bucks). There are no fixed routes for arriving aircraft during this phase of their approach to Heathrow Airport, but they tend to follow a regular pattern that has not changed in any significant respect for many years. Departures from Heathrow during easterly operations may overfly the area once above an altitude of 4,000 ft. Traffic using London City Airport also overflies the area.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if Mr. Douglas Andrew will participate in advising his Department on the choice of the strategic partner for the National Air Traffic Services; [148557]

  (2) if he will place the advice provided to his Department on the future of National Air Traffic Services by Mr. Douglas Andrew of the Civil Aviation Authority in the Library; [148549]

  (3 what meetings (a) he and (b) his officials have held with Mr. Douglas Andrew of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the future of the National Air Traffic Services; [148552]

  (4) what assessment he has made of recent statements made in the media by Mr. Douglas Andrew, adviser to his Department, on the sale of air traffic control; [148553]

  (5) what references were taken up by his Department prior to the engagement of Mr. Douglas Andrew of the Civil Aviation Authority as an adviser on the future of National Air Traffic Services; [148551]

  (6) what role Mr. Douglas Andrew of the Civil Aviation Authority has played in advising the Government on the future of the National Air Traffic Services. [148550]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Mr. Douglas Andrew is the head of the Economic Regulation Group of the Civil Aviation Authority and he was appointed in that capacity initially by the previous Administration in 1997. He was re-appointed as head of the Economic Regulation Group in 2000.

  Mr. Andrew's role in advising the Government on the future of National Air Traffic Services has been limited to matters regarding the economic regulatory and licensing regime for the NATS public/private partnership. In this context, Mr. Andrew has participated in working groups run by my Department at official level. The Economic Regulation Group was also asked to advise the Government on a detailed economic regulatory regime and price cap for NATS PPP. There have been no meetings between Mr. Andrew and Ministers on these matters.

  I shall be happy to place copies of the CAA's advice on the charge control for the PPP in the Library of this House. The CAA has already placed the advice on its own website, but I am aware of no other statements made by Mr. Andrew in the media relating to the PPP.
  383W
  Mr. Andrew will not participate in advising on the choice of the strategic partner for the PPP. He and other senior CAA personnel have had meetings with all three potential strategic partners during the bidding process.

  I understand that the previous Administration took proper steps to satisfy itself that Mr. Andrew was the most appropriate person for the post of Director of Economic Regulation. Details of his references are personal and confidential.

  Offshore Contracts
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to protect those in the shipping industry who are employed on offshore contracts. [148501]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have issued guidelines on the use of offshore contracts for employing seafarers. DETR is examining with its industry partners whether any amendment to employment rights legislation is needed.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been allocated in local transport plans for each year from 2001–02 to 2005–06 for(a) individual public transport schemes costing over £5 million that have received approval, (b) individual public transport schemes costing less than £5 million that have received approval and (c) integrated transport measures that have received approval. [148589]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 14 December 2000, Official Report, column 202W, details of the local transport capital settlement for 2001–02.

  The settlement provided firm allocations to authorities in England outside London for 2001–02 and for highway maintenance also for 2002–03. Allocations for the period 2002–03 to 2005–06 are indicative, and will be reconsidered each year in the light of actual scheme costs and annual progress reports submitted by authorities.

  The allocation for 2001–02 made to major public transport and integrated transport schemes costing over £5 million which have received full approval was £85.5 million.

  We earmarked an additional £6.3 million for 2001–02 for provisionally accepted major public transport and integrated transport schemes which will be made available on satisfactory completion of the outstanding issues such as statutory procedures.

  We have indicated to authorities the total Government contribution for each major transport scheme; future annual allocations will be made each year subject to reported progress on the scheme and its costs.

  Transport schemes costing less than £5 million are not subject to individual approval by central Government. Authorities are provided with a single block allocation for smaller scale measures and highway maintenance which they have discretion to spend in line with the objectives and priorities set out in the local transport plans. The total block allocation for 2001–02, including reserves, was £1,103 million.
  384W
  In order to provide greater certainty over future allocations authorities were provided with an indication of the likely levels of funding they could expect to receive for smaller scale measures for 2002–03 to 2005–06, and for highway maintenance for 2003–04 to 2005–06. The announcement envisaged that the annual totals to be allocated for these measures would be as follows:

  £million

  2002–031

  1,120

  2003–04

  1,118

  2004–05

  1,248

  2005–06

  1,275

  1Includes firm allocations for highway maintenance

  As with major schemes, the future block allocations to individual authorities are subject to confirmation or revision each year in light of progress reported by the authorities.

  Housing Revenue Account (Birmingham)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of Birmingham's HRA notional rent surplus has been spent on rent rebates in each of the past five years; how much he estimates will be spent in this way in the(a) current and (b) forthcoming financial year; and for each year what his estimates are of the (i) number and (ii) proportion of tenants not in receipt of rent rebates. [148641]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The table shows the surpluses on the Housing Element of Birmingham's Housing Revenue Account which have been or will be deducted from the authority's entitlement to rent rebate subsidy.

  To give a fuller picture of housing support provided by the Government to Birmingham, the table also shows the Housing Investment Programme allocation made to the authority in each year.

  We do not have figures for the number of tenants who are not in receipt of rent rebates but the table shows the estimated proportion of rental income which is not rebated.

  Figures for 2001–02 are not available but, following the introduction of the Major Repairs Allowance, it is very likely that Birmingham will have a positive housing element in 2001–02 and, therefore, no surplus to apply to its rent rebates.

  Financial year

  National Housing Element Surplus deducted from rent rebate subsidy £ million

  Housing Investment Programme and Capital Receipts Initiative allocations £ million

  Estimated percentage of rental income not rebated Percentage

  1995–96

  —

  38.9

  28

  1996–97

  3.63

  38.6

  29

  1997–98

  5.88

  34.1

  30

  1998–99

  9.54

  44.5

  31

  1999–2000

  9.40

  45.1

  31

  2000–011

  8.83

  80.9

  30

  1Provisional

  Note:

  percentage of income not rabated estimated by comparing rent rebate spending with income from rents and service charges as recorded on Housing Revenue Account subsidy claim forms.
  385W

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on amending legislation dealing with abandoned vehicles on the public highway. [147109]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  We have received a number of suggestions recently from Members, the police, local authorities and members of the public for improving the way in which abandoned vehicles are dealt with. We are considering these as part of a review of the current legislation covering abandoned vehicles.

  Beacon Councils
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the new Beacon councils; and if he will make a statement. [149181]

  Ms Armstrong
  We intend to announce the Beacon Councils for 2001–02 on Tuesday 6 February. At the same time we will publish the Report of the Advisory Panel on Beacon Councils giving details of the Panel's recommendations on Beacon Councils, together with a brochure "The Beacon Council Scheme:Where to Go and What to See 2001–2002", setting out the best practice the Beacons have to offer. Copies of the two publications will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Local Public Service Agreements
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made in concluding local Public Service Agreements. [149182]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have today concluded the first local Public Service Agreements. The agreements are with the following authorities: Blackburn with Darwen borough council, Kent county council, Middlesbrough borough council, Stockton-on-Tees borough council, Tameside Metropolitan borough council, and Warwickshire county council. Copies of these agreements will be placed in the Library.

  Negotiations are continuing with the 14 other authorities taking part in the pilot scheme of local Public Service Agreements. We expect to conclude further agreements soon.

  GLA Transport Grant
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to vary the GLA transport grant for 2000–01. [148756]

  Mr. Hill
  GLA transport grant is paid to the Greater London Authority under section 101 of the GLA Act 1999 for the purposes of Transport for London. I have today, with the consent of HM Treasury, decided to vary the level of grant for 2000–01 after consultation with the Mayor of London. The grant is £396,161,000, an increase of £3,421,000 over the original determination.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many 386W
  mobile phone masts had been erected in (a) school grounds and (b) hospital grounds by (i) 1 January 2000 and (ii) 1 January 2001; [148528]

  (2) what his estimate is of the number of mobile phone masts which will be erected on (a) school grounds and (b) hospital grounds in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002; [148527]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of new mobile phone masts which will be erected in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [148529]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department does not hold information about the number or locations of existing mobile phone masts.

  The Stewart Group recommended that a national database be set up by Government giving details of all base stations and their emissions. The Government have accepted this recommendation and are in the process of bringing together information on base station sites into a single co-ordinated database. This information will be made available to the public and local planning authorities.

  The number of new masts required is dependent upon a range of factors. The Department is not in a position to give an estimate of the numbers which may be involved. This is a matter for the individual telecommunications operators. However, they are fully aware of the importance we attach to keeping the number of masts to the practicable minimum and to ensuring that those which are needed are designed and sited with sensitivity and care.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what recent representations he has received from(a) schools and (b) hospitals about the safety of mobile phone masts; [148524]

  (2) what recent representations he has received from local authorities about the safety of mobile phone masts; and if he will make a statement. [148525]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In response to the recent consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to telecommunications masts and associated guidance one response was received from a school, none from hospitals and 231 from local authority officials and Councillors.

  Otherwise, the Department has received centrally in the last year one letter from a school, no letters from hospitals and 114 letters from local authority officials and Councillors about amenity or health aspects of mobile phone masts.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of mobile phone mast sites are used by more than one operator. [148531]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government's policy is firmly to encourage mast and site sharing where that is the optimum solution in the individual circumstances. Indeed, conditions attached to individual operating licences granted by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry include a requirement to investigate mast sharing before seeking to put up any new mast.
  387W
  DETR Circular 4/99, "Planning for Telecommunications", makes clear our expectation that developers should provide evidence to local planning authorities that they have carefully considered the use of existing masts, buildings and other structures before seeking to erect any new mast, regardless of size. The authority may be justified in refusing prior approval or planning permissions if it considers the evidence regarding the consideration of such alternative sites is not satisfactory.

  The Department has no information on site sharing but understands that there are approximately 9,000 mobile phone masts, of which 1,700 carry equipment from more than one operator.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the meetings between Ministers at his Department and representatives of the mobile phone industry, and (b) the Ministers present at each such meeting, between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2001. [148530]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Ministers have extensive dealings with organisations in both the public and private sectors as part of their official duties.

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

  Warning Lights
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the organisations, authorities and agencies which are entitled to(a) mount on their vehicles and (b) use on the public highway, blue flashing or revolving lights; and if he will make a statement. [148432]

  Mr. Hill
  Entitlement to mount and use blue warning beacons, special warning lamps and similar devices on road vehicles are contained in the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989.

  These regulations restrict the fitting of blue warning beacons or special warning lamps to emergency vehicles. The meaning of an emergency vehicle in these regulations is defined as a motor vehicle of any of the following descriptions:

  (a) a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes;

  (b) an ambulance, being a vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) which is constructed or adapted for the purposes of conveying sick, injured or disabled persons and which is used for such purposes;

  (c) a vehicle owned by a body formed primarily for the purposes of fire salvage and used for those or similar purposes;

  (d) a vehicle owned by the Forestry Commission or by a local authority and used from time to time for the purposes of fighting fires;

  (e) a vehicle owned by the Secretary of State for Defence and used

  (i) for the purposes of the disposal of bombs or explosives,

  (ii) by the Naval Emergency Monitoring Organisation for the purposes of a nuclear accident or an incident involving radioactivity,

  (iii) by the Royal Air Force Mountain Rescue Service for the purposes of rescue operations or any other emergencies, or

  (iv) by the royal Air Force Armament Support Unit;

  (f) a vehicle primarily used for the purposes of the Blood Transfusion Service provided under the National Health Service Act 1977(a)or under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978(b);

  388W

  (g) a vehicle used by Her Majesty's Coastguard or Coastguard Auxiliary Service for the purposes or giving aid to persons in danger or vessels in distress on or near the coast;

  (h) a vehicle owned by the British Coal Corporation and used for the purposes of rescue operations at mines;

  (i) a vehicle owned by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and used for the purposes of launching lifeboats; and

  (j) a vehicle primarily used for the purposes of conveying any human tissue for transplanting or similar purposes.

  The regulations prohibit the use of warning beacons emitting blue light and special warning lamps by emergency vehicles except (i) at the scene of an emergency (ii) or when it is necessary or desirable either to indicate to persons using the road the urgency of the purpose for which the vehicle is being used, or to warn persons of the presence of the vehicle or hazard on the road.

  Army Training Estate (Otterburn)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason he has not issued a decision letter in respect of the public inquiries into proposed development at Otterburn Army training estate. [148431]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The hon. Member may be aware that the Courts have given leave for judicial review in relation to development proposed by the Home Office at Aldington in Kent, which involves a challenge to DOE Circular 18–84 procedures for the development of Crown land. These are the same procedures as have been used by the Ministry of Defence to seek approval for the proposed development at Otterburn in Northumberland. The grounds of challenge are that the procedures are non-compliant with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is unlikely that I shall be in a position to reach a final decision on Otterburn before the Aldington case comes to Court this month. I shall then need to consider how to proceed in the light of the Aldington judgment.

  In the meantime, I am arranging for various exchanges of correspondence on this issue to be copied to the parties to the Otterburn inquiry for their information.

  Central Railway Project
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will institute the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure for consideration of the Central Railway project. [148754]

  Mr. Hill
  We cannot institute the Transport and Works Act procedure unless the scheme's promoters, Central Railway, formally apply to the Secretary of State for an Order under that Act. That is for them to decide.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lord Levy
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the dates in the last 12 months on which Lord Levy has met the Prime Minister; what the duration was of each meeting; and where the meetings have been held. [145325]
  389W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Lord Levy liaises regularly with me, the Foreign Secretary, and other Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 2000,Official Report, column 236W, on Lord Levy, if he will place the texts of the personal messages delivered by Lord Levy on his behalf to (a) President Zedillo, (b) President-Elect Fox, (c) President Chavez, (d) President Batte, (e) President Banizer and (f) President Noboa. [145324]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: No. The messages were personal.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans there are for(a) the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and (b) other ministers to accompany Lord Levy on future trips while acting as his personal envoy. [145261]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: None.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister if Lord Levy has(a) security protection and (b) a personal bodyguard provided by Her Majesty's Government while travelling as his personal envoy in (i) Israel and (ii) Latin America. [145267]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: When travelling as my personal envoy, Lord Levy receives the level of security protection considered necessary in the country he is visiting.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 2000,Official Report, column 238W, concerning messages carried by Lord Levy, for what reason such messages could not be carried by Ministers and diplomats. [145274]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The purpose of asking Lord Levy to convey such messages as my personal envoy was to signal my personal interest in our relations with the countries. He was accompanied throughout by our ambassadors to the countries concerned and by a Foreign and Commonwealth Office official.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister what definition he uses of personal envoy, in relation to the work of Lord Levy. [145266]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to her right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr.Maude) on 30 March 2000, Official Report, column 246W.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 2000,Official Report, column 236W, (1) what his policy is on the payment of travel expenses by Lord Levy while travelling as his personal envoy; [145273]

  (2) for what reason Lord Levy did not claim travel expenses in respect of his visit to South America. [145271]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answers 15 January 2001]: Lord Levy has always paid his own travel expenses when travelling as my personal envoy.
  390W
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 2000,Official Report, column 236W, if Lord Levy's visit to the middle east over the Christmas period was made in his capacity as his personal envoy. [145270]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Lord Levy visited Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan from 5–9 January as my personal envoy.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Prime Minister with whom Lord Levy had(a) scheduled and (b) unscheduled meetings in his role as personal envoy during his most recent visit to the middle east. [145859]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: Lord Levy met a range of senior figures, including Prime Minister Barak in Israel, President Arafat in the Palestinian Authority, and Prime Minister Ali Abul Ragheb in Jordan. He had no unscheduled meetings.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Prime Minister what statements were issued by each British embassy in(a) the South American countries and (b) middle eastern countries which Lord Levy visited, for each visit he has made there. [145860]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: In general Embassies do not issue formal statements when Lord Levy visits, but provide factual information to inquiries.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Prime Minister what the cost to public funds was of Lord Levy's most recent visit to the middle east; what contribution to the costs was made by Lord Levy; what the purpose was of his visit; what access Lord Levy has to non-confidential Government information; and from which officials Lord Levy has received briefings on the middle east. [145858]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: Lord Levy's most recent visit as my personal envoy was to Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan from 5–9 January. The FCO and Embassies provided practical support, the cost of which is not separately itemised. This included accommodation, briefing, assistance in arranging programmes, and accompanied transport by road. Lord Levy paid his own travel costs to and from the region. The purpose of the visit was to exchange views on regional issues, in particular the middle east peace process. Lord Levy received briefings from appropriate Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials. A Foreign and Commonwealth Office official accompanied Lord Levy.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Prime Minister on which occasions during Lord Levy's most recent visit to the middle east he(a) made public statements and (b) talked to foreign media, as a representative of (i) the Prime Minister and (ii) the United Kingdom. [145857]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: None.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Prime Minister what engagements Lord Levy has undertaken on his behalf in the middle east in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and(d)2000–01. [145856]
  391W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: I refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 1 November 2000, Official Report, column 510W.

  Since then, Lord Levy has made one trip to the middle east as my personal envoy, visiting Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan from 5 to 9 January 2001.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a) scheduled and (b) unscheduled meetings Lord Levy had with the media during his visit to South America. [146620]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Lord Levy answered questions from the local media on a number of occasions.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest between Lord Levy's business interests and his mission as an envoy for his Department in the middle east. [146496]

  The Prime Minister
  I am satisfied that there is no such conflict of interest. Lord Levy has no business interests in the middle east.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a) scheduled and (b) unscheduled meetings Lord Levy had with the media during his visit to the middle east in (i) December 2000 and (ii) January of this year. [146495]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Levy did not visit the middle east in December 2000. He had no meetings with the media during his visit from 5–9 January.

  Personal Envoys
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to appoint further personal envoys. [145265]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: I have no such plans.

  Hammond Inquiry
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if the inquiry under Sir Anthony Hammond will consider issues relating to sponsorship of the Millennium Dome. [148367]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: All relevant information will be made available to Sir Anthony Hammond in so far as it relates to the terms of reference of his review.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister when Lord Levy met the Hinduja brothers at the House of Lords on behalf of the Government to confirm their sponsorship of the dome; what instructions he was given; what report he made of the meeting; and to whom. [148624]

  The Prime Minister
  At the request of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), Lord Levy attended a meeting on 29 October 1998 with the then Chief Executive of NMEC and representatives of the Hinduja Foundation to discuss their potential support of the Faith zone in the Millennium Dome.
  392W

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients have been waiting more than one year for an(a) out-patient and (b) in-patient (i) surgical intervention and (ii) other secondary medical treatment; and what the comparable figures were for (a) 1995, (b) 1990, (c) 1985 and (d) 1980. [143341]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on people waiting over a year for an out-patient appointment is not collected centrally. The in-patient information is given in the table.

  Patients waiting for elective admission

  Trust-based figures

  Months/waiting

  Surgical acute specialties

  Other specialties

  Position at 31 March 19801

  Total waiting

  2—

  2—

  12 months plus

  2—

  2—

  18 months plus

  2—

  2—

  Position at 31 March 19851

  Total waiting

  2—

  2—

  12 months plus

  2—

  2—

  18 months plus

  2—

  2—

  Position at 31 March 1990

  Total waiting

  922,953

  36,023

  12 months plus

  203,517

  4,343

  18 months plus

  2—

  2—

  Position at 31 March 1995

  Total waiting

  979,622

  64,429

  12 months plus

  31,541

  653

  18 months plus

  279

  1

  Position at 30 September 20003

  Total waiting

  960,241

  71,583

  12 months plus

  50,118

  997

  18 months plus

  2

  0

  1Ordinary admissions only

  2Not collected separately

  3Latest figures available by specialty

  source:

  Department of Health form KH07 completedn by NHS Trusts

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, of 31 October, 22 November, 22 December 2000 and 18 January 2001, relating to Mr. Derek Frank Finch of Cheshunt. [146895]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]: A reply to the hon. Member's letter was sent on the 31 January.

  MMR
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what protection he plans to offer to women who have not received the rubella vaccination since MMR was introduced in 1988; and how many women of child- bearing age his Department estimates are not innoculated against rubella. [147485]
  393W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: All women are tested for rubella susceptibiltiy in their first pregnancy. Any found to be sero-negative are recommended to be immunised after the pregnancy. This programme, along with the surveillance of rubella susceptibility of the antenatal population, has been maintained since the introduction of measles, mumps and rubella. Since there has never been a programme to immunise women of child-bearing age, except those sero-negative, it is not possible to know how many women of child-bearing age are not immunised.

  It is not possible to estimate the number of women who have not been innoculated against rubella. In 1995, the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation recommended that rubella immunisation for schoolgirls could cease due to the high level of immunisation through either the MMR campaign started in 1988 or the MR campaign in 1994.

  Acquired Brain Injury
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what support his Department offers to people with acquired brain injury; [147954]

  (2) what percentage and number of those with acquired brain injury are provided with rehabilitation services; [147966]

  (3) what plans he has to help individuals with acquired brain injury back into work; [147955]

  (4) what percentage of people with brain injury are provided with rehabilitation services. [147972]

  Mr.Denham
  Support and treatment depends on the extent of the injury and can, where appropriate, include specialised rehabilitation. The aim of treatment is, wherever possible, to restore the person to the state of health they enjoyed before the injury happened. Our policy is that all patients who need rehabilitation services should have access to them.

  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he gives to local health, employment and social services in Greater Manchester on funding for vocational rehabilitation for individuals with acquired brain injury. [147956]

  Mr. Denham
  We do not give individual guidance to local health, employment and social services on what services to provide for their populations. Health authorities in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders are responsible for assessing the health needs of their populations and commissioning services to meet those needs.

  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of people with acquired brain injury do not walk again. [147967]

  Mr. Denham
  Around 1 million people a year receive a head injury in the United Kingdom and some 100,000 of those attend hospital. Each year at least 2,000 adults suffer permanent serious impairments. We do not keep statistics, however, on whether patients are left unable to walk as a result of their injury.

  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average age of a person diagnosed with acquired brain injury; [147965]
  394W
  (2) what the average age is of a person diagnosed with a brain injury. [147969]

  Mr. Denham
  We do not analyse the incidence of brain injury by age. However, a 1999 report from the Royal College of Surgeons, on the management of head injury, found that around half of the people who attend hospital with a head injury are under 16 years of age.

  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support his Department offers to people with acquired brain injury in Greater Manchester; and if he will make a statement. [147970]

  Mr.Denham
  We do not provide funding for individual patients. It is for health authorities, in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Social Services Inspectorate
  Mr.Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the social services inspectorate follow up the findings and recommendations of the local government ombudsman in respect of maladministration by social services departments. [147321]

  Mr.Hutton
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: The Department expects local authorities to take all reports, and especially those in which there are adverse findings, of the local government ombudsman very seriously and to take appropriate action locally in the light of the ombudsman's recommendations. The ombudsman does not publish all of his judgments or routinely notify details of individual cases to the social services inspectorate. Thus, the inspectorate does not have a formal role in following up such recommendations. Should the inspectorate be notified of a decision, it may decide to take up the matter with the local authority to establish what action is being taken, but this will depend on the nature of the case and the ombudsman's recommendation.

  Epsom and St.Helier NHS Trust
  Sir Archie Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason the consultation being carried out by the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust recommends a significant transfer of facilities away from Epsom to St. Helier; [148329]

  (2) for what reasons the Chief Executive of the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust has not held discussions with the management of hospitals in Surrey about the impact on them of the location of services away from St. Helier. [148328]

  Mr.Denham
  The discussion document published by Epsom and St. Helier national health service trust considers ways in which patient services could best be provided for local people. It takes into account Royal College guidelines on the required critical mass of services for these to be provided and also the need to use the accommodation at Epsom hospital to the best advantage of patients.

  This is an informal discussion document. Should concrete proposals be developed, there would be a full and formal consultation with all affected parties, including local people and other NHS organisations.
  395W

  Paediatric Facilities
  Sir Archie Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that only accident and emergency departments that are on the same hospital site as in-patient paediatric facilities should accept children. [148331]

  Ms Stuart
  No. It remains appropriate for accident and emergency departments to offer initial assessment of health status and the options available to achieve best outcome including, if appropriate, transfer to a specialist unit on another site.

  Negligence Claims
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total amounts paid out by(a) NHS trusts and (b) health authorities in response to negligence claims in each of the last 10 years; if he will break down the amounts by region; and if he will make a statement. [148081]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 1 February 2001]: We do not collect centrally information on clinical negligence payments by national health service trusts or health authorities. The National Audit Office report on the NHS summarised accounts shows that health authorities and NHS trusts charged the following amounts to their income and expenditure accounts for each year:

  Year

  £million

  1992–93

  80.4

  1993–94

  117.9

  1994–95

  160

  1995–96

  173

  1996–97

  235

  1997–98

  144

  1998–99

  221

  Note:

  Figures for 1999–2000 are not yet available.

  Complaints Evaluation
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the findings of the independent United Kingdom-wide evaluation of complaints; and what action he will take on the results of the evaluation. [148615]

  Ms Stuart
  The evaluation team's report is expected to be submitted by the end of this month. It will be published as soon as possible once we have given proper consideration to the findings. The NHS plan made it clear that we will act on the results of the evaluation and without prejudicing the evaluation we would expect the reform of the complaints procedure to result in a more independent and responsive system.

  NHS Staff (Expenses)
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the conclusions of his Department's working group reviewing the reimbursement arrangements for the expenses incurred by NHS staff on NHS business. [148285]

  Mr. Denham
  We are continuing to work with representatives of staff and employers on options for revised arrangements for reimbursing staff travelling on 396W
  national health service business. The issues are complex, and we will bring the review to a conclusion as soon as possible.

  Patient Care Budget
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the value of l/20th of the patient care budget will be for each health authority in each of the next three years. [148567]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authority allocations for 2001–02 are shown in the table. Final decisions have not yet been made for 2002–03 and 2003–04 but all health authorities will receive a minimum increase of 6 per cent.

  £000

  Health authority

  Total allocation 2001–02

  1/20th of total allocation

  Avon

  697,776

  34,889

  Barking and Havering

  303,878

  15,194

  Barnet

  247,485

  12,374

  Barnsley

  185,567

  9,278

  Bedfordshire

  369,282

  18,464

  Berkshire

  525,665

  26,283

  Bexley and Greenwich

  344,220

  17,211

  Birmingham

  808,438

  40,422

  Bradford

  371,589

  18,579

  Brent and Harrow

  370,079

  18,504

  Bromley

  217,850

  10,893

  Buckinghamshire

  441,601

  22,080

  Bury and Rochdale

  297,767

  14,888

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  436,633

  21,832

  Cambridgeshire

  470,718

  23,536

  Camden and Islington

  394,935

  19,747

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  372,185

  18,609

  County Durham

  491,142

  24,557

  Coventry

  241,259

  12,063

  Croydon

  241,504

  12,075

  Doncaster

  234,088

  11,704

  Dorset

  524,463

  26,223

  Dudley

  217,943

  10,897

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  579,510

  28,976

  East and North Hertfordshire

  347,662

  17,383

  East Kent

  467,900

  23,395

  East Lancashire

  415,174

  20,759

  East London and The City

  596,445

  29,822

  East Riding

  425,755

  21,288

  East Surrey

  288,231

  14,412

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  594,506

  29,725

  Enfield and Haringey

  386,293

  19,315

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  299,716

  14,986

  Gloucestershire

  392,240

  19,612

  Herefordshire

  117,787

  5,889

  Hillingdon

  183,403

  9,170

  Isle of Wight

  108,298

  5,415

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  359,721

  17,986

  Kingston and Richmond

  255,761

  12,788

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  692,785

  34,639

  Leeds

  557,161

  27,858

  Leicestershire

  613,532

  30,677

  Lincolnshire

  467,631

  23,382

  Liverpool

  408,740

  20,437

  Manchester

  410,816

  20,541

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  496,841

  24,842

  Morecambe Bay

  242,079

  12,104

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  394,414

  19,721

  Norfolk

  549,539

  27,477

  North and East Devon

  353,859

  17,693

  North and Mid Hampshire

  345,415

  17,271

  North Cheshire

  235,657

  11,783

  North Cumbria

  234,652

  11,733

  397W

  £000

  Health authority

  Total allocation 2001–02

  1/20th of total allocation

  North Derbyshire

  269,960

  13,498

  North Essex

  595,359

  29,768

  North Nottinghamshire

  282,380

  14,119

  North Staffordshire

  362,284

  18,114

  North West Lancashire

  381,457

  19,073

  North Yorkshire

  510,732

  25,537

  Northamptonshire

  385,430

  19,272

  Northumberland

  232,652

  11,633

  Nottingham

  463,720

  23,186

  Oxfordshire

  394,886

  19,744

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  396,100

  19,805

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  350,051

  17,503

  Rotherham

  188,467

  9,423

  Salford and Trafford

  366,383

  18,319

  Sandwell

  242,664

  12,133

  Sefton

  229,179

  11,459

  Sheffield

  431,355

  21,568

  Shropshire

  294,125

  14,706

  Solihull

  143,879

  7,194

  Somerset

  343,500

  17,175

  South and West Devon

  451,040

  22,552

  South Cheshire

  478,715

  23,936

  South Derbyshire

  404,994

  20,250

  South Essex

  500,386

  25,019

  South Humber

  233,841

  11,692

  South Lancashire

  222,508

  11,125

  South Staffordshire

  379,655

  18,983

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  388,537

  19,427

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  278,798

  13,940

  Stockport

  208,234

  10,412

  Suffolk

  468,523

  23,426

  Sunderland

  237,254

  11,863

  Tees

  439,203

  21,960

  Wakefield

  250,132

  12,507

  Walsall

  193,863

  9,693

  Warwickshire

  344,918

  17,246

  West Hertfordshire

  373,495

  18,675

  West Kent

  665,312

  33,266

  West Pennine

  352,242

  17,612

  West Surrey

  432,530

  21,627

  West Sussex

  555,588

  27,779

  Wigan and Bolton

  444,786

  22,239

  Wiltshire

  408,462

  20,423

  Wirral

  267,707

  13,385

  Wolverhampton

  190,097

  9,505

  Worcestershire

  354,408

  17,720

  Charging Policy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change in charging policy will be brought about by the transfer of local authority health related functions to the care trusts proposed in the Health and Social Care Bill. [148880]

  Mr. Hutton
  There will be no change in the arrangements for any charging policy which affects services which are delegated to a care trust as proposed in the Health and Social Care Bill. The policy decisions on charging that a local authority can make will continue to be taken by the local authority, and will relate to their delegated functions only.

  Waiting Lists (Worcestershire)
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were on the(a) waiting list
  398W
  for operations and (b) waiting list for an out-patient's appointment at the Worcestershire NHS Acute Trust in each month from January 2000 to January 2001. [148752]

  Mr. Denham
  Worcester acute hospital is a newly merged trust. As a result, data are not available before April 2000. Latest data available are shown.

  The trust had planned for and achieved a decrease in both its in-patient and out-patient waiting lists for end of October. It is inevitable that waiting lists would rise due to the evacuation of patients from the Castle street site of Worcester Royal infirmary due to the heavy flooding.

  In-patient data

  Month

  Total inpatient waiting list

  April 2000

  8,294

  May 2000

  8,470

  June 2000

  8,665

  July 2000

  8,878

  August 2000

  8,370

  September 2000

  8,958

  October 2000

  8,911

  November 2000

  9,192

  Out-patient over 13 week waiters

  Quarter

  Number

  June 2000

  1,920

  September 2000

  2,650

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visits abroad have been made by Health Department officials on departmental business(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the last 12 months. [149155]

  Ms Stuart
  Information is not held in the form requested. However, total expenditure (travel and subsistence) for visits abroad by departmental officials is as follows.

  Financial year

  £

  1997–98

  858,710.00

  1998–99

  927,372.92

  1999–00

  874,262.10

  2000–01 (up to 31 January 2001)

  658,870.19

  For the period 1 February 2000–31 January 2001 the figure is £860,848.48.

  Cane Hill Site, Coulsdon
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the redevelopment of the Cane Hill site, Coulsdon. [148153]

  Mr. Hutton
  Croydon council have rejected a planning application by South London and Maudsley national health service trust to extend the medium secure unit provided at the site by 98 beds.

  The trust, in conjunction with other mental health providing trusts in south London, is undertaking feasibility studies to identify whether an alternative site or sites can be identified.
  399W
  The future of the Cane Hill site will not be determined until a clear plan for the provision of these services has been agreed.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) planned expenditure and (b) actual expenditure was for the NHS in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000. [148816]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  £million

  Planned net NHS expenditure1

  Outturn net NHS expenditure

  1997–98

  34,368

  34,664

  1998–99

  36,509

  36,612

  1999–2000

  39,703

  240,066

  1This shows planned expenditure at the start of each financial year

  2 Estimated outturn

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices have closed in Scotland in each of the last 10 years. [148161]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that they do not hold historical data on post office closures by country for the last 10 years. Their records are held on a financial year basis. Net post office closures in Scotland for the years for which figures are available are as follows:

  Year to end March 1999–25

  Year to end March 2000–29.

  EU Postal Monopolies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answers of 17 January 2001,Official Report, columns 238–39W concerning the postal monopoly limit, what Her Majesty's Government's policy is on Directive Com (2000) 319; when the Directive will be published; what the income of the Royal Mail was in the last year from items weighing (i) less than 50 grammes and (ii) between 50 and 350 grammes; and if primary legislation is needed to amend the public monopoly powers of the Royal Mail. [148558]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The proposal from the European Commission for a draft directive was published on 19 July 2000. The directive will be published in final form if and when the Council and European Parliament agree a final text. The Government support co-ordinated European liberalisation—this will ensure a level playing field for postal operators—including the Post Office and the future Post Office company. The Government believe it is important for such liberalisation to be gradual and controlled and to be consistent with our domestic processes to ensure that the full benefits of liberalisation can be achieved. That is why before taking a detailed decisions in Europe it would be preferable to take account 400W
  of the work of our postal regulator—to ensure that liberalisation proceeds in a way that is consistent with maintaining the universal service at a uniform tariff.

  At the Telecommunications Council in December, I said that although I believed that the limits could be reduced from 350 grams to 150 grams in 2003 without adversely impacting on the universal service, I would need the advice of our regulator before going further. In the event, member states were unable to agree on a package and further discussions are expected during the Swedish Presidency.

  The income of the Royal Mail in these weight categories is a matter for the Post Office and would be commercially confidential within the meaning of Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (third party's commercial confidences). A broad indication of the income of Royal Mail by weight category is as follows:

  Percentage

  Revenue from items below 50 grams

  65

  Revenue from items between 50 grams and 350 grams

  30

  Revenue from items over 350 grams

  5

  The Postal Services Act 2000 replaces the exclusive privilege of the Post Office to deliver letters under certain weights and postage prices with a licensing regime covering such letters. The Postal Services Commission is responsible for issuing licences to do this and is proposing to grant Consignia plc (the future operating company of the Post Office company (Consignia Holdings plc)) with a licence to do so.

  Under the Act, the extent of the letters market subject to licensed access may be modified by an order made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but only on the recommendation of the Postal Services Commission and after it has been laid in draft before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament. The relevant provisions of the Postal Services Act 2000 are due to come into force on 26 March 2001.

  If changes to the Postal Services Act 2000 are needed to implement obligations under the draft directive when it is adopted, these could be made using the powers contained in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

  Departmental Policies (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Slough constituency, the effects on Slough of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [146932]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Slough has benefited from a broad range of initiatives that have been implemented since May 1997.

  The Thames Valley Business Link
  The Thames Valley Business Link receives funding from the Department to assist businesses at all stages of development. The Business Link also has an independent income stream. The Business Link covers both Berkshire and Buckinghamshire. Initiatives are aimed to reach groups of businesses that have

  401W
  shown a need for a more direct approach. It would not be possible to disaggregate the benefit for Slough and the figures shown are for the whole region covered by the Business Link.
  The Business Links services are widely marketed and include the following initiatives.

  DTI Funding for Business Link

  Financial Year

  £000

  1997–98

  2,288

  1998–99

  2,108

  1999–2000

  2,938

  2000–01

  n/a

  Diagnostic Consultancy Service
  This scheme is aimed at businesses to help them find and rectify problems within the company.
  Business Advisory Service
  The Business Advisory Service gives: easy access to a wide range of quality business services; initial business diagnosis at no extra cost; impartial expert advice on business issues; and practical value for money support tailored to make the most of an individuals potential.
  Export Counselling Services
  This was a scheme initiated in 1997 to aid local businesses to develop an export market. (Funds were in addition to the above)

  Financial Year

  £

  1997–98

  52,500

  1998–99

  50,000

  1999–2000

  25,000

  Other initiatives include:
  British Trade International
  A separately funded unit dealing with expanding the export and raising the profile of British goods abroad.
  SMART Awards
  Three Slough businesses have been awarded money to develop innovative technological ideas to improve their business.
  The Berkshire Small Business Service
  The Small Business Service will take over from the current Business Link in April 2001 and will deliver a sharper and more focused service by acting as a gateway to the wide range services available to local businesses.

  EU Direction Consultation and Information
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the proposed timetable is for(a) discussions between the TUC, the CBI and the Government on the incorporation into UK law of the EU directive on Consultation and Information and (b) for bringing necessary legislation before the House; and if he will make a statement. [148125]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The proposed EU directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community has not been adopted by the Council of Ministers. Therefore there is no timetable for its implementation in the UK.

  Cash Points (Post Offices)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the Post 402W
  Office on the prospects of cash points in sub-post offices which are not owned by banks and building societies making charges for access to cash. [148178]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 1 February 2001]: None; this is a commercial matter for the Post Office. However, the Government have made it clear that they do not welcome the imposition of charges for access to cash. They would impact disproportionately on the socially excluded and those in rural areas.

  Coal Consumption
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the UK(a) consumption of coal and (b) extra tonnes of carbon dioxide burned between August and October was in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000. [147815]

  Mr. Hain
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 January 2001, c. 121W]: I should like to point out that there was an increase of 1 million tonnes (and not 3 million tonnes) in the amount of coal consumed in this period in the UK in 2000 compared with 1999.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Directives
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the institutions of the European Union are required to abide by European directives [148054]

  Mr. Vaz
  Directives are addressed to the member states, but may contain express provisions that bind the institution, for example a requirement that the Commission set up a programme or report back to the Council on a particular matter.

  Embassies and High Commissions
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the 10 British embassies and high commissions with the(a) highest and (b) lowest running costs, indicating the number of staff employed in each case. [145310]

  Mr. Wilson
  The 10 UK embassies and high commissions with the(a)highest and (b)lowest operating costs in FY 1999–2000, and the numbers of UK-based staff resident at these missions, are as follows:

  Operating costs1

  Number of UK-based staff2

  Numbers of locally engaged staff

  Highest

  Tokyo (highest operating cost)

  48

  133

  Paris

  70

  140

  Washington

  77

  155

  Moscow

  76

  151

  Brussels3

  144

  113

  Berlin/Bonn

  53

  97

  New Delhi

  64

  234

  Rome

  35

  95

  Peking

  69

  138

  Singapore

  22

  57

  403W

  Operating costs1

  Number of UK-based staff2

  Numbers of locally engaged staff

  Lowest

  Minsk

  4

  12

  Reykjavik

  3

  6

  Vila

  2

  8

  Santo Domingo

  2

  10

  Managua

  2

  13

  Windhoek

  4

  7

  Tegucigalpa

  2

  11

  Honiara

  2

  8

  Nuku'Alofa

  1

  8

  Castries (lowest operating cost)

  1

  4

  1 Operating costs include costs of small subordinate posts,that cannot esasily be separated/extracted.

  2Numbers of home based staff is the total staff complement of the FCO and other Government Departments, ie MOD and DFIF.

  3Costs and starff figures cover all the FCO Missions in Brussels, (Embassy, UKREP,NATO)

  4Costs and staff figures cover the officers in Berlin and Bonn together as they cannot be calculated separately

  Lord Levy
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met Lord Levy to discuss his recent visit to South America. [145259]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets Lord Levy on a regular basis, most recently on 15 and 21 January.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the(a) agenda and (b)minutes of Lord Levy's meetings with officials during his visit to South America. [145258]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Our ambassadors in the countries concerned sent accounts of Lord Levy's meetings by telegram to the FCO. Under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, exemption 2, internal telegrams are not made public. This is in line with previous Government practice.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of Lord Levy's visit to South America, with particular reference to UK-South American relations. [145260]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Lord Levy's visit was very successful and made a major contribution to our relations with the countries concerned.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what private business Lord Levy is conducting while travelling in the middle east. [146489]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Lord Levy conducts no private business while travelling as the Prime Minister's personal envoy, and has no business interests in the middle east.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) practical and (b) financial support his Department and embassies have provided to Lord Levy during his visit to the middle east; and if he will separately itemise the cost of this support. [146494]
  404W
  Mr. Wilson
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to question 145858 from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) answered today,Official Report, column 390W.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in gaining access to British citizens held in Saudi Arabian prisons. [147625]

  Mr. Wilson
  Following our representations to the Saudi authorities, our embassy has now been given access to all those British nationals to whom we had previously been denied access.

  Our embassy is now arranging for follow-up visits to the men.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many public interest immunity 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. [147731]

  Mr. Wilson
  Eight public interest immunity certificates have been signed by Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers since 30 May 1997, as shown in the table.

  Secretary of State

  Ministers of State

  Junior Ministers

  Civil Servants

  1997

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1998

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1999

  2

  1

  0

  0

  2000

  3

  0

  0

  0

  2001

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has had with representatives of the Indian Government and its agencies at which matters relating to the Hinduja family were discussed. [148072]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 31 January 2001]: Since becoming Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in October 1999, I have met a number of Indian Ministers and officials. I have not discussed matters relating to the Hinduja family during any of these meetings.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions, and for what purpose, the hon. Member for Leicester, East(Mr. Vaz), has met a member of the Hinduja family while serving as a Minister in his Department. [148306]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have met members of the Hinduja family at various Asian community events. As prominent members of the British Asian community, the Hindujas are involved in many community issues.
  405W
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), has discussed extradition arrangements between the UK and India with(a) Mr. G. Hinduja and (b) Mr. S. Hinduja while serving as a Minister in his Department. [148307]

  Mr. Vaz
  No.

  Bear Baiting (Pakistan)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations about bear baiting in Pakistan to the Government of Pakistan. [148561]

  Mr. Battle
  The British high commission in Islamabad has raised the issue of bear baiting with the Pakistani authorities on several occasions. It will continue to convey the strength of public opinion in the UK over the exploitation and ill-treatment of these animals, and will encourage the Government of Pakistan to find ways to enforce the law against bear baiting more effectively.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the Government of Pakistan to co-operate with the World Society for the Protection of Animals in its campaign to eradicate bear baiting in Pakistan. [148562]

  Mr. Battle
  We noted that the Government of Pakistan, through their high commission in London, have expressed their appreciation to the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) for its commitment in developing the Kund Park bear sanctuary to house bears confiscated from their owners. The British high commission in Islamabad will continue to raise our concerns over bear baiting with the Pakistani authorities.

  Sir David Hannay
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) of 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 58W, on Sir David Hannay, what work has been undertaken by Sir David for his Department. [148875]

  Mr. Vaz
  Sir David Hannay was appointed as the UK's special representative for Cyprus in May 1996 to give full support and new impetus to the UN's long-running efforts to achieve a settlement of the Cyprus problem. As such he is in regular contact with all those involved in the search for such a settlement, including with high level interlocutors in Cyprus. His work involves travel to Cyprus, Turkey and Greece in particular, and to the two UN headquarters (in New York and Geneva) where negotiations have been taking place since November 1999. His work also requires him to maintain close links with the EU (Presidency and Commission) and other Governments who are working to strengthen the UN efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement. He advises the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on all matters relating to a Cyprus settlement.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on those responsible for the Lockerbie bombing other than Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. [148881]
  406W
  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the House on 31 January 2001,Official Report, columns 307–17.

  Entry Visas
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry visas from the Islamabad high commission the Minister with responsibility for entry clearance accepted after previously being declined by the High Commission in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98 and (g) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [148827]

  Mr. Vaz
  I regret that the information requested could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  The only way we could obtain this information would be for the high commission to review every refusal case file. Moreover, visa case files at posts are routinely destroyed after two years for issued visit visas, five years for refused visit applications, 10 years for other refused applications and 10 years for settlement applications.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if discussions took place concerning the fishing fleets of Poland and Estonia and the review of the Common Fisheries Policy when he last met his colleagues from other member states of the European Union to discuss enlargement; and if he will make a statement. [147897]

  Mr. Vaz
  I last discussed enlargement with my EU colleagues at the General Affairs Council on 22 January. We did not discuss the fisheries chapter of the negotiations. This has been provisionally closed with Cyprus, Hungary, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia. The indicative timetable for negotiations set out in the Commission's strategy for enlargement of November 2000 envisages conclusion of negotiations on this chapter with other candidates in the second half of this year. All candidates will be expected to apply the common fisheries policy in full upon accession and access to fisheries resources within EU waters will be based on the principle of relative stability, which allocates national quotas according to historic catch levels.

  Immigration
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what definitions of temporary and permanent employment are used in considering applications for entry clearance to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [148163]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no definitions of temporary or permanent employment in the Immigration Rules. There are a number of categories for entry to the United Kingdom that enable an individual to take employment. The type of employment varies between the categories and ranges from work incidental to their main purpose of entry to full employment by a United Kingdom company.
  407W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Abortion and Sterilisation
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to review her policy on the provision of public funding to overseas aid organisations involved in compulsory abortion and sterilisation in the third world and China; and if she will make a statement. [147697]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not fund organisations involved in compulsory abortion and sterilisation. DFID makes annual contributions towards the work of the United Nations Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation in over 150 countries. These organisations have programmes in China aimed at promoting international standards of freedom of choice reproductive health. We strongly support these efforts.

  Education for All
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the steps taken by UNESCO to implement the education for all programme following the Dakar Summit. [148164]

  Clare Short
  UNESCO was given a mandate at the World Education Forum to monitor and co-ordinate implementation of the Dakar framework for action. Its Director-General was asked to convene annually an education for all (EFA) high level group to review progress. This has not yet met, but a working group (for informal technical consultation among EFA partners) has been established. UNESCO is implementing major organisational changes to mainstream EFA throughout its programmes.

  We will continue to encourage UNESCO to provide leadership and technical guidance on how to achieve the international development targets for education and the goals of the Dakar framework, within a clearly defined poverty framework. I will be discussing progress to date with the Director-General in London on 5 February.

  Long-term Conflicts
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is with respect to providing development assistance to countries involved in long-term conflict. [147020]

  Clare Short
  It is usually impossible to provide long-term development assistance to countries involved in violent conflict. We provide humanitarian relief and support for conflict resolution and development where possible. But 20 of the 38 poorest countries are involved in conflict or recently emerged from conflict. Such conflict leads to growing impoverishment and is a barrier to development. We are therefore working to try to focus greater international effort on the resolution of such conflicts.

  Indian Earthquake
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a field hospital immediately available to the Indian authorities for victim of the recent earthquake. [148263]
  408W
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what provision her Department is making to assist in the relief operations for the Indian earthquake. [148091]

  Clare Short
  DFID's emergency response centre has been working round the clock since the earthquake struck. With the assistance of the Ministry of Defence, we despatched on 27 January a UK search and rescue team of 69 personnel, available under our contingency arrangements, made up of 25 UK fire service volunteers from Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Greater Manchester, Chester and Leicestershire and specialist rescue organisations. Officials from my Department led the team. They have been working in close co-operation with the Indian authorities and have so far managed to rescue six people alive.

  In a joint operation with my Department, 75 search and rescue personnel from the Russian Ministry of Emergencies (EMERCOM), funded by DFID, arrived in Bhachau on 28 January and have rescued nine persons to date. They also have with them an airmobile hospital. A second Russian aircraft, part-funded by my Department, is awaiting clearance from the Indian authorities to bring in 3,000 blankets and 45 family tents.

  In the last 48 hours, we have despatched three aircraft carrying 1,200 tents and other shelter item from the DFID's emergency stockpile in Staffordshire. A fourth aircraft has also flown from Brindisi carrying medical supplies, trauma equipment and plastic sheeting. These supplies are already beginning to arrive in Ahmadabad and Bhuj. Further relief efforts will be co-ordinated by the UN.

  We have allocated a total of £10 million to support this emergency relief effort without reducing our spending in other parts of India. Nearly £3 million of this has already been spent. We are in close contact with operational agencies, including the Red Cross, UNICEF, WHO, and a number of operational NGOs (Care, Save the Children, Christian Aid) to determine the provision of immediate relief items and medical assistance. The Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), the UK umbrella organisation for a number of humanitarian NGOs, is launching a public appeal on Thursday 1 February.

  The Indian Government did not immediately request assistance but, as the scale of the disaster became apparent, did so. Medical and para-medical personnel continue to assist local civilian and military personnel already engaged in the rescue effort. The Indian authorities are well organised and are providing food, army personnel, heavy lifting equipment, mobile operating theatres and medical supplies, but the scale of the emergency is such that some of the resources cannot be supplies, but the scale of the emergency is such that some of the resources cannot be supplied in the region. We are working closely with the Indian Government and operational agencies to support their efforts and to ensure that all those who survived the earthquake are provided with health care and other basic essentials until they can rebuild their homes and livelihoods. Copies of our regular situation reports are available in the Library.
  409W

  India
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the level of corruption in India. [147213]

  Clare Short
  Corruption is widespread in India at every level of public life, as in most developing countries, reflecting weak financial and administration systems. Rent seeking and other for Ms of corruption hit poor people particularly hard and have a significant impact on their economy.

  The Union and State Governments of India are beginning to take anti-corruption measures beyond those that already exist in the form of statutory audit bodies and Vigilance Commissions. State Governments such as those of Andhra Pradesh and Medhya Pradesh, with both of whom DFID is working in partnership, are placing an increasing focus on good governance initiatives, including anti-corruption. Anti-corruption strategies are also being developed in a number of national public institutions.

  DFID is supporting a number of strategic initiatives in all four of our partner states which will directly help reduce corruption. These initiatives include the introduction of VAT and revenue enhancement measures; increasing political accountability through decentralisation and local decision-making; the redesign of public expenditure management syste Ms including procurement and audit functions; and improved service delivery including the introduction of electronic governance bringing services directly to the poor. Our support for public enterprise reform will help reduce corrupt practices in public utilities through the introduction of sound, commercial practices and the creation of an effective regulatory framework. At the national level, in supporting health and education programmes, DFID has helped give priority to the introduction and strengthening of transparent transaction processes. We are also discussing support for broader governance initiatives that will help reduce corruption.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Hinduja Brothers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which Ministers and officials in his Department have(a) been contacted by and (b) contacted (i) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (ii)Mr. S. P. Hinduja since 2 May 1997; if he will list the occasions on which there was such contact; and if he will make a statement. [148196]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies. All relevant papers will be made available to the inquiry being conducted by Sir Anthony Hammond QC.

  Lay Magistrates
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to encourage future recruitment and retention of lay magistrates. [147692]
  410W
  Jane Kennedy
  Through his advisory committees, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor already undertakes a range of initiatives to attract people from all sections of the community, including advertising in the local press, talks on local radio, and contacting local organisations.

  Court open days also stimulate the public's interest in applying to be a magistrate. The Lord Chancellor and I encourage magistrates courts committees to consider holding these on a regular basis. My officials are also currently developing a national recruitment strategy with the Magistrates Association and others to optimise the effectiveness of future initiatives. Through these initiatives most advisory committees attract sufficient new magistrates to replace those who retire or resign.

  Following an equality audit of the policies and procedures surrounding the appointment of magistrates the Lord Chancellor has instructed officials to introduce exit questionnaires which will allow us to find out in more detail the reasons why people resign, so that we can identify common concerns and take action. The aim is to have these in place by April 2001.

SCOTLAND

  New Deal
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people obtained full employment as a result of the new deal scheme in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [145654]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Latest figures from the start of new deal for young people in 1998 to the end of October 2000 are summarised in the following table

  Number obtaining employment

  1998

  59,150

  1999

  109,440

  2000

  93,850

  We know that many young people leave the programme for employment without telling the Employment Service: these people are not included in the figures. Over 80 per cent of jobs obtained are unsubsidised.

TREASURY

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many public interest immunity 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. [147732]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]:Treasury Ministers and officials have not signed any public interest immunity certificates since 30 May 1997.
  411W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conclusions were arrived at during the ECOFIN of 19 January 2001 regarding political agreement on excise duties on mineral oil. [148542]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Economic Secretary on 29 January 2001,Official Report, columns 42–43W.

  National Debt
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the national debt was on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 January. [148972]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public sector net debt has fallen from 43.4 per cent. of GDP on 30 April 1997 to 32.9 per cent of GDP on 31 December 2000, the latest period for which figures are available.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the estimate of cost of capital gains tax exemption at death published in the Treasury's 'Tax Ready Reckoner' in November 2000 assumes all normal capital gains tax rules apply; and if he will make a statement. [148663]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimate reflects the main features of the capital gains tax regime which would apply assuming disposal of assets at date of death.

  Public Bodies Reserves (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines he has issued to the National Assembly for Wales on the appropriate level of reserves which may be held by public bodies. [148851]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The funding arrangements for the devolved Administrations are set out in the Statement of Funding Policy published in July 2000. It is for the National Assembly for Wales to decide how to allocate its budget, including any reserve it may decide to hold within its Departmental Expenditure Limit.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Crosby are in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit. [148334]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 425W.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to maximize take-up of the Children's Tax Credit. [148120]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Most people who are eligible for the Children's Tax Credit have already claimed. However, the Inland Revenue has started a publicity campaign involving TV, Radio and the Press to remind people who pay tax through PAYE to send in a claim quickly if they have not done so already.
  412W

  Tax Credits (Payroll Software)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about problems with the information on the Working Families Tax Credit and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit provided to payroll software suppliers by the Inland Revenue. [148485]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am not aware of any representations on this matter.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the potential cost to public funds of extending section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to cover national museums and galleries. [147431]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: Discussions are ongoing on what is a complex issue. No decisions or accurate estimates have been made.

  Indebted Countries
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the countries for which debt has been written off by Britain, together with the amounts written off in each case. [148121]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The UK has written off, and is writing off, debt through multilateral initiatives such as the HIPC initiative, and through additional bilateral initiatives. Under the HIPC initiative the UK stands ready to write off all £1.9 billion still owed to the UK by the 41 countries potentially eligible. This is in addition to the £400 million of ECGD debt already written off under previous initiatives, and the £350 million of aid debt already written off for HIPCs. This aid debt is shown in the table.

  £million

  Aid debt cancelled

  Countries at Decision Point

  Bolivia

  0.1

  Guyana

  58.9

  Honduras

  5.0

  Nicaragua

  0.6

  Gambia

  5.2

  Malawi

  30.7

  Mozambique

  21.8

  Senegal

  1.1

  Tanzania

  3.4

  Uganda

  22.1

  Zambia

  55.9

  Countries not yet at Decision Point

  Ethiopia

  2.5

  Ghana

  50.9

  Cote D'lvoire

  3.5

  Kenya

  67.6

  Sierra Leone

  10.4

  Sudan

  9.9

  Laos

  0.03

  The amount of the £1.9 billion written off at a given stage depends on progress through the HIPC initiative. When a country reaches the first stage, known as Decision Point, the UK provides 100 per cent, relief on all payments due. When a country then reaches Completion Point all debt is irrevocably written off.
  413W
  On 2 December the Chancellor announced in addition that for all countries not yet at Decision Point, any payments made will be held in trust and returned when they can show that the savings from debt relief will lead to poverty reduction.

  An irrevocable commitment to 100 per cent. reduction has been made in respect of Uganda, who reached Completion Point under the HIPC initiative in 2000, and who previously owed the UK £5.5 million. Uganda has also had around £5 million of former-CDC debt cancelled.

  The UK is providing 100 per cent. interim relief on payments in respect of £700 million of debt, owed by HIPC countries that have reached Decision Point under the HIPC initiative on the basis of a commitment to poverty reduction, but which are yet to reach Completion Point. The debt owed to ECGD by these countries is as follows:

  £ million

  Benin

  2.7

  Bolivia

  17.4

  Cameroon

  74.5

  Gambia

  0

  Guinea

  5.3

  Guinea-Bissau

  0

  Guyana

  41.7

  Honduras

  0

  Madagascar

  25.5

  Malawi

  3.9

  Mali

  4.2

  Mauritania

  6.9

  Mozambique

  91.2

  Nicaragua

  1.0

  Niger

  10.9

  Rwanda

  0.1

  Sao Tome et Principe

  0

  Senegal

  1.5

  Tanzania

  115.0

  Zambia

  239.2

  Interim relief is also being given to these countries on around £60 million of debt formerly held by CDC plc.

  In respect of Burkina Faso, which owes the UK £1.0 million, interim relief has been suspended in light of the continuing role of the Government of Burkina Faso in undermining the peace process in Sierra Leone. Payments from Burkina Faso will be held in trust.

  Nineteen countries have not so far qualified for debt reduction, in most cases because of conflict. In respect of a further £1.3 billion of debt owed by these countries, the Government have announced that no further benefit will accrue to the UK. Payments will be held in trust and earmarked for spending in support of poverty reduction strategies once those countries have reached DP. The debt owed to ECGD by these countries is as follows:

  £ million

  Angola

  118.6

  Burundi

  0

  Central African Republic

  0.5

  Chad

  0

  Congo

  143.1

  DR Congo

  165.5

  Cote D'lvoire

  48.0

  Ethiopia

  15.4

  Ghana

  216.7

  Kenya

  52.9

  414W

  £ million

  Laos PDR

  0

  Liberia

  18.4

  Myanmar

  23.1

  Sierra Leone

  3.6

  Somalia

  29.2

  Sudan

  374.9

  Togo

  15.7

  Vietnam

  54.4

  Yemen

  3.3

  Standard Industrial Classification
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs in each category of the Standard Industrial Classification there were in the North East(a) on 1 January 1997, (b) on 1 January 2000; and how many are estimated for 1 January 2001. [148879]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to r. Jim Cousins, dated 5 February 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of jobs in the North East (148879).
  Available information on employee jobs by Standard Industrial Classification relates to December 1996 and December 1999. The data are published in Table B. 16 of Labour Market Trends. The data are also available via the NOMIS database which may be accessed in the House of Commons Library. Data for December 2000 will be published in the May edition of Labour Market Trends.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the stock of businesses was in each category of the Standard Industrial Classification in the North East(a) on 1 January 1997, (b) on 1 January 2000 and (c) the estimate for 1 January 2001. [148878]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 5 February 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question on the stock of businesses in the North East. (148878)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) operates the Inter Departmental Business Register (IDBR) that holds information on 2 million businesses operating in the UK, representing nearly 99% of economic activity. It combines information on VAT (Value Added Tax) traders and PAYE (Pay As You Earn) employers.From the register, an annual publication is produced under the title 'Size Analysis of UK Businesses (PA1003): ISBN 0–11–536355–6/ ISSN 1363–9013'. This incorporates counts of businesses by size, classification and geographical location. Data relate to March of each year and include those businesses registered for VAT. Figures for the North East, split by 14 broad industrial groupings of the Standard Industrial Classification, are shown in table 10.
  The data have been published annually up to 2000. Data for 2001 will be released in summer 2001 in electronic format on the National Statistics website. Additionally, IDBR data are incorporated in the Small Business Service (SBS) annual publication 'Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Statistics for the United Kingdom 1999: URN 00/92M. This covers all businesses in the UK, including estimates for those operating neither a VAT nor PAYE scheme. Data on a geographical basis are available in table 9 but only for 1998 and 1999.
  Both publications referred to above are available in the House of Commons Library.
  415W

WALES

  Volunteers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost of the proposed fee for security checks of volunteers to voluntary organisations in Wales. [147378]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  An announcement about the level of fees to be charged by the Criminal Records Bureau will be made as soon as possible, taking into account continuing work on the determination of the bureau's costs.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Job Creation (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new jobs he estimates have been created in the Greater London area during the last 12 months. [143930]

  Ms Jowell
  There are no figures available for jobs created in the Greater London area, as there is no requirement for employers to notify any agency when they recruit staff for a new job. However, a set of figures called the "Civilian Workforce in Employment" published by the Office for National Statistics estimate that up to September 2000, there were 68,000 more people employed in Greater London than there were in September 1999.

  Nursery Schools (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding is paid by his Department in the current financial year to the London Borough of Wandsworth for the development of nursery school provision. [145428]

  Ms Hodge
  We are making £2.82 million available to Wandsworth in 2000–01, through specific nursery education grant, for the provision of free early education places for three-year-olds. In 2001–02, Wandsworth will be allocated £2,050,488 for the creation of 1,726 three-year-old places, as a result of which all three-year-olds in Wandsworth will be able to access a free place if their parents want one.

  The Government have also made £67,945 nursery capital funding available to the local education authority from the New Deal for Schools to improve and expand early years services, together with £38,916 to maintained nursery schools to enable them to extend the services they offer.

  There is £9.532 million in the under-5s Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) sub-block that is available to support spending by Wandsworth on nursery provision in 2000–01. Nationally, £122 million has been transferred to SSA for 2001–02 to cover payments for early education places for four-year-olds currently made to local
  416W
  education authorities through Nursery Education Grant. In 2001–02, £10.709 million will be available to Wandsworth in the under-5s sub-block to support spending on nursery provision, including provision of early education places for four-year-olds.

  The funding we are making available to Wandsworth is part of our overall commitment to the early years which includes, for the first time, provision of free early education places for three-year-olds across all sectors. All three-year-olds in England will be able to access a free early education place by September 2004.

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [146588]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Lifelong Learning on 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 142W, and the reply I gave on 27 July 2000, Official Report, column 853W.

  The Government want to hear what people affected by them have to say about proposed new policies. This is an important aspect of the Modernising Government initiative. Public opinion research is, though, subject to the usual strict rules that spending must represent good value for money for the taxpayer and must not be used for party political purposes.

  Information on the costs of surveys undertaken by the Department for Education and Employment could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Playgroups
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding is available for playgroups from(a) the early years initiative and (b) other sources; and if he will make a statement. [146609]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]: Since 1997–98, overall early education funding made available by the Government through the Standard Spending Assessment and Nursery Education Grant, has increased by almost £400 million. This has enabled some 120,000 new, free early education places for three and four-year-olds to be created. These places are available in a range of settings, including private or voluntary pre-schools and playgroups as well as local education authority-maintained nurseries, nursery classes and reception classes.

  Since September 1998, all four-year-olds have been able to access a free, part-time, early education place. By September 2004, all three-year-olds will also be able to access a free place. We are making £986 million available over the years 2001–02 to 2003–04 for the provision of free places for three-year-olds, and other early years initiatives. By March 2001, some 50 per cent. of three-year-olds nationally will have access to a free early

  417W
  education place. We are making a further 80,000 new places available in 2001–02 which will increase to 66 per cent. the number of three-year-olds accessing a free place by March 2002. Playgroups, along with other early education providers, will benefit from this expansion. No authority will have less than about 40 per cent. of free early education places for three-year-olds in its area in 2001–02.

  Total expenditure on nursery education will have increased by £1 billion, to £2 billion, over the period from 1996–97 to 2003–04.

  The Neighbourhood Childcare Initiative will create child care places in 900 Neighbourhood Nursery centres. £203 million is available over the period 2001–04 to enable all sectors to develop new, or extend current, provision and the Government also intend to make up to £100 million available in lottery money from the New Opportunities Fund to help meet capital costs. This will enable existing playgroups to extend their provision to full day care.

  Support is also given to the pre-school playgroups sector in various other ways. In the current year, we are giving grants totalling £2 million to the Pre-school Learning Alliance (PLA), to which the majority of pre-schools are affiliated. This funding supports the PLA's training infrastructure and other activities undertaken by their national headquarters and regional bases.

  £500,000 is being made available this year for grants to voluntary pre-schools and playgroups facing financial difficulties. Grant applications are currently being assessed. A total of £1.75 million has been made available for such grants over the three years 1998–2000. In the first two years of the scheme, grants were made to 1,500 pre-schools and playgroups.

  £250,000 has also been made available this year for projects to enhance the sustainability of voluntary pre-schools and playgroups. Eighteen projects were successful under the scheme.

  Computers for Teachers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the definition of a Key Stage 3 maths teacher is for the purpose of determining qualification for the second phase of the £500 subsidy for the purchase of computer equipment; and if it is a requirement that the recipient be a maths graduate. [147553]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: The definition of Key Stage 3 mathematics teacher for the purposes of determining qualification for the second phase of the Computers for Teachers scheme is that their current responsibilities include teaching mathematics at Key Stage 3 in the maintained secondary sector (including non-maintained special schools and middle schools) in England. (They must teach at least
  418W
  one mathematics Key Stage 3 lesson per week). Those that qualify need not be mathematics graduates.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) of 22 January 2001,Official Report, columns 439–40W, on school playing fields, what the basis is for his estimate of the number of school playing fields sold in England in every month between 1979 and 1997. [147774]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: Public concern about the loss of school playing fields led directly to the introduction in October 1998 of section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Before section 77 was introduced, only grant-maintained schools were required to seek consent from the Secretary of State before selling land, including areas of their playing fields. Local authorities and other schools that owned their own playing fields were free to sell without restriction. It is estimated that an average of 40 playing fields a month were sold in this way before October 1998. This estimate is based on the number of playing field disposals at grant-maintained schools between April 1996, when the previous Government further encouraged the disposal of playing fields by relaxing the Local Authority Capital Finance Regulations which governed the use of sale proceeds, and 1 October 1998, when section 77 took effect. During this 30-month period, some 64 grant-maintained schools were given approval to dispose of areas of playing field, which is an average of over two a month. Using the proportion of grant-maintained schools at that time compared with the number of other schools, we estimate the total number of playing field disposals each month to have been around 40. These estimates are in line with answers given previously by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at this Department.

  Travel Industry Students
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial assistance his Department provides to students studying for qualifications relating to the travel industry. [147950]

  Mr. Wicks
  We make no specific provision for students on courses related to tourism. Financial support is therefore available to those students who are eligible on the same basis as students in further and higher education generally.

  We have, in 2000–01, contributed £103,000 through the Travel, Tourism, and Events National Training Organisation towards a variety of projects to assist employers in the development of a lifelong learning framework to address the current and future skill needs in the industry.
  419W

  Education Rights (UN)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what communications he has received regarding the October 1999 visit of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education; and what measures he is taking to take account of UN concerns, with particular respect to provision for traveller children. [148044]

  Jacqui Smith
  Following the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education's visit to the UK in October 1999, and her visit report which was presented to the Commission on Human Rights in 2000, I have not received any external communications about her earlier visit in October 1999.

  I am nevertheless meeting the Special Rapporteur again on 7 February to discuss the report of her visit. I will use the opportunity to explain the provision we are making to promote access to, and achievement of, traveller children in school.

  The Special Rapporteur will also be meeting my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and Deputy Home Secretary on 7 February, to discuss her concerns about the provision of education in prisons.

  New Deal for Schools: Allocations to schools in the Harrow, West constituency

  Year/school

  Project details

  Grant awarded (£)

  1997–98

  Included within LEA wide package:

  St. George's First and Middle RC (Voluntary Aided)

  Internal alterations

  188,000

  1998–99

  Included within 3 school package:

  Provision of extended fire escapes

  1138,800

  Rooks Heath High

  Harrow Tuition Service PRU

  Hatch End High

  Pinner Park Middle

  Replacement of aging boiler

  46,000

  Whitmore High

  Rewire of technology block and upgrading of key equipment

  38,750

  Shaftesbury High

  Repairs to roof structure, coverings and gutters

  184,000

  Grimsdyke First and Middle

  Rewire of whole school

  155,250

  Included within 5 school package:

  West Lodge Middle

  Renew boilers and/or pipework

  1299,000

  Roxbourne First and Middle

  Rebuild deteriorating parapet wall

  23,000

  LEA wide package for 25 schools

  Waterproof envelope works

  21,058,900

  LEA wide package for 8 schools

  Repair, renewal or demolition of dangerous structures

  2263,000

  1999–2000

  Included within 6 school package:

  Longfield First and Middle

  Urgent health and safety repairs to unsafe structures

  1374,000

  Rooks Heath High

  2000–01

  Roxbourne Middle

  Structural repairs and recladding to first floor link

  29,568

  1 Denotes total allocations made to a package of several projects covering a number of schools in the London borough of Harrow local education authority, which will be able to advise the value of projects at individual schools in the Harrow, West constituency which benefited from these allocations.

  2 Denotes total allocations made to a package of several projects covering a number of schools in the London borough of Brent local education authority, which will be able to advise the value of projects at individual schools in the Harrow, West constituency which benefited from these allocations.

  420W

  New Deal for Schools
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Harrow, West constituency which have received funding under the New Deal for Schools since May 1997, with the amount of funding in each case. [148266]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the schools in the Harrow, West constituency which have benefited from investment through the New Deal for Schools programme, which commenced in 1997–98. These allocations formed part of the £4.554 million investment made so far in schools in the London borough of Harrow local education authority, and of the £6.415 million made so far in schools in the London borough of Brent local education authority, under the New Deal for Schools. The New Deal for Schools was introduced as a new additional programme targeted specifically at addressing the backlog of urgent repairs in school buildings that had built up after 18 years of underfunding under the previous Administration. It is in addition to other capital funds made available to the London borough of Harrow and the London borough of Brent local education authorities.

  Nationally, investment in school buildings has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.2 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £7.8 billion in school buildings in total from 2001–02 to 2003–04.
  421W

  Atrocity Lessons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has issued to schools on the provision of education on the Holocaust and other brutalities that have taken place in recent years. [148309]

  Jacqui Smith
  Within the History National Curriculum all pupils are required to study the Holocaust during Key Stage 3. Within that section there is also an opportunity to examine post war issues including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

  The Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) Education Working Group comprising experts from nongovernmental organisations and DfEE officials produced an education pack for HMD, which was distributed to all schools by the Holocaust Educational Trust. Within the extensive cross-curricular resource pack there is reference to contemporary issues of brutality, and specific material on the recent genocides in the Balkans and Rwanda. The Education Working Group will be developing a strategy for sustainable resources on Holocaust education to support Holocaust Memorial Day in the future.

  Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry. [148395]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 1 February 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment endorses the statement made by the Secretary of State for Health on 30 January about the Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry. In particular, he adds his sympathy to the parents who are affected by the dreadful events described in the report.

  University medical schools will co-operate fully with the NHS Trusts in cataloguing collections of tissue, and will help the NHS Trusts implement the recommendations of the Commission which has been established to oversee the return of tissues and organs in the collections.

  The Council of the University of Liverpool has been asked to take prompt and effective disciplinary action against their employees, where this is warranted. In addition, Ministers have asked Sir Brian Follett, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Warwick, to carry out a review of the adequacy of appraisal and disciplinary procedures for senior staff working in both university medical schools and the NHS.

  Out-of-authority Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish, for each year from 1996–97 to 1999–2000 and for each local education authority, the number of(a) primary and (b) secondary age children who were educated in a local authority area other than the one where they normally reside. [148622]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Secondary Schools (Bristol)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many year six children attending Bristol local education authority primary or junior schools 422W
  failed to gain places in Bristol local education authority secondary schools in each year from 1997–98 to 1999–2000. [148623]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not hold this information. It is for local education authorities to ensure that sufficient school places exist for the children in their area. Each authority is required to prepare and publish an annual School Organisation Plan which includes information about the capacity of its schools, the projected pupil numbers, and any conclusions about the need to add or remove places over a five-year period. The Department publishes annually figures showing the overall number of surplus places based on returns from LEAs. In each of the three years referred to the total capacity of the twenty-two local education authority secondary schools in Bristol exceeded the number of pupils on roll by more than 2,000.

  Professional Footballers (EU Passports)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of non-EU nationals who are refused a work permit to play professional football in the UK but who subsequently obtain an EU passport for a country other than the UK. [148674]

  Ms Hodge
  The Department has made no estimate of the numbers of non-EU nationals who have been refused a work permit to play professional football in the UK, but who subsequently obtain an EU passport for a country other than the UK. The question raised falls outside of the responsibility of this Department.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the number of professional footballers playing for UK clubs who hold passports of EU countries other than the UK but for whom a country outside the EU is their country of origin. [148675]

  Ms Hodge
  The Department has made no assessment of the number of professional footballers playing for UK clubs who hold passports of EU countries other than the UK, but for whom a country outside the EU is their country of origin. The question raised falls outside of the responsibility of this Department.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of professional footballers contracted to UK clubs who hold an EU passport for a country other than the UK and hold joint nationality with a non-EU country. [148676]

  Ms Hodge
  The Department has made no estimate of the number of professional footballers contracted to UK clubs who hold an EU passport for a country other than the UK, and hold joint nationality with a non-EU country. The question raised falls outside of the responsibility of this Department.

  Professional Headship Qualification
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to make the NPQH mandatory for new headteachers of primary, secondary and special schools. [148682]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We remain committed to requiring all first-time headteachers to hold a professional headship qualification as a benchmark of quality. Provision for that
  423W
  is. on the Statute Book. The first recruitment to the new strengthened and streamlined NPQH in autumn 2000 attracted a record number of candidates. The new prpgramme is now rolling out to candidates. We will consult on the necessary Regulations to bring the mandatory requirement into force in due course.

  Funding Allocation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if, following his letter of 29 January to local authority leaders, he will publish the methodology by which his allocation of the additional money was distributed between local authorities. [148684]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 578W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will suspend further transfers of traffic wardens from police authorities to local councils pending an investigation into the effect on police operations where such transfers have taken place. [147099]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. This is a matter between the police force concerned and its local authority.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been served in south Yorkshire, by local authority area. [147103]

  Mr. Boateng
  Three anti-social behaviour orders were issued in the south Yorkshire area between 1 April 1999 (the date on which the relevant provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force), and 30 September 2000 (the latest date for which figures are currently available). We are not able to break this figure down by local authority area.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his assessment is of the effectiveness of the use being made by the police and local authorities of anti-social behaviour orders. [147124]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The purpose of the anti-social behaviour order is to provide local communities with better protection against loutish and anti-social behaviour so far, at least 150 orders have been taken out in a variety of cases and with considerable success

  As Minister of State, my right hon. Friend announced that there would be a review of the operation and effectiveness of this provision within two years, depending on priorities and experience in several areas— Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5 May 1998. We have just embarked on that review, and will publish the results later this year.
  424W

  Police (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to reduce the proportion of police officers who retire early. [147104]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government recognise the need for more efficient management of early retirements caused by ill-health. We have been working with forces for some time to improve management of the process and, nationally, good progress has been made in this area. Whereas in 1993–94, 53 per cent, of all police retirements in England and Wales were on the grounds of ill-health, this had declined to 31 per cent by 1999–2000.

  We are currently considering what incentives could be offered so that more of those officers who currently retire on completion of 30 years' service—but before reaching compulsory retirement age—continue to serve.

  Crime (Devon and Cornwall)
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of crime in Devon and Cornwall. [147106]

  Mr. Straw
  In the 12 months to September 2000, recorded crime in Devon and Cornwall fell by five per cent, compared with the previous 12 months. Burglary was down by six per cent, and vehicle crime was down by two per cent. Violent crime also fell one per cent. Recorded crime in this force area has fallen by 16.5 per cent, since the 12 months to March 1997.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of special police constables. [147107]

  Mr. Straw
  The special constabulary has a long tradition of giving valuable public service, but numbers have declined in recent years.

  Specials are now being deployed on a wider variety of duties than before, including more front-line duties, where they are exposed to the same risks as regular officers.

  Under the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997, police officers, including specials, were brought within the scope of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Police forces must therefore take the necessary measures to safeguard the health and safety of all their officers, and the training and equipment provided to specials is of the same standard as that for regular officers. The recruiting criteria for specials are now very similar to those for regular officers, and a number of applicants who would previously have been accepted into the special constabulary are now being rejected.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office are reviewing the criteria for becoming a special to see whether they have become unnecessarily restrictive.

  Rural Policing
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on rural policing. [147110]
  425W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All areas of the country, urban and rural alike, are equally entitled to benefit from a modern, effective and responsive police service. This is why we are providing for a real and significant increase in police funding across the board. We are also providing extra funding for rural police forces: £15 million this year, rising to £30 million in 2001–02, to help forces meet the additional costs involved in policing rural communities.

  Hilda Murrell
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 11 December 2000,Official Report, column 427W, on Hilda Murrell, when he will provide a reply to the hon. Member, as indicated in his letter of 30 November 2000, on the continuing forensic investigation by the West Mercia police; and if he will make a statement. [147111]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As promised in my answer of 30 November 2000, I have written to my hon. Friend about this case. A copy of my letter of 30 January has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Police Administration
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce the time spent by police officers on administration. [147113]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are implementing proposals from the recent report "Making a Difference: Reducing Police Paperwork", and last November we issued police forces in England and Wales with a revised "Manual of Guidance for the Preparation, Processing and Submission of Files". This will reduce considerably the number of forms officers have to complete when they pass cases to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  We are also investing in a range of new communications technology to minimise the paperwork that officers are required to process.

  Young Offender Institutions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he plans in the regime for young offender institutions. [147114]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have transformed the facilities and regimes for those under 18-years-old. Over £51 million has been invested to achieve this.

  The creation of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales sees for the first time a single organisation with oversight and responsibility for the care and well-being of this age group. The board's purpose is to monitor the operation of the youth justice system and to ensure the delivery of the appropriate level of care and standards.

  The new regime is based upon providing a
  "full, purposeful and active day";

  rigorous assessment of each individual's health, social, educational and vocational needs; formal and specific planning provision of education and the training to meet these needs; regular reviews of each individual's plans; and inter-agency co-operation and support.
  426W
  In relation to those aged 18–20 years, we are considering carefully how this group should be treated in custody as part of our proposals to reform sentencing for this age group. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, which contains provision to abolish the sentence of detention in a young offender institution (d)YOI), provides an opportunity to look at the regime needs of a wider range of young offenders. We recognise that they do have different needs, and our work on regime provision for young offenders, not only the 18–20s, will concentrate on moving them more effectively from custody to work. We have given a commitment that we will not implement the abolition of the sentence of DYOI until we have prepared a Prison Service order to governors covering adult offenders, and we have consulted interested bodies as part of that work.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect on prisoners and staff in young offender institutions of the no overtime policy. [148174]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1987, the conditions of service for all prison officers have been to work a fixed number of hours per week, averaged over a shift cycle. These flexible shift schemes give the best possible match of staff time available for work to be completed. In circumstances when additional hours are required to meet unplanned and unexpected demands, officers can work extra hours for which they receive time off in lieu. Officers can take their time off at a time that does not affect the running of the regimes in the establishment. In exceptional circumstances, when time off in lieu cannot be granted, ex-gratia payments can be authorised. This system has proved to offer the best possible regimes within the resources available in young offender institutes and other types of establishment.

  Hunting Ban (Enforcement)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers at(a) Feltham Young Offenders Institution and (b) other YOIs in the south-east of England were on long-term sickness leave in each of the last three years in (i) actual and (ii) percentage terms. [148172]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is provided for 1999 and 2000 in the table. Reliable sickness absence data are not available prior to 1 January 1999. Of the figures above, 15 officer grades from Feltham and 25 officer grades from the other young offender institutions quoted have sickness absence spread across both years and for the purpose of this reply these have been counted in both years. Long-term sickness absence is defined as greater than one month.

  1 January to 31 December 1999

  1 January to 31 December 2000

  Number of prison officer grades on long-term sickness leave

  Feltham

  51

  37

  Other young offender institutions in south-east of England

  80

  92

  Percentage of prison officer grades on h long-term sickness leave

  Feltham

  15.0

  9.6

  Other young offender institutions in south-east of England

  14.1

  16.0

  427W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Association of Chief Police Officers about the enforcement of a ban on hunting with dogs; and if he will make a statement. [147115]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The views of the Association of Chief Police Officers were sought during the process of drafting the Hunting Bill. The association was concerned primarily about the need for the police to be given an explicit power of arrest to enforce a ban and for the option which introduced a scheme of licensing.

  The association has informed the Home Office that it considers that it is too early to provide a final view on the resource implications of any ban on hunting, or of the other options that were in the Bill. However, if hunting were to be banned it does not anticipate a significant additional burden on the service over its current commitment.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to extend CCTV schemes. [147116]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the crime reduction programme closed circuit television (CCTV) initiative, we are investing £153 million over three years in new or extended CCTV systems in England and Wales.

  Over £60 million of capital funding has already been allocated to crime and disorder reduction partnerships to support more than 350 schemes. Over 750 outline proposals are currently under consideration for funding under round 2 of the initiative.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the level of police recruitment; and if he will make a statement. [147117]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government want to see police numbers rising.

  Our spending plans therefore make generous provision, intended to meet major pay, pensions and other pressures on forces as well as providing ring-fenced funding to increase recruitment through the crime fighting fund (CFF). We anticipate that these measures will enable forces to increase police service numbers to record levels by March 2003.

  The CFF will enable police forces to recruit 9,000 officers over and above the number previously planned in the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03.

  To help forces to meet their recruitment targets, the first ever national recruitment campaign was launched on 30 August 2000 and the second phase of the campaign commenced on 27 December. By 14 January 2001, there had been 78,000 responses to the campaign and 17,070 expressions of interest had been forwarded to police forces.

  The Metropolitan police service and the City of London police have been experiencing particular proble Ms in attracting new recruits. To address these problems we
  428W
  agreed to an increase of £3,327 per annum in the London allowance paid to those officers in each force who were recruited on or after 1 September 1994 and who are not in receipt of housing allowance.

  In addition, agreement has been reached between the Metropolitan police service (MPS) and the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) to provide free rail travel within a 70-mile radius of London for serving MPS police officers. The arrangements will come into effect from Wednesday 14 February. The Home Office will meet the annual cost of £2.45 million.

  The police negotiating board is currently looking at whether there should be an allowance for officers in any other forces. We await any recommendations it may make on this or any other issues in relation to police pay and allowances.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers have disappeared; and if he will make a statement. [147118]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 700.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to promote good community relations in areas where there is a significant number of asylum seekers. [147122]

  Mrs. Roche
  The national asylum support service recognises the importance of good community relations and encourages partnership working between interested parties through a multi-agency approach, which includes voluntary and community groups.

  Anthony Gerald Dickinson
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the case of Mr. Anthony Gerald Dickinson and his application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [147119]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission is operationally independent of the Home Office, and I am unable to intervene in its determination of individual cases or to comment on their merits. I understand that the commission considered an application from Mr. Dickinson, but concluded in March 1998 that the case did not meet the criteria laid down in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 for the commission to make a reference to the Court of Appeal. His legal representatives made a further application on Mr. Dickinson's behalf in May 2000, and I am confident that the commission will consider these representations carefully and impartially.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what ways the regulation of doormen in pubs and clubs will be improved by the Private Security Industry Bill. [147120]
  429W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Private Security Industry Bill provides for the establishment of a security industry authority, which will have responsibility for licensing individuals employed in designated sectors of the security industry, including door supervisors.

  The authority will be responsible for establishing, for the first time, a consistent licensing regime for all door supervisors. This will involve setting nationally applicable criteria, in consultation with the police, industry and local authorities. These will be used in deciding whether to issue a personal licence allowing the applicant to undertake door supervision activities. Initially, the criteria will involve a criminal record check, but over time additional criteria relating to training will be imposed. This aim is to ensure that only fit and proper people receive licences. The main benefits of the new regime will be:
  Anyone intending to operate as a door supervisor will require a licence. This will replace the existing arrangements whereby registration of door staff is left to the discretion of local authorities. All London boroughs operate licensing schemes, but only around 60 per cent, of local authorities outside London have such schemes.
  One national standard will be applied which will ensure a more consistent approach towards issuing licences. Current standards and criteria used for issuing licences vary between local authorities.
  The new licence issued will be valid nationally. The validity of existing licences is limited to particular areas.

  Burglaries
  Ladyman
  32.Dr. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the trend in the number of burglaries in England and Wales. [147121]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The recorded crime statistics for England and Wales published on 16 January show a fall in the total number of burglaries of 8 per cent, in the 12 months to September 2000. Domestic burglary fell by 10 per cent, and non-domestic burglary by 5.5 per cent, in the same period.

  The British crime survey published in October last year, shows that the total number of domestic burglaries, including those that are not reported to, or recorded by, the police, has fallen from just over 1.6 million in 1997 to under 1.3 million in 1999—a 21 per cent, reduction.

  Police Emergency Calls
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the time taken for police to respond to emergency calls. [147123]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Most police authorities set targets for responding to 999 calls and their performance against these targets has been published annually by the Audit Commission.

  The data for performance in 1999–2000 were published on 10 January in the "Local Authority Performance Indicators, Police and Fire Compendium". This recorded that on average, police authorities in England and Wales, which had set a target, had met it 87.6 per cent, of the time. The targets set ranged from 10 minutes to 20 minutes, depending on whether the police were responding to a call from an urban or rural area.
  430W
  In future years, police performance in responding to emergency calls will be published in police authorities "Annual Policing/Best Value Performance Plans".

  Elderly People (Attacks and Abuse)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many old people were victims of(a) attacks and (b) abuse in (i) England and Wales and (ii) West Yorkshire in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [147125]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the age of victims is available from the British crime survey (BCS). The 2000 sweep of the survey estimates that in 1999 there were 130,000 violent incidents against persons aged 60 and over in England and Wales and that there were also 158,000 incidents where persons aged 60 and over were threatened1. It is not possible to derive from the BCS reliable figures for West Yorkshire.

  These estimates are based on incidents reported to BCS interviewers and respondents may be reluctant to reveal all for Ms of abuse or attack. It should also be noted that the BCS only interviews respondents who live in private households.
  1This includes any threat made to a BCS respondent or a threat against the respondent that was not necessarily made directly to the respondent.

  .Police/School Liaison (Anti-racist Guidance)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on liaison between the police and schools on schemes to provide anti-racist guidance in the classroom. [147126]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Association of Chief Police Officers guidance to forces on identifying and combating hate crime and hate incidents highlights the importance of including racist and other hate issues in police/school liaison strategies. The anti-bullying pack, recently reissued to all schools by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, provides advice on the range of strategies which are available to deal with all forms of bullying, including bullying by race. These include multi-agency partnerships with the police and other key agencies.

  Wheel Clamping and Private Security Firms
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in relation to his proposals for the licensing of wheel clamping and private security firms. [147096]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We received a number of representations about our proposals to regulate the private security industry, including wheel clamping, in England and Wales.

  Around 180 comments were received in response to our White Paper "The Government's proposals for regulation of the private security industry in England and Wales", which was published in March 1999. We also received representations following the publication of the Private Security Industry Bill, which was introduced into the House of Lords on 7 December 2000.
  431W
  A wide variety of organisations submitted representations. These included industry inspectorates, local authorities, the police, trade unions and representative bodies in the leisure industry. Trade and professional associations also submitted comments, including the British Parking Association, on the subject of our proposals relating to wheel clampers.

  Alcohol Consumption (Public Places)
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in designated public places. [147108]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Measures to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in designated public places are included in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which is now before the House.

  Police Numbers (Humberside)
  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police numbers in Humberside. [147112]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the chief constable that the Humberside police has 1,915 police officers and that this will increase to around 1,930 officers by the end of the current financial year.

  At this stage, the force expects to recruit its full allocation of 47 officers under the crime fighting fund this year.

  Young Offenders (Cell Hours)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Prison Service to collect separately the number of out of cell hours for(a) sentenced and (b) remand prisoners in young offender units. [148176]

  Mr. Boateng
  Time spent out of cell is one of a range of national key performance targets for prison establishments. Data on time spent out of cell are held in various forms at local level and discussed with area managers as part of the performance monitoring process. However, there are no plans to collect or collate such data centrally.

  Feltham Young Offenders Institution
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the waiting time was for psychiatrically disturbed adolescents in Feltham young offenders institution to obtain placements in NHS beds or secure psychiatric places in(a) each quarter for the last two years and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available [148173]

  Mr. Boateng
  Historic information on waiting times for mental health transfers from Feltham young offenders institution (YOI) is not available. As of 31 January 2001, seven prisoners from Feltham YOI had been accepted for and were awaiting transfer to national health service mental health units. Of these, six had been waiting for under one month following acceptance and one had been waiting for two months. The individuals concerned are all over the age of 18.
  432W

  Prison Staff (Retention and Recruitment)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison staff of principal officer grade and above have(a) resigned and (b) transferred out of prisons in the Greater London area in each of the last three years. [148175]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Year

  Resigned

  Transferred

  1998

  1

  25

  1999

  2

  16

  2000

  2

  41

  2001

  6

  82

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies for prison officers were(a) advertised and (b) filled in each institution in the north-west of England between July 2000 and the latest date for which information is available. [148135]

  Mr. Boateng
  None of the establishments in the north-west of England has had advertised vacancies between July 2000 and 31 January 2001.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of funding the Criminal Records Bureau(a) centrally and (b) by charges for certificates issued. [148041]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Work on determining the bureau's costs is continuing. An announcement about charges will be made as soon as possible.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to voluntary associations which operate in England and Scotland on paying a contribution to the Criminal Records Bureau. [148694]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No such guidance has been issued, although detailed information and guidance on the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau will be made available before it begins to issue certificates. An announcement on the level of charge will be made shortly. Separate arrangements will apply in Scotland, where checks will be made by the Scottish Criminal Records Office.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he uses to decide when an application for naturalisation should be processed and determined(a) urgently and (b) otherwise than in date order of application. [147601]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: There are various criteria for giving priority, such as where a person needs British citizenship for a particular job, but these criteria are not intended to cover all the circumstances which may arise. Discretion may therefore be exercised in the particular circumstances of an individual case.
  433W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for naturalisation on grounds of residence were granted within(a) six months, (b) nine months and (c) 12 months of the date of application in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999 and (iv) 2000; and if he will make a statement. [147599]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: The information is given in the table. The data are not available for part of the years 1997 and 2000, due to intermittent proble Ms with information technology and operator error, but nevertheless enables comparisons to be made. The table includes only applications made under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, based on five years' residence in the United Kingdom.

  Applications decided within

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Total

  Six months

  331

  486

  1,112

  1,371

  3,300

  Nine months

  758

  722

  1,345

  1,819

  4,644

  12 months

  1,946

  1,935

  1,819

  4,733

  10,433

  Total

  3,035

  3,143

  4,276

  7,923

  18,377

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that applications for naturalisation should be processed and determined in date order of application; and if he will make a statement. [147603]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: Applications for naturalisation as British citizens are normally given initial consideration in date of receipt order. It has long been the case that, in appropriate circumstances, initial consideration may be given out of turn. Some measure of priority may also be afforded to subsequent stages of the process.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what changes he has made to policy on naturalisation since 1 May 1997; when such changes took effect; and if he will make a statement; [147631]

  (2) what action he has taken to alter the residence requirements for citizenship in line with paragraph 10.7 of the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer-A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum". [147632]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 22 December 1997 that henceforth reasons would be given in all cases where applications for British citizenship were being refused. In June 1998, it was decided that the benefit of the doubt should normally be given to applicants where there was a conflict of professional opinion over their ability to meet the full capacity requirement. In the same month, it was decided that where breaches of the immigration laws were due to invalidly completed applications for leave to remain they should normally be disregarded for naturalisation purposes. We have yet to give more detailed consideration to effecting the changes in the residence requirements outlined in paragraph 10.7 of the White Paper.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to require individuals seeking British citizenship to attend instruction on the rights and responsibilities that come with the grant of citizenship. [147102]
  434W
  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no plans to introduce such a requirement.

  Rugby League
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the investigation by the Charity Commission into Rugby League. [148564]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: This is a matter for the Charity Commission, which will write to my hon. Friend. A copy of the Commission's reply will be placed in the Library.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it took to process Mr. S. Hinduja's application for citizenship; and how long the average case takes. [147795]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: On the time taken to process Mr. S. P. Hinduja's application for naturalisation, I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 29 January 2001, Official Report, column 75W.

  For a breakdown of the number of applications processed within certain time periods, I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury on 2 February 2001, Official Report, column 339W.

  As at the end of December 2000, the average waiting time for all nationality applications was 13.1 months. In March 1999 it was 19.9 months.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of his Department's Ministers were involved in considering the nationality application of Mr. G. P. Hinduja in 1997; which other Ministers made representations to his Department's Ministers about Mr. G. P. Hinduja in 1997; to which Minister these were made; and if he will make a statement and place the transcripts of all telephone conversations and officials' minutes of such representations, conversations and meetings in the Library. [148750]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) on 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 166W.

  Criminal Justice and Police Bill
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 29 January 2001,Official Report, columns 37–38, when he plans to bring clause 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill into force. [148188]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We plan to bring clause 33 into force as soon as possible after enactment of the Bill.

  Emergency Services (Hoax Calls)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hoax 999 calls were
  435W
  received by the Metropolitan police in the last five years for which figures are available; and what percentage of total 999 calls were received by the police. [148214]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that 999 calls received by the Metropolitan police are graded to the degree of the response required.

  The category that contains hoax calls and calls to which a police response is not deemed appropriate is shown in the table.

  Year

  Total number of calls received

  Total number of hoax calls and calls to which a police response not deemed necessary

  1996

  2,265,785

  862,741

  1997

  2,335,653

  961,500

  1998

  2,388,084

  1,075,628

  1999

  2,250,164

  1,194,380

  2000

  2,510,652

  1,285,680

  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has also informed me that 999 calls passed to the police and other emergency services by the telephone suppliers is estimated to be:

  Police—60 per cent.

  Ambulance—30 per cent.

  Fire Brigade—10 per cent.

  Coast Guard—Less than 1 per cent.

  Burglar Alarms
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglar alarm activations were responded to by the Metropolitan police in each of the last five years; and how many turned out to be false alarms. [148215]

  Number of offences in the Metropolitan area involving telephone equipment

  Burglary

  Theft of vehicles

  Theft from vehicles

  Total number in 1999–20001

  129,145

  62,791

  112,206

  Number of telephone equipment items stolen in 20002

  14,831

  943

  15,559

  Percentage of offences involving theft of telephone equipment

  11

  2

  14

  1Recorded Crime Statistics, full data for the year 2000 are not yet available

  2Provided by the Metropolitan police; it is not known how many of the items were mobile telephones

  Prison Population
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average prison population was in each of the last 10 years; what the population was on the latest date for which information was available; what his projections are for the level of the prison population in the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [148578]

  Mr. Boateng
  The following is the average prison population in each of the last 10 years:
  436W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that the number of burglary alarm activations handled by the Metropolitan police service in the last five years for which figures are available is as follows:

  Years

  Total activations

  Total false activations

  1995

  321,588

  289,589

  1996

  290,306

  218,447

  1997

  239,368

  205,950

  1998

  215,572

  188,420

  1999

  219,503

  183,996

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours of Metropolitan police time were occupied by burglar alarm activations in each of the last five years. [148216]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that the Metropolitan police do not keep records detailing the amount of police time spent dealing with burglar alarm activations.

  Mobile Phone Thefts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mobile phones were stolen in the Metropolitan police area last year(a) during burglaries and (b) in motor vehicle crime. [148217]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan police force did not identify, before December 2000, the theft of mobile telephones separately from all telephone equipment, including fax machines, earphones and answer phones etc.

  The approximate proportion of offences in the Metropolitan police area where telephone equipment was stolen is shown in the table. The proportions are not exact as the number of telephone equipment items stolen does not correspond exactly to the number of offences where telephone equipment was stolen. For example, a burglary where two telephones were stolen will yield one offence of burglary and two items of equipment stolen.

  Year

  Number

  1991

  45,900

  1992

  45,800

  1993

  44,600

  1994

  48,800

  1995

  51,000

  1996

  55,300

  1997

  61,100

  1998

  65,300

  1999

  64,800

  2000

  64,000

  Source

  Prison Statistics England and Wales 1999,Cm4805,
  437W
  The population on the latest date available (1 February 2001) was 63,620.The following is the latest prison population projection, in each of the next five years.

  Year

  Number

  2001

  64,200

  2002

  65,900

  2003

  67,800

  2004

  69,200

  2005

  70,300

  source

  prison population Brief, England and Wales November 2000;http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/whatsnew1.html.

  Offenders prosecuted at the magistrates court, convicted at all courts and the conviction rate for certain offences, England and Wales, 1990–991

  All offences2

  Violent crime3

  Property crime4

  Year

  Prosecutions (thousand)

  Convictions (thousand)

  Conviction rate (percentage)

  Prosecutions (thousand)

  Convictions (thousand)

  Conviction rate (percentage)

  Prosecutions (thousand)

  Convictions (thousand)

  Conviction rate (percentage)

  1990

  1,969.3

  1,562.7

  79.4

  126.0

  81.2

  64.5

  280.7

  213.6

  76.1

  1991

  1,984.5

  1,519.9

  76.6

  124.7

  74.0

  59.4

  296.2

  214.1

  72.3

  1992

  2,047.0

  1,528.4

  74.7

  128.7

  71.7

  55.7

  291.3

  205.0

  70.4

  1993

  1,956.3

  1,425.3

  72.9

  127.0

  67.3

  53.0

  278.0

  191.9

  69.0

  1994

  1,969.7

  1,424.6

  72.3

  132.9

  68.9

  51.8

  278.6

  191.2

  68.6

  1995

  1,927.5

  1,429.7

  74.2

  124.5

  68.3

  54.8

  258.1

  181.1

  70.2

  1996

  1,923.0

  1,440.8

  74.9

  129.2

  70.3

  54.4

  251.1

  175.5

  69.9

  1997

  1,855.3

  1,385.8

  74.7

  138.4

  76.7

  55.4

  254.0

  180.2

  71.0

  1998

  1,951.9

  1,469.7

  75.3

  148.8

  82.5

  55.4

  261.7

  189.9

  72.6

  1999

  1,883.6

  1,409.7

  74.8

  153.8

  83.1

  54.0

  266.0

  194.5

  73.1

  1Includes allowances for known shortfalls in the data. It is not possible to produce estimates for the more detailed offence categories.

  2Taken as all indictable, summary non-motoring and summary motoring offences.

  3Includes the indictable offence groups of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery and the summary offences of assault.

  4Includes the indictable offence groups of burglary, theft and handling stolen goods, fraud and forgery and criminal damage and the summary offence of interference with motor vehicles.

  Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what average length of custodial sentence was given by(a) magistrates courts and (b) crown courts in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; what proportion of all sentences ere custodial sentences in each of those years; if he will reak down the data by category of crime and in total;and if he will make a statement. [148579]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information covering the period 1989 to 1999 and showing the proportion of males and females aged 21 and over sentenced to immediate imprisonment for indictable offences and the average length of sentence given by offence group and type of court is published in tables 7.15 and 7.16, "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1999" (Cm 5001).

  Afghan Hijacking
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the immigration status of those persons who claimed asylum after arriving on the hijacked Afghan airliner in February 2000, how many such persons have left the United Kingdom to date; and if he will make a statement. [148821]

  Mrs. Roche
  Of the 170 passengers who arrived on the aircraft, 81 returned to Afghanistan. 51 passengers claimed asylum. Because of the exceptional circumstances of the hijack and the wider issues surrounding it, the Home Secretary personally decided each of the asylum claims.
  438W

  Conviction Rates
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there were, and what the conviction rate was, for(a) all crimes, (b) violent crime and (c) property crime in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [148580]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Available information, taken from the Home Office court proceedings database, showing the number of offenders prosecuted at the magistrates court, convicted at all courts and the conviction rates for(a) all crimes, (b) violent crime and (c) property crime in each of the last 10 years is given in the table.

  Of the cases which have been considered to date, four have been granted asylum and 35 refused. 30 of the subsequent appeals to the independent appellate authority have been dismissed, confirming the Home Secretary's original decision.

  The appellants whose appeals were dismissed are entitled to remain in the United Kingdom pending the outcome of their appeals to the tribunal.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost has been in 2000–01 of accommodation paid for by the National Asylum Support Service during the periods when such accommodation was(a) occupied and (b) unoccupied; and if he will make a statement. [148826]

  Mrs. Roche
  In the period 1 April to 31 December the total cost of accommodation paid for by the National Asylum Support Service was £26.7 million. Of this, £19.9 million related to payments for properties that were occupied by asylum seekers.

  The remaining £6.8 million related to accommodation pre-booked by the National Asylum support Service. This is a necessary operational requirement to ensure that sufficient accommodation units are available to meet demand.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has conducted into housing asylum seekers in reception
  439W
  centres; what the conclusions were of that research; if he will place the conclusions of the research in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [148823]

  Mrs. Roche
  The potential role of reception centres was considered by officials as part of the comprehensive spending review completed in 1998, but there has been no research on this subject.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce the backlog of asylum applications to frictional levels by April; what he estimates will be the size of the backlog in April; and when he estimates that the backlog will be cleared. [148822]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have substantially increased resources to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), which has enabled an additional 500 asylum decision-makers to be recruited, and as a result the backlog has fallen for each of the last 11 months.

  IND estimates that a frictional level of work is likely to be in the range 25,000–35,000 cases awaiting initial decision, depending on the level of intake, the nationality mix of the intake and external factors (for example, conflicts or civil unrest) which may mean certain groups of cases cannot be substantively considered at a particular time.

  Subject to these factors, we expect the backlog to reduce to close to frictional levels during April.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the most recent crime figures for the Vale of Glamorgan. [147105]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the chief constable of South Wales police that there have been significant reductions in recorded crime in the Vale of Glamorgan. Domestic burglaries fell by 29 per cent., thefts of a motor vehicle fell by 26 per cent., and theft from a motor vehicle fell by 18 per cent. There was also a small fall in violent crime of 0.6 per cent, (six offences).

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reverse the growth in violent crime in the Avon and Somerset area since 1997. [148685]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are committed to reducing violent crime and the fear of violent crime and to ensuring that individuals and communities are protected and safe. We are working in partnership with the police, including Avon and Somerset constabulary, and other agencies across the country on a wide range of ways to tackle violent crime. Our strategic approach to combating violent crime is set out in "fighting violent crime together"—an action plan published in January.

  The Government are putting in place the investment to make sure that the police have the resources they need. Under the crime fighting fund, Avon and Somerset constabulary have been allocated 195 additional recruits over and above previous plans, over a three-year period
  440W
  from 2000 to 2003. I understand from the force that they will be able to recruit their full allocation in 2000–01. Last year, the Home Office awarded the Avon and Somerset constabulary a grant of £1.1 million to tackle robbery in Bristol. This will be used to target hot spots and run education campaigns.

  Under the Government's crime and disorder reduction partnerships, Avon and Somerset constabulary are working with other agencies to put in place a number of initiatives to tackle violent crime, notably domestic violence, alcohol-related violence and bullying.

  Avon and Somerset constabulary have confirmed that some of the rise in recorded violent crime in the Avon and Somerset area is due to the increase in reporting of domestic and racial violence. The Government, the police service and other agencies have been working together to raise awareness of these crimes, and to increase reporting, detection rates and support for the victim. In South Gloucestershire, for example, a number of initiatives are currently in place to tackle domestic violence. The police are working in partnership with hospitals to improve reporting, and in the major casualty units a freephone service has been installed to link domestic violence victims with the police and other agencies when they are most vulnerable.

  Charities
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the voluntary registration of charities. [149274]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am grateful to all who responded to the recent consultation on this issue. There was general agreement as to the purposes of registration as set out in the consultation document. The responses received made it clear, however, that voluntary registration is a complex matter which requires further careful examination and consideration before informed decisions can be reached on longer-term policy. I have asked officials to develop more detailed proposals in the light of the responses to the consultation and in discussion with interested organisations.

  The current regulations which made registration voluntary for charities connected with a number of religious bodies expire on 1 March 2001. I am today laying a new statutory instrument to extend those regulations until 30 September 2002. This will allow time for the necessary work to be done to enable the way forward to be settled.

  I will make a further announcement later this year, but I want at this stage to allay concerns expressed by some of those consulted that one of the proposals in the consultation document meant that umbrella bodies would be compelled to take on responsibilities which neither they nor their members want. I can give an absolute assurance that that was not, and is not, the Government's intention.

  Many respondents were also concerned that any change could make it more difficult for the public to find out about charities. The further work that I have commissioned will explore ways of making sure that this is not the case.
  441W

  Prison Service
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the review of the Prison Service's suicide and self-harm strategy; and if he will make a statement. [149275]

  Mr. Straw
  The review's analysis and recommendations have been accepted by the Director General of the Prison Service and by Ministers, and will be implemented progressively from April 2001 with the aim of year-on-year reductions in prisoner suicide and self-harm. There will be a strong stress on a preventive strategy which invests most resources where the risks are highest. An all-round pro-active approach will be developed which encourages a supportive culture in prisons based on good staff-prisoner relationships, a constructive regime and a physically safe environment. There will be improved identification and case arrangements for high-risk prisoners.

  The review's recommendations will be developed and piloted in five establishments: Wandsworth, Feltham, Eastwood Park, Leeds and Winchester. They will be evaluated and rolled out to other prisons. The three-year strategy will involve a major investment of capital and staff in prisons. In the first year, £8 million will be invested in implementation. Improvements will be made to reception and induction areas, for example through installing more first night centres, and by having more safe cells, crisis suites and gated cells. New health care screening procedures will start in 10 pilot prisons. Wing staff will be supported in their work by in-reach mental health teams and by the establishment of dedicated drug detoxification units. There will be full-time suicide prevention co-ordinators in high-risk local prisons. The numbers of trained listeners at high-risk prisons will be increased substantially.
  442W
  Copies of the review are being placed in the Library. The review recommended:

  a move away from awareness towards prevention;

  a risk-based strategy which invests more resources where the risks are highest and matches the level of support and intervention to the degree or risk of self-harm or suicide presented by the individual prisoner;

  improved screening and levels of specialist support;

  a better physical environment for prisoners, particularly when first received into custody;

  more training in mental health and suicide prevention for front line staff in particular;

  better interventions for the management of repetitive self-injury;

  increased numbers of prisoner listeners in high risk prisons; and

  better links with other agencies within the criminal justice system.

  Police (Expenditure)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total expenditure on advertising to recruit special constables was in the last five years; what the total number of new recruits was in the same period; what the net change in the number of specials over the period was; and if he will make a statement. [145710]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 January 2001, c. 490W]: The figures given were incorrect. The correct figure for the number of special constables recruited for the five years from 1995–96 to 1999–2000 was 17,836. There was a net loss of 5,428 special constables during this period. The net loss figure of 2,137 given in my original reply was actually the number leaving the special constabulary from March 1999 to March 2000 only.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Foreign Policy: White Papers
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that a White Paper on foreign policy would offer a contribution to public understanding and debate comparable to that provided by the recent White Paper on international development, Eliminating World Poverty: Making Giobalisation Work for the Poor.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government attach great importance to promoting public understanding and debate of foreign policy. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office sees great value in White Papers on specific issues and has produced its own White Papers on human rights and on the Overseas Territories, and worked extensively on the Department for International Development's White Paper on eliminating world poverty. Through the Foreign Office website, the annual departmental report and the human rights report, we give an up-to-date and comprehensive account of our foreign policy achievements and objectives.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I have read the Foreign Office annual report and much admired the photographs of the noble Baroness on pages 37, 75 and 120. It is, however, an annual report. Is she aware that when I asked the Printed Paper Office whether I might have the annual report of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it took the office several minutes to discover whether there was one and then to find a copy? It is not the best known document. Has she been briefed that in a speech in April 1974 the Labour Foreign Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, proposed that there should be an annual foreign policy White Paper? The noble Lord has sent me a nice note apologising for the fact that he is unable to be present today to comment on the Question. Does she not agree that a foreign policy White Paper setting out in broad terms the objectives and aims of British foreign policy would serve as a much better basis for informed public debate than what is currently available?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot, most unusually, agree with the noble Lord in this instance, although I am most grateful for his flattering comments about my photographs. However, those noble Lords who see the report will soon know that
930
those comments are unjustified. The Government have tried to focus on ensuring that the greatest degree of information is made available in the public domain. Noble Lords will know that the website is a successful means of communication and that the annual report has been very useful. The White Papers have been contributed to by a number of different departments. In our view, there is comprehensive information in the public domain.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I welcome back the noble Baroness from her mission to the antarctic. Nothing much has happened here since she has been away! I agree that to put the whole of our foreign policy, which nowadays is interwoven with domestic policy, into one White Paper would be a Herculean task and might produce a very fat volume.
However, can we at least be a little clearer, whether in a White Paper or elsewhere, about our policy in relation to the United States, which I know is at the top of the Foreign Office agenda? Will we really be able to meet the growing American worries about the European Rapid Reaction Force, expressed very forcefully yesterday by Secretary of State Rumsfeld, or will we continue with the faintly anti-American line pursued on this issue by the French and to some extent the Germans? Will we support the Americans on national missile defence, which is now getting to the point where we must say clearly to them that we are on their side and that we will make facilities at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill fully available for the development of what will, in the long term, be a very valuable asset for world peace?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for noticing my safe return. Perhaps I may reassure him that our policy in relation to America is well known and understood by our partners. The Americans are our closest allies. We have worked with them through centuries, not just years. In relation to NMD and other matters, those issues are the subject of constant conversation between ourselves and the Americans, and that will continue.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in saying how pleased we are to see the Minister back with us, perhaps I may press her just a little further. It would be helpful if the objectives of this country's foreign policy on at least three matters could be made clear in a White Paper or a report. First, would it not be useful to have a more detailed statement on the Foreign Office's attitude towards peacemaking and peacekeeping forces and the role of Europe within that? Secondly, would it not be reasonable to make it very clear that there are no grounds for fearing the European strategic defence initiative because it is fully, in the view of the Government, within the framework of NATO? Finally, with regard to national missile defence, will the noble Baroness keep strongly to the line that she has so far adhered to in this Chamber; namely, that national missile defence must be seen in the wider context of the whole of arms control, disarmament and the pursuit of a secure peace in the world, which means that it would be most unwise at the moment to jump one way or the other definitively?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government have always been prepared to consider having a White Paper in relation to specific issues when the need arises. That was demonstrated by, for instance, the White Paper on the Overseas Territories. So we shall certainly continue to look at that point. The noble Baroness is right to say in relation to NMD that the Americans have not themselves decided which way they wish to fashion their policy. We very much appreciated the comments made by Colin Powell, who also emphasised that he intended to make sure that consideration is given to other views—from the EU, Russia and China. All those thoughts, from a new administration, are comforting and should be welcomed. We will give proper consideration to any request made by our American colleagues once they have fashioned what they themselves would like to do. At the moment, they do not know; and it would be quite improper for us to seek to comment until they do.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it might be advisable to return to the Question on the Order Paper, much as I would like to follow both the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, down the labyrinthine way of the strategic defence initiative? Does she further agree that the publication of a White Paper on defence, which was I believe the subject of the original Question, would be extremely valuable?
Noble Lords: Foreign policy.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am sorry, I meant to say that the publication of a White Paper on foreign policy would be a wise move. The noble Lord pointed out that it is possible to find out a great deal on defence matters, with which noble Lords can then agree or disagree. However, does the Minister agree that foreign policy is another matter and that a White Paper on it would be extremely valuable?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we agree that White Papers can be valuable in relation to certain specific points. However, I should say again that the FCO is committed to openness and diversity. From day one, with the Foreign Secretary's press launch of his FCO objectives and the FCO open days, this Government have made enormous progress in this endeavour. We are trying to find as many vehicles as we can to encourage full discussion, openness and transparency. That will continue and we believe it to be the best way forward.

Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
2.44 p.m.
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majestys Government:
What are the financial and other implications of the delay, until 1st July, of the break-up of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
Lord Burlison: My Lords, on 24th July 2000, we announced the public/private partnership model for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. Around three-quarters of the current organisation will become a company. For strategic reasons, the remainder will be retained within the Ministry of Defence.
Operational separation is envisaged by 1st April 2001. Legal separation will follow on 1st July. This was chosen in preference to the earlier dates to ensure sufficient time for testing and risk reduction. The choice does not affect the overall PPP timetable nor does it have any significant financial or other consequences.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Answer given a couple of weeks ago by his right honourable friend in another place in response to a Written Question. However, it would seem that additional costs will be incurred. What will be the profits accruing to Her Majesty's Government as a result of this separation? What sum of money will accrue to the Ministry of Defence to relieve the defence budget?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I do not think that it would be in the interests of taxpayers to speculate at this stage on how we believe the new DERA will be constructed and what it will be worth. As regards the precise timing of these transactions, given that value for money will ultimately be the determining factor, it would not be possible or right of me to give a definitive response on this particular issue in view of the discussions that will be taking place over the coming months.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister speculate whether the delay until 1st July might have anything to do with the possibility of a general election intervening between now and then, given that the Labour Party will be defending a number of marginal seats containing DERA employees?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, this issue has been in progress over the past 18 months. Those who have followed it closely know that it has not been without its backers or its opponents. Ultimately, although the vesting day has been scheduled for 1st July, this is no indication that it has been in any way determined by a general election. Who knows which side of an election that date will fall? I could not tell the noble Lord the answer to that question.

Teaching Profession
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwarkasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to resolve the shortage of teachers and the difficulty of recruiting suitable headteachers.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we acknowledge that there are shortages in some subjects in some parts of the country. However, there are more teachers than for a decade and the number of trainee teachers has risen for the first time in eight years. We have also seen a threefold increase in the number of people applying to train as headteachers. The proposals for teachers' and headteachers' pay that my right honourable friend announced last Friday will help and should be welcomed in those schools where shortages exist.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply and I welcome the good news it contains. However, how do the Government intend to tackle the underlying problem of low morale among teachers? In recent years that has led to a 50 per cent increase in the numbers leaving the profession for other employment. Furthermore, two-thirds of all vacancies for headteachers in inner London alone have had to be re-advertised two or occasionally three times; even then, some vacancies still remain.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put a wide-ranging question to me. The priority given to education by this Government right across the range of policies for which they are responsible is perhaps the most important element here. That priority should help to raise teachers' morale. Substantial additional investment is being made in education at every level. Furthermore, the changes being made by the Government, including bringing in a large number of teaching assistants to support teachers in the classroom, should also help, as will the pay increases announced last week.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the greatest incentives for young teachers is knowing that they are going into classrooms which are in a good state of repair with smaller class sizes? Does she further agree that the support of the General Teaching Council and the National College of School Leadership will genuinely help to raise the morale and professional development of teachers?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Setting up the National College of Leadership has demonstrated to headteachers the importance that we attach to them. Every piece of educational research shows how important—the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, will be familiar with this—the quality of headteachers is to the quality of our schools. As I said in my initial Answer, there has been a substantial increase in the number of people applying to be headteachers. Long may that continue.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her Answer to my noble friend had an air of corn placency about it? Although there has been a small upturn in the recruitment of ordinary teachers, there is still a vast shortage, not merely a spatial shortage, in
934
certain parts of the country. Has not the time come when we should encourage our sixth-formers to think more positively about going into teaching? Do the Government have any proposals to encourage sixth-formers to look more positively at teaching and perhaps to give them some financial encouragement?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not think I said anything in my initial Answer that was at all complacent. I acknowledged that there are shortages, but they are not right across the country and in every subject; for example, we do not have a shortage of teachers in primary schools. Of course we should do everything possible to encourage able and talented young people to come into teaching, which is an enormously important profession. It is also an honourable profession. That is something that we should be saying again and again; we should all talk up teaching. In our sixth forms, we are providing information about the challenges of teaching for a young person who wants to work with young people and we are providing all the necessary information about improvements in pay. We need to bring in not only those at the sixth-form stage but young graduates and older people. The Government are operating on all those fronts.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, given that there are some subjects in some secondary schools where recruitment is difficult, does the Minister have any information on the relative recruiting difficulty of the secondary school system in general as compared with the several hundred specialist schools which have been set up in recent years?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord any figures. I shall be happy to go back to my department to find out whether there is any less of a problem so far as concerns teacher supply in subjects such as science, technology and modern languages in the specialist colleges. As a result of the decision to pay teachers in shortage subjects—such as maths, science, technology and modern languages—a £4,000 bonus, if you like, after their induction year, we have seen a substantial improvement in the numbers coming forward.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not only pay but an overload of paperwork and prescription that is causing problems in recruitment and retention in the teaching profession? Is she further aware that since May 1997 her department has set 4,585 targets, which require a total of more than 300 million items to be monitored by schools and local education authorities, often on a quarterly basis? Does she not feel that this is bureaucracy gone berserk?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept that some teachers may find excessive the amount of paperwork that they have been asked to do over successive years. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made a commitment to cut the

935
number of documents going to our primary and secondary schools by a third and to reduce by 50 per cent the number of pages through which teachers—for the most part headteachers—have to wade. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is continuing concern at the shortage of male teachers in schools, particularly in primary schools? Can she say what action the Government are taking to remedy that position? Can she further say what is the trend? Is there a trend towards a greater number of male teachers coming into schools, or is there a continuing decline?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are concerned about the number of male teachers working in our primary schools, which is largely where there has been a shortfall in the number of men coming forward. There has been some reduction in the overall number of men teaching in our primary schools. The Government are concerned to encourage young men—and, indeed, older men who are looking for a career change—to come into teaching, especially into primary teaching. The measures that I have mentioned already, particularly pay increases—men appear to be more affected by levels of pay in professions of this kind than women—should have some impact.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, having read the debate in another place on teacher shortages, I can say that there is complacency in the department about this issue. Across the country and across the sector, particularly in primary and secondary schools, many full-time posts are not being filled. In the subject areas, many whole subjects in secondary schools are going without specialist teaching. The Chief Inspector of Schools said recently that all of this is beginning to have an effect on standards. Does not the noble Baroness agree with that?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not agree that the Government are complacent. We are taking a huge range of actions to ensure that we have enough people coming forward to teach in our schools, to ensure that we retain teachers and that fewer teachers leave the profession. The overall vacancy rate is less than I per cent; it is about 0.8 per cent. I do not want to be complacent—it would be far better if there was no vacancy rate whatever —but the number of teachers in our schools qualified to teach a particular subject is going up rather than down. However, we must continue to work to keep the vacancy rate at the lowest possible level.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, has the Minister considered the impact of these very welcome rises for schoolteachers on the recruitment of university teachers? A teacher in a secondary school with one year's postgraduate and five to seven years' teaching experience has the prospect of a considerably higher salary than a university teacher with the
936
equivalent rate and three-years of debt-laden graduate work. Does not the Minister think that this will have an adverse effect on the recruitment of the next generation of university teachers?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not know. I suspect not. The pool from which people who want to be university teachers are drawn—that is, graduate students who have completed PhDs—is different from the one from which primary and secondary school teachers are drawn. I hope the noble Lord agrees that it is vitally important that we have enough good, high-quality teachers who are committed to the profession working in our primary and secondary schools. Without that, we shall not reach the standards that all universities want to see when they are recruiting from secondary schools at the sixth-form stage.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give the House any good news in regard to the numbers of teachers of modern languages, particularly Spanish and Portuguese? These languages have traditionally trailed behind German and French in spite of the fact that Spanish is a global language. Can she further say whether there is any imbalance on a regional basis in the numbers of such teachers?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I said in an earlier reply that the numbers of teachers of modern languages have improved as a result of the Government's intervention to pay teachers in shortage subjects an additional £4,000 after they have completed their induction year. I cannot comment specifically on the situation with regard to Spanish and Portuguese teachers. I shall write to the noble Baroness on that issue.

European Monetary Union: Entry Criteria
2.59 p.m.
Lord Taverneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish before the next election an assessment of progress in meeting their criteria for possible entry into European monetary union.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have said that they will make an assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, why on earth cannot the Government, from time to time, give their judgment on progress towards meeting the five tests? If the national institutes and others can do it, why the secrecy in the Treasury? Will the Minister at least assure us that the final judgment as to whether the convergence tests have been complied with will not be left exclusively to the Treasury, in order to quash suspicions in certain quarters that the Chancellor, in

937
taking such a decision, might just be influenced by the effect on his own career—suspicions which I am sure have no foundation whatever.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: they have no foundation. Of course, it is possible for anyone to make the assessment for which he asks. The committee chaired by Professor Huhne, of which the noble Lord was a distinguished member, made such an assessment, as has the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. We simply do not see it as the Treasury's job to give a running commentary. As to the Chancellor's ambitions, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, must make up his own mind.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the statement in the Treasury's response to the report by the European Union Select Committee of this House, How is the Euro Working? that they will recommend joining the single currency only:
"if the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous"?
Has my noble friend ever come across any economic case that has been clear and unambiguous?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has had three and a half years to reflect on that question; the words that he quotes were delivered by the Chancellor in October 1997. They have not been queried until now, so perhaps he scored a first.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Government, in the public interest, try to be as broad-minded and impartial as possible in this matter, by pointing out the circumstances in which their criteria for entry into the euro have not been met?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Government consider adding a fifth criterion; namely, the current effect of uncertainty about the euro on British manufacturing and British farming? Is the Minister aware that the directors of Corus attributed one of the company's troubles to the level of the euro against the pound? Is he further aware that one of the reasons given for Vauxhall winding up its plant in Luton was, again, the exchange rate between sterling and the euro; and that the green pound is worth something like a fifth less to British farmers than it is to their competitors in the rest of Europe—again because we remain outside the euro-zone?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is nothing magic about the number five, but there are already five economic criteria, as set out by the Government. They include flexibility to cope with economic change, the effect on investment, and the effect on employment. Those three criteria cover the valid points that the noble Baroness makes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that there are criteria to be considered other than economic and financial criteria—for example, the constitutional implications of joining the euro-zone? Will the Government consider those points before making any recommendation to Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords; we have always said so.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the acid test of whether a union will be successful—a marriage, let us say—is whether there is a meeting of minds between the prospective partners? Is there a meeting of minds between the Government and the president of the Bundesbank, who says that,
"a single currency does not require a single government, but a single government will follow"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure whether an "acid test" implies only one acid, or whether we are allowed a number of chemical tests as acid tests. We certainly listened with interest and attention to the president of the Bundesbank, as we do to all major figures in economic life in Europe.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, save in the view of the zealots who are either pro or anti the euro, the Government have got the criteria right? Will he confirm that at the end of the day, when we believe it is in Britain's interests, the final decision will be taken by the British public by means of a referendum?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I never like using the word "zealots". Whenever I have used it, I have been shot down in flames for doing so. Yes, of course, as I should have said originally in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, it is not merely a matter of the Treasury making up its mind for itself; we have a commitment that the Government have to make a recommendation, first to Parliament and then to the people of this country, before entry.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has great merit? Would not any government assessment immediately be met with counter-assessments by a number of distinguished economists—possibly putting forward an even larger number of opinions? Does that not show that any answer to at least four of the tests must be subjective? Therefore, will not the tests give the Government the opportunity to hold a referendum when the public opinion polls point to a "Yes" vote—in the unlikely event of that ever happening?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord almost invites me to make cheap cracks about the divergence of opinion among economists, and I am certainly not going to do that. Of course there will be different views; there is no fully objective reality. However, there are political realities. It is on the basis

939
of the political and economic realities, and constitutional considerations, that the Government will make up their mind as a result of the Treasury assessment and make their recommendation to Parliament and to the people of this country.

Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Extent of duty to fund advice and assistance]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach)The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert
("(1) Subsection (1) of section 13 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (duty of Legal Services Commission to fund advice and assistance as part of Criminal Defence Service) shall be treated as having been enacted with the substitution of the following for paragraph (b) and the words after it—").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, for the convenience of the House, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. All three amendments have been tabled in my name. I tabled and withdrew these amendments at Committee stage in order to give your Lordships a reasonable length of time in which to consider the changes that I propose to make. I hope that during the two-week period that has since elapsed the House has had time to consider the amendments proposed.
The effect of the amendments, taken together, is to allow the Bill, on enactment, to have retrospective effect. Amendment No. 1 provides that the Access to Justice Act will be read as if it had always been amended by this Bill. Amendment No. 2 provides that secondary legislation made under the powers in Section 13(1) of the Access to Justice Act may also have retrospective effect. Amendment No. 3 changes the commencement date of the Bill—there is no longer any need for the Bill to commence on 2nd April and it will be commenced on the day on which it receives Royal Assent.
I shall explain why the Bill needs to have retrospective effect. At Second Reading, I explained that it was essential that the Bill received Royal Assent in time for its provisions to be in force before the criminal defence service is introduced on 2nd April 2001. In practice, this meant that we needed Royal Assent by 9th March. This would allow time to make the secondary legislation using the power in the amended Section 13 of the Access to Justice Act, which is necessary to maintain the current levels of legal assistance available to those involved in criminal investigations and proceedings.
When the Bill received its Second Reading on 21st December, I was grateful for the reception it was given. Since then I have received letters from all of the main legal groups confirming that they support the
940
introduction of the Bill. The Committee stage took place on 22nd January. No Minister could ever hope for swifter progress! However, I am concerned that we may not be able to guarantee Royal Assent in time. This would result in a lacuna in which the powers under the unamended Section 13 of the Access to Justice Act may be insufficient to maintain the current levels of legal assistance.
No one knows the date of the next general election; however, the possibility of an early election, combined with an early Budget, could put the parliamentary timetable under even greater pressure than is usually the case. If that happened, it is possible that business managers may be unable, among competing priorities for parliamentary time, to give the time required for this Bill in order for it to receive Royal Assent before 9th March.
It is for this reason that I feel that the Bill should be amended so as to have retrospective effect. Any secondary legislation will also be capable of having retrospective effect.
I am aware—and, indeed, I agree—that in general it is important that legislation should not have retrospective effect; people have a right to know where they stand under the law. However, in this instance the retrospective nature of the Bill will simply enable the status quo to be preserved. By making this amendment, the right that currently exists, for example, to consult a duty solicitor, or to receive legal advice and assistance after as well as before being the subject of a criminal charge, will be maintained. The critical point is that no one will be adversely affected by the retrospective nature of the Bill, but without it significant elements of our legal aid system could cease to be available.
Of course, I am still hopeful that the Bill will complete its progress in good time and that the introduction of retrospectivity will prove to have been over-cautious. If this proves to be the case, no harm will have been done. But, by taking this action, if it turns out that the Commons business managers are unable to accommodate the same swift passage which this House has provided, there will be no possibility of gaps in our provision of important legal support to those facing criminal charges.
I hope that in those circumstances the House will support the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is a fundamental principle of our legislation that it should not be retrospective. In this case, however, I think that the Minister has put forward valid and strong reasons for allowing this to happen. Another factor he did not mention but which is relevant in my opinion is that the retrospectivity will be for a very short time. But, having said that, I hope that it will not be regarded as an easy precedent to be followed on other occasions.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am happy with the Bill which closes what was an unintended lacuna in the Act of 1999. I am equally happy with the retrospective effect here which, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton,

941
pointed out, is for a short time, if, indeed it can be described as retrospective at all because, of course, it is not in any event retrospective to an earlier date than 2nd April when the criminal defence service will come into operation. It has been announced well in advance of that. I am interested in the reason put forward for the amendments which imply that we might be into the pre-dissolution whirlwind as early as 9th March which, in turn, implies a possible election date earlier than 3rd May. However, I shall leave the Minister to give such comment on that as he thinks fit.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am delighted to observe that in one very small and limited aspect of access to justice the Government see virtues in the status quo.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I wholly endorse the observations made by my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. In those circumstances I have nothing to add.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who spoke from his great experience. We certainly do not see this as an easy precedent. It would be quite wrong to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, tempts me but I advise him not to read anything very much into what I had to say.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("(2) Regulations under subsection (1) of section 13 (as amended above) may include provision treating them as having come into force at the same time as that subsection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have effectively spoken to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title and commencement]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Euro: EUC Report
3.15 p.m.
Lord Tomlinsonrose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee, How is the euro working? (18th Report, Session 1999–2000, HL Paper 124).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I say right at the outset that the report seeks to avoid at least two contentious issues concerning the euro. The first is whether or in what circumstances the United Kingdom should participate in economic and monetary union. Secondly, we decided not to permit ourselves the luxury of attempting to look into the future. We therefore forswore the use of the crystal ball as any sort of predictive tool.
942
The genesis of the report is clear. On 1st May 1998 11 member states took the momentous decision to proceed to stage three of economic and monetary union. The report seeks to evaluate the degree to which the hopes and expectations of those participating member states have been met. The report also recognises that the Government's position is that,
"in principle. a successful single currency within a single European market would be of benefit to Europe and to Britain.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/97; col. 583.]
My right honourable friend Gordon Brown continued at col. 584 of the Official Report,
"if, in the end, the single currency is successful and the economic case is clear and unambiguous, the Government believe that Britain should be part of it".
The report, following on from the largely positive evaluation of the European Central Bank in June 1998, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Barnett, is now produced as a contribution to the debate on whether, to use the Government's word, the single currency has so far been "successful". In this task we had the enormous benefit of our former clerk, Dr Elizabeth Hopkins, whose skill and dedication set standards that the House had no right to expect. We could not have completed our tasks fully without both her work and that of our specialist advisers, Professor John Driffill, who guided us skilfully through a minefield of complex economic analysis, and Mr Martin Christensen, who was specially helpful in his contribution to the provision of the comprehensive set of economic data in Appendix 3 of the report.
The work of your Lordships' committee is greatly enhanced by the ready, willing and informed assistance of our clerk and specialist advisers. Dr Hopkins decided to retire after the report. The whole committee and many beyond send their very best wishes for her future. We welcome Ms Anna Murphy, the new clerk, who knows that she has a hard act to follow and is already meeting the challenge. The committee would also wish me on its behalf warmly to thank Helen McMurdo for her invaluable contribution to the efficient work of the committee in producing this difficult report.
No report on the operation of the single currency can ever be definitive or final. On 1st January 1999, barely two years ago, the euro was introduced. On 1st January 2002, almost a year ahead, notes and coins will begin to circulate. Against that background the effects of the single currency cannot yet be disaggregated from other causes and events: the success of the single European market; the stability and growth pact and the concomitant economic disciplines that it forces upon member states; the general economic upturn in the euro-zone and what was cause and what was effect; and the information technology revolution. Those were all taking place at the same time as the introduction of the euro. It is almost impossible, therefore, to determine how successful the euro has been.
However, having said that, our inquiries show that it was fully appropriate and by no means too soon to take a considered, interim view on how the euro is

943
working so far, especially in the experience of those countries which are already members of the euro-zone, the role of the European Central Bank and the development of the euro. Hardly surprisingly, the euro-zone governments which gave evidence to us stated that their expectations were certainly fulfilled and frequently exceeded; and that in their opinion the euro was a success.
The Governor of the Bank of England gave clear evidence; and while giving no view—nor was it sought—on whether sooner or later the United Kingdom should join the euro, Mr Eddie George judged that the euro was working well and that the euro was a success for those member states participating in it.
I contrast the clear view of the Governor of the Bank of England with the response of Her Majesty's Treasury. When one considers that it has had over two months to produce it, I find the response insulting to your Lordships' House and its Select Committee. The report's two pages purports to reply to our main conclusions by studiously ignoring them. My only hope is that Treasury officials have briefed my noble friend Lord McIntosh more fully than they have deemed it necessary to give us of their wisdom.
Page 7 of the report lists many of the points that the committee deemed it necessary to explore with witnesses. Was monetary policy achieving price stability? Could the European Central Bank formulate monetary policy with independence while being both transparent and accountable? Were member states adopting appropriate fiscal policies and maintaining budget discipline? Was the integration of financial markets proceeding smoothly and producing anticipated benefits such as lower interest rates, greater liquidity, lower transactional costs and the removal of exchange rate risk? Was the changeover to the euro proceeding smoothly? Was the single currency aiding the completion of the single market? Would the single currency enhance the ability of euro-zone countries to respond to economic crises?
Having pursued those questions when gathering evidence, we came to the view that considerable progress had been made in relation to most of the criteria but less in relation to others. We found evidence in abundance of the economic advantages. The single currency had reinforced the single market. Markets are increasingly transparent bringing competitive improvements to industry as well as to consumers. The introduction of the euro had led to a strengthening of the disciplines of the stability and growth pact on the one hand and the determination of member states to comply with them on the other. The evidence indicates that trade and investment have benefited from the introduction of the single currency.
With regard to financial institutions and markets, it was clear that within and beyond the euro-zone there has been benefit which more than compensates for any earnings loss from reduced foreign exchange transactions. The euro is now widely used for bond and stock issues. This benefits consumers from the liquidity of the instruments created and issuers by
944
reducing the cost of raising money. Evidence we received suggested that the euro now ranks second to the dollar as an international investment, reserve and anchor currency with the potential to challenge the dollar's leading role.
We noted the potential—I emphasise "potential"—downside downside of the "one size fits all" monetary policy. It deprives participating member states and their central banks of adjusting their economies either by altering exchange rates or the introduction of differential interest rates. Euro-zone economic growth has meant that there has been no great pressure on individual member states to break the rules. There has been, therefore, no empirical evidence on how serious such a downturn could be in practice. But I believe that it is right and proper that I should draw the House's attention to the fact that the inability of countries in those circumstances to use exchange rates and interest rates throws burdens on the remaining tools. The scope of fiscal adjustment is already severely limited by the stability and growth pact. On structural change, we noted that some progress had been made but it was patchy and was not leading to sufficient productivity gains; and although there was some movement of flexibility in the labour markets it was not adequate as regards the long-term needs of the euro-zone.
The Select Committee considered Ireland as a possible special case. Fast economic growth and rapidly rising inflation gave rise to the need to consider Ireland separately. As a member of the euro-zone, Ireland cannot now respond by recourse to interest rate movement. However, all our Irish witnesses—from governmental, banking and non-governmental outside banking sectors—predicted that Ireland is likely to experience a soft landing. The committee limits its conclusion to the expression of hope that they are proved right.
I turn to the careful consideration we gave to the European Central Bank and the need for strong management, transparency and accountability in a form which does not prejudice its independence. I do not propose to go through all the arguments because they are made clear in the summary of conclusion on page 9. But on management we stated clearly that the evidence was that the European Central Bank had done pretty well so far. If anyone thinks that those are faint-hearted words, they were the words of the Governor of the Bank of England. When asked whether he was damning with faint praise he said very clearly to your Lordships' committee that he was a central banker and when he spoke of someone else's bank doing "pretty well", that should be regarded as high praise indeed.
On the question of transparency, the committee welcomes the fact that the European Central Bank has been more transparent than had been expected and is becoming more so. It is about to publish much of the data on which it bases its decisions.
On accountability, no one wanted the European Central Bank to be elected. The committee struggled for a definition of accountability. However, we went on to recognise the role of the European Parliament as

945
the body to which the European Central Bank is formally accountable. We welcomed what we were told of the European Parliament's intention to strengthen that accountability.
We inevitably looked at some length—although I shall mention the issue only briefly—at the external value of the euro and its persistent fall since the currency's introduction. We noted with particular interest the persuasive argument of the Governor of the Bank of England that such a fall reflects a continuing net outflow of long-term capital from Europe to the United States. Once that flow ceases or is reversed, perhaps when relative asset prices have changed sufficiently, the influence of economic fundamentals will reassert itself and the rate of the euro against the dollar will rise. Since our report was printed there has been a 6 per cent increase in the value of the euro against sterling and a similar change in its relationship to the United States dollar.
The report is inevitably interim. It cannot be definitive. It properly did not address United Kingdom membership of the single currency. That is a question for the Government—a question that, in my strictly personal view, they should turn to sooner rather than later. However, it is important to have engaged in the study. We reached broadly favourable conclusions on the progress so far from the perspective of those in the euro-zone. I remain hopeful that, after an election, the Government will find a capacity to discuss European monetary policy and possibly even to formulate a view, however tentative, on a subject that will not go away, even if there is an attempt to insist on ignoring it.
This is an interim report on a subject to which the Select Committee will inevitably need to return. At the moment, I believe that it is an informed evaluation that I hope is of benefit to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee, How is the euro working? (18th Report, Session 1999–2000, HL Paper 124).—(Lord Tomlinson.)
3.33 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, it was a privilege for me to serve on Sub-Committee A of the European Union Select Committee, under the very able and competent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who has just spoken. I declare an interest as the chairman of a substantial investment trust that specialises in continental European shares. I strongly support the noble Lord's comments about the Treasury's disgraceful reply to our report. It contains just seven lines referring to us and our conclusions. The rest is a re-statement of well known government positions. I note that the minute is unsigned. I am not surprised. Any Treasury official would feel ashamed to put his name to such an inadequate minute.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, I was struck during our inquiry by the enthusiasm of our witnesses for progress so far in economic and monetary union and
946
the single currency. Only one witness, representing the Irish interest, was seriously concerned. I shall deal with that in a moment. On the whole, our witnesses were more positive than I had expected about the success of the euro so far in promoting internal trade, encouraging inward investment, increasing competitiveness in the continental European market and ensuring transparency of prices from one end of the continent to the other.
Two clear drawbacks were identified, one of which the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, has just spoken about—whether "one size fits all" can be suitable for every market from Scandinavia to Greece and from Ireland to Germany. I notice that Mary Ann Sieghart in The Times last week dwelt at some length on the experience of Ireland. She pointed out that the Irish recovery had, if anything, been too rapid and was putting too much pressure on the Irish economy. Under those circumstances, Ireland should have raised its interest rates by considerably more than was permitted by the European Central Bank.
However, the fact is that in the past four or five years, Ireland has had the most astonishing recovery. It has changed from traditional industry to investment in and mastery of the IT industry with fantastic success. There are now advertisements seeking workers to fill skilled or semi-skilled jobs in Ireland. We should also remember that Ireland represents only 1 to 2 per cent of the European Union's GDP, so it is fair to say that it is de minimis for the European Central Bank. It would be very different if one of the big four—Italy, France, Germany or Spain—stepped out of line. That has not happened yet, so we do not know what the outcome would be.
The other difficulty, about which our report spoke rather less, is the fact that the European Central Bank does not have a single government directly behind it to add political weight and to lean on the media and politicians such as ourselves in support of its decisions when a bit of arm-twisting might be needed. To Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve in the United States, are now attributed all the qualities of Solomon when it comes to financial markets. I see that there has been a motion that his term of office should be increased by another 25 years, which would take him to the good age of 99. He would certainly accept that his work was substantially enhanced—and at times definitely helped—by support from Washington and President Clinton. It is interesting that one of the first interviews that the new President Bush gave was to Alan Greenspan.
There is no answer to this point. The European Central Bank is a very independent central bank—probably more independent than any of its predecessors in continental Europe, including the Bundesbank. President Duisenberg has been criticised at times. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, was quite generous in his comments. One or two of our witnesses thought that if Greenspan had been president of the ECB rather than Duisenberg, the fall in the value of the euro would have been about half what it has been. Some have considered him weak and uncharismatic. He has been blamed both for putting up interest rates

947
and for not putting them up. That may mean that, as time and the bank settle down, he and the ECB have not got it too wrong. In the present situation, the European Central Bank does not seem to be doing so badly after all.
The weakness of the euro, which we touched on in our report, was a blessing in disguise for continental manufacturers. I was amazed that the British media seemed always to misunderstand that. As we saw in the recent sad decision by Corus, it enabled French, German and Dutch manufacturers to recover lost ground in export markets at the expense of British manufacturers. The experience of the weak euro was almost exactly the same as ours. When we left the ERM in 1992, sterling lost around 20 per cent in value against the deutschmark. That was a boon to our manufacturers and led to some of the increasing industrial prosperity inherited by the current Labour Government when they took office in 1997.
Many people will hope that the euro does not now recover too much and that, for example, it does not go above parity to the dollar. But at present it must be considered exciting that the continental European gross domestic product is expected to rise at an average of between 2½ and 3½ per cent over the years immediately ahead. That figure is likely to be in excess of the American GDP rises and, therefore, it points to a general improvement in economic conditions on the continent.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said, at the end of our report we manacled ourselves with regard to talking about the future. In the last sentence of the report we said that we would look to the system, the bank and the currency to rise to the challenge of future opportunities and cope with problems as they occurred. However, I shall crave the indulgence of the House for a moment or two while I give a few personal thoughts about the future.
Last week I attended a conference organised by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, as chairman of the Social Market Foundation, at which both Friedrich Merz, who is co-leader of the German Christian Democrat Union, and William Hague spoke. I was struck by the words of Friedrich Merz. He said that so far as concerned Europe, EMU—economic and monetary union—and the launching of the euro represented a crossing of the Rubicon and provided a common conceptual basis for tackling the future. He added that it formed a shared conceptual basis among the members of EMU for the shaping of economic and social reform. I believe that that is correct. Of course, there is still much to be done—notably the deregulation of labour markets, particularly in Germany, and the change of all the social security systems throughout continental Europe. However, the conceptual basis for doing that is now in place and the practical steps will surely follow.
At the same conference, an ex-colleague of mine, Tim Eggar, who is now chief executive of an oil company, said that he believed that people in this country completely under-estimated the importance of
948
the single currency. I very much agree with that sentiment. I believe that next January, when European notes and coins are in circulation, it will come home to average European citizens just how important is the single currency. They will suddenly discover a far greater openness in competitive pricing throughout continental Europe and a decline in the cost of doing business. There will be a painful realisation for the 8 million Britons who take continental holidays every year that every time they go from and come back to this country they will still lose approximately 10 per cent of their money through the hands of Thomas Cook and others.
Britain has not yet crossed that Rubicon, and we all know the reasons why. However, in his interview in The Times today, I believe that the Foreign Secretary was quite wrong to talk so much of Britain's leading role in Europe. Of course, we are wise. I am told that the well prepared documents produced by our civil servants, with the exception of the Treasury memo to which we have already referred, are generally much better than documents produced by civil servants in any other country. We are particularly important in the defence field, and we shall strive for reform of the common agricultural policy.
But is ours a leading role? No. To refer to a "leading role" in this instance is like saying, "I am captain of the ship, but I am not going to look at the compass, nor touch the rudder". In my judgment, until we cross that Rubicon we are committing ourselves inevitably to a less and less important role in the European Union. Some people want that; I do not. Of course there are dangers ahead, as our report points out. When are there not dangers? However, I see economic and monetary union as increasingly successful and the euro as a currency that increasingly will have a role to play in national reserves.
After serving on Sub-Committee A, after taking part in producing the report and after many months of thinking, I conclude with the hope that the referendum will come soon. When it does, I hope and expect that the answer will be "yes"
3.45 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, first, I make my personal position clear. I undertook to speak in the debate on the assumption that it would finish by 6.30 p.m. That is the latest time at which I can leave in order to catch a train so that I may give a lecture in Brussels tomorrow.
As a non-member, I find the report extremely valuable and, indeed, enlightening. I want to talk about what it avoids; namely, how it affects our decision as to whether or not to join the euro. The report states that these are early days and, in effect, it says, "So far, so good". However, due to the weakness of the pound, it has not necessarily been good for the United Kingdom. Undoubtedly there are dangers which we could have avoided if we had joined earlier. Over the next few years we may well find that those dangers increase as the reality of being outside the euro-zone becomes more and more clear to foreign investors in this country.

949
I want to say what is clear from the report. So far, the euro has had good effects. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said in his admirable speech. There has been increased competition and, as I believe the report points out, increased investment and restructuring of industry, perhaps on the scale which we saw when the Common Market was first founded, but in which we are not participating at present.
The report also mentions that the euro has helped to accelerate structural reform. That is a matter of great importance about which I want to say a little more. A fact which has not been much noticed in the British press, which still paints a picture of a sclerotic Europe, is that the extraordinary increase in the amount of part-time work has contributed to the drop in unemployment. The general view has prevailed that wage flexibility on the Continent is rather worse than it is in this country. In fact, one finds that some wages in east Germany are now 75 per cent of the level of those in west Germany. That degree of wage flexibility was brought about by the existence of the euro and is rather greater than that found inside the United Kingdom.
As a result of the euro, there has been considerable pressure to reform pensions in Europe. Some five years ago I wrote a pamphlet which pointed out the pension time bomb, the dangers which that involved and the size of the hidden liabilities. I have just finished writing another paper and the change has been quite remarkable. Pressure is now being exercised to raise the retirement age. Then, the retirement age was going down; now it is rising. Fundamental and enlightened reforms in such countries as Sweden have shown the way providing incentives for longer working lives. To some extent, those reforms have been followed in other parts of the European Union. Indeed, participation rates have risen sharply. That will have a considerable effect on the hidden liabilities of which so many eurosceptics have been scared.
Of course there are dangers, and perhaps the report understates the problems which still exist with regard to the co-ordination of fiscal policy. I do not believe that a culture of co-ordination, which will become increasingly necessary, has yet developed in Europe among the euro-zone 12. To my mind, part of the reason for the huge investment in the United States and for the relative weakness of the euro is that the markets do not have the confidence which they should in the co-ordination of fiscal policy. A most interesting paper on that subject was written recently by two Frenchmen—Jacquet and Pisani-Ferry—and published by the Centre for European Reform. I believe it to be an extremely important paper and it addresses that problem.
I turn to the lessons for the United Kingdom. The first lesson that stands out in the report's minutes of evidence is the fact that all businesses in Europe are convinced of the euro's benefits. The views of M Trichet appear in paragraph 166 on page 48 of the report. He said that businessmen in Europe,
"consider that their position has dramatically changed for the better. I have no memory of a single French, German or Belgian entrepreneur that I know that would give evidence to your
950
Committee and say: 'I think it is no good, we are going in the wrong direction'. They are all seeing the benefits of having that very, very large single market with a single currency.
Businesses in the UK, please take note. Some UK businesses are still saying, "That is all very well for European continental businesses, but we are different". That is the attitude that we adopted when the Common Market was first formed. It is the attitude that has always made this country late to join extremely successful developments on the Continent.
We should study what the report tells us about what I regard as the major difficulty in this regard, which has been referred to on many occasions outside the House and in this debate. That difficulty involves having one interest rate for so many countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, said in an extremely notable speech—I agreed with his every word—Ireland is an important case in point. It was interesting to note the article by Mary Ann Sieghart in The Times the other day. She is a talented writer for whom I have great respect, but on this occasion her article fell well below her best. Her article was full of mistakes and, economically, it was rather illiterate. Had she bothered to read the report, she would have found a very different story. I refer in particular to the witnesses for Ireland. It seems rather patronising to say, "They may think that they have done well out of the single currency, but we know much better".
The report mentions that in 1996 the Economic and Social Research Institute studied the economic implications for Ireland. It concluded that on balance the arguments were in favour. The minutes of evidence refer to an article in the Irish Times by Mr Terry Baker. He wrote:
"the risks attached to EMU entry have diminished considerably since mid-1996 … With hindsight, it appears that our 1996 assessment underestimated the advantages of initial entry".
We should study Ireland's current problems, including inflation. Yes, of course that country has inflation, but does that make the Irish regret entry? No, it does not. The Irish testimony makes it clear that if Ireland had remained outside monetary union, inflation would have been worse. Despite Irish inflation, goods in the shops in Ireland are cheaper than they would be in the United Kingdom.
Professor John Fitz Gerald stated, on page 78 of the minutes of evidence, that,
"the Irish economy is too competitive … wage rates have to rise".
One way in which a country that has a high rate of inflation and is expanding too fast inside monetary union can adjust is through a rise in prices. What did the evidence reveal about problems with house price inflation? It revealed that the problem would be worse outside monetary union. Professor Fitz Gerald's concluding words in the minutes of evidence were:
"The consequences of getting things wrong are much less severe for the Irish economy within monetary union than they would have been outside it".
The problem that that country faces, in comparison with others, looks terrible. It had to slow down its rate of growth from 8 per cent, which it had maintained for some years, to a modest 5 per cent per annum.

951
I regret, on behalf of the sceptics, that there is little comfort for them in this thorough report or its minutes of evidence. All members of the union are convinced that it was right for them to join. There is no reason why the United Kingdom should not prosper as other countries have done. The experience of those in the Union and all the arguments favour our membership.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I hope that I shall be forgiven for speaking in this debate although I am not now a member of the committee that produced the report. However, as a former chairman, I congratulate my successor, Lord Tomlinson, on chairing the committee and the committee on producing an excellent report.
My noble friend Lord Tomlinson referred to a successful single currency. I shall come to that later. The report is, understandably, purely factual: the committee wanted to produce a unanimous report. Having said that, I am not sure whether one or two of its members agreed, although the report was unanimous. They would have disagreed with one or two of the points made by my noble friend.
Perhaps I should declare an interest. My views are pretty well known—I am as strongly in favour of our joining the single currency as I have always been. I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, concluded—not necessarily because of the committee's report—that he, too, hopes to see us become members of the European Union single currency zone.
Eurosceptics will be unhappy, regardless of the facts disclosed in the report. The euro might have been strong, weak, or going nowhere, but that would have made no difference whatever to Eurosceptics.
In principle, the Government have said yes, subject to five pretty meaningless tests. I raised the matter at Question Time. We are now aware of the Treasury's response. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, rightly described that, although I refrain from using his language. The report refers to the economic case for the UK's joining having to be clear and unambiguous.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, it was not the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who said that; it was the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I should apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I think he knows that I meant to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, but I am not sure whether he would agree with my argument.
Many on the Opposition Front Bench are unambiguous about what we should do about membership of the euro-zone. Some of them are even semi-detached to the European Union.
The Government have, in principle, agreed that they will join at some point. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, said, I hope that that
952
will not delay too long. The UK's concern, as we all know, is not about the economic case; it is about the related political problems. I hope it is accepted that the euro-zone and this country will be pretty convergent pretty soon, if we are not convergent already.
In paragraph 137 of the report, the Governor of the Bank of England, who now likes to be known as Sir Edward George, said that,
"on the basis of fundamentals it was difficult to understand the fall in the value of the euro".
I am not a betting man. If I were, I should not mind investing a few bob in the euro as of now; I should bet on what is likely to happen to the euro over the next few years.
One of the most serious criticisms of having a single currency is the fact that one interest rate has to fit all countries. That serious case needs to be answered. To an extent, that argument currently applies within the UK, because parts of the UK are very different from each other. Scotland, the North East and parts of the North West are very different from the South East, but they have to live within a single currency and manage to do so, although sometimes that does not work out too well. The argument seriously applies to the 11 member states in the euro-zone and, to some extent, it will apply even more when the 12th country, Greece, joins.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Greece is already in.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sorry, I am reminded by my noble friend that Greece joined on 1st January.
By now, having listened to some of the critics in relation to the subject of the single interest rate fits all, one would have expected to see, within nearly two years, some really disastrous economic positions. In fact, the situation has been anything but disastrous for those 12 states, 11 as it was, within the euro-zone. As we know, there are very different economic circumstances in each of the 11 states.
It is worth looking at what has happened. Table 1 attached to paragraph 36 of the report shows that on average—I know that there are wide variations within any average, but one must look at the average within the euro-zone—growth of GDP in the European Union 11 member states in 1999 was 2.4 per cent and in 2000, 3.4 per cent. It has been going pretty well. One can hardly say that the single currency has destroyed the situation or made it very difficult.
Indeed, if one looks at all the tables in Appendix 3, there is no stagnation so far. I say "so far" because one cannot make forecasts. Some economists try to make forecasts or projections but in practice it is not possible to make a forecast as to how the euro-zone or even the UK economy will be in two, three, four or more years. But certainly as of now one can say that the single currency in the euro-zone has not done any serious damage. Indeed, it has been positively helpful in some ways to which I shall refer.

953
Unemployment within the euro-zone is, of course, much too high. It is much higher, on average, than in the UK. But it is falling and within some member states in the euro-zone it is falling at a rate which is above the average. As I said, one must always look carefully at averages because they mask serious problems in some areas. Certainly in some countries within the European Union, or the euro-zone as it is called, the situation is far from that which exists in the best of those countries.
Inflation, as paragraph 39 of the report points out, was within the 0 to 2 per cent target range throughout 1999 and has risen slightly since. Again, averages mask wide variations. Reference has already been made to Ireland. Inflation has been 5.1 per cent in Ireland while it is only 1.6 per cent in France. So inflation rates vary within the euro-zone. One should not be too surprised by that.
Overall, by now, we certainly have not seen any of disasters forecast by the Eurosceptics because of the one size fits all problem. It is worth referring to—I always call him Eddie George—Sir Edward George, the Governor of the Bank of England. In paragraph 41, he is quoted as saying, "It is working pretty well". That is not bad coming from the Governor of the Bank of England, who can hardly be described as a Europhile.
I concede that problems will undoubtedly be created within the euro-zone. But we have a relatively successful euro-zone, as the report brings out. There will be difficult years here in the UK, as well as inside and outside the euro-zone. But the report brings out the tremendous advantages which will come to members of the euro-zone, as will be seen by any objective reader of the report.
The facts are clear. Paragraph 86 of the report says that membership has been helpful in other ways which have not generally been reported. It helps in withstanding shocks within a possible serious crisis. That is not unimportant.
But more than that, inward investment is clearly a serious matter. Nobody can dispute that. If it were not clear that we shall shortly be joining the euro-zone, inward investment here would be very seriously damaged. But there are enormous benefits from the removal of the exchange rate problems and the risks inherent in that. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, referred to the 8 million holidaymakers. That will be a serious matter for them personally. But it is even more serious for businesses which are competing within Europe and which will no longer have the exchange rate problem and the risks involved with that. That will be much more significant for the UK.
Any objective observer will agree that the euro is working well so far. Of course, it is still a weak euro. The UK Treasury tells us—and I am not referring to its response to the committee but the evidence from witnesses—in paragraph 147 that,
"one would expect a slow response to a new currency".
954
I shall not speculate as to whether it would have been better under Trichet or Duisenberg. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has had a few words to say about that. Nobody could say that Mr Duisenberg is the most charismatic fellow in the world. But he is running the ECB. He is not the only member of it and those responsible have managed relatively well. I have a feeling, having read what he says in the report, that my noble friend Lord Desai will disagree with me about that. But I think he is fairly alone in relation to that, as he always is.
All in all, the facts in the report speak for themselves. I hope that the UK will be joining the euro-zone very soon.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I am grateful, as I believe are all members of the committee, that he has taken part in the debate. When these debates take place, too often one hears people saying, "Oh, I was not a member of the committee so I did not feel that I needed to take part". Contributions from someone such as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who was a noble chairman of the committee for several years—we are much indebted to him for the work that he did for that committee during those years—helps to make these debates that much more worth while.
I am as firmly in favour of the European Union as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is. But while I have every hope that the euro will succeed, I have concerns about its future. Everybody must accept that the creation of the single currency has been an enormous step in the development of the European Union. Whether or not we should have joined the 11 countries, shortly to become 12, is not a matter for debate today. But the step has now been taken. Whether we are in it, whether we are to join it or whether we remain out of it for some years, it is in all our interests that the euro is a success. If it is a failure, it will hurt members of the euro and those who are not members of the euro.
Therefore, it is right that Sub-Committee A should continue to monitor the progress the euro is making. I have had the privilege of being a member of the committee for the past four years. I believe that its work is of value not just to this House but to a much wider audience. I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and to our splendid Clerk, who alas has now retired, Dr Elizabeth Hopkins. The report, its contents and its timing largely result from their great efforts.
My first reaction was to note the general satisfaction expressed by witnesses at the way in which the euro is working. That must be encouraging. For example, Dr Norbert Walter, of the Deutsche Bank Group, said that the euro was working very well. The Governor of the Bank of England also told us that the evidence is that the euro,
"has been working pretty well".
I was particularly interested in the evidence from member states at paragraph 86 of the report that membership of the euro had helped them to withstand

955
shocks, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. The Belgian Government, for example, considered that their membership of the single currency had smoothed the shock of the recent crisis caused by dioxin contamination of part of the food chain. They said that,
"had it not been for the euro, both the exchange rate and interest rates would probably have come under pressure and the consequences would have been felt far beyond the directly affected sectors".
Similarly, as paragraph 86 states:
"The German Ambassador said that without EMU it was highly probable that the effects of the Russian financial crisis in August 1998 would have had repercussions in the money market 'and the normal course of events would have been that the German Mark would have gone up and other currencies of EU countries would have gone down".
We were also told in relation to this important matter that,
"German trade unions had calculated that the effect on the labour market would have been the loss of about a quarter of a million jobs".
So the message is, "so far, so good". But EMU has set sail in very favourable economic conditions. Adverse conditions are bound to occur and even now may be starting to occur. They will often affect different members of EMU in different ways. The disciplines accepted at entry may well prove unacceptable, or at least politically contentious.
In paragraph 18 of our report, we state:
"We decided to adhere strictly to our subject of how the euro has been and is now working, and not to allow ourselves to look into the future".
Of course, future problems usually have their roots in present circumstances. Therefore, it is right that we should examine where those problems may have their present beginnings. For example, differences are already appearing between the Commission and the Irish Government as to how the Irish economy should be handled.
The significant point that I raise in this context is that Pedro Solbes, the economic and monetary affairs Commissioner, said that member states could not be allowed to pursue whatever tax and spending policies they wanted once they joined the euro. Yet Charlie McCreevy, the Irish Finance Minister, said that the idea of Brussels lecturing the EU's best performing economy would be greeted with amusement. There does not appear to be much agreement there.
Incidentally, Mr Solbes claims the authority for his action as being, not the Maastricht Treaty, but Article 99 of the EU treaties, which presumably already affect this country as well. I wonder whether the Minister agrees with his comments.
In my view, the position was well made by Mr Jim Power, the former head of economic research at the Bank of Ireland (paragraph 32), who said:
"First and foremost EMU was a victory for politics over economics. It is a political project. The economic realities are not always logical. I think that is particularly the case for the Irish economy".
956
That leads me directly to paragraph 169 of our report, which states:
"The will to create the euro was political. Its future must equally depend on the continuing political will to create success. The problems that will arise on enlargement and future changes in the Common Agricultural Policy are obvious difficulties which will test that will".
To my mind EMU and the single currency were started far too early. In a free society, a single currency has successfully been adopted by a number of states only after the necessary political cohesion has taken place. The history of the US, for example, has been much quoted. Yet such history sets no precedent for the creation of the EMU. In that case, former colonies with the same background of local government, the same language and the common political ties inherited from colonial days, formed a secure foundation for the creation of a single currency. However, in the case of EMU, the political will to achieve lasting success must overcome many more difficulties.
On the hopeful side, the evidence as to the continuing political will is reasonably encouraging. The Governor of the Bank of England said that in making their terrific—he used the word "terrific"—efforts to meet the criteria many countries had,
"introduced a greater degree of discipline into their fiscal and monetary policies".
Ms Bettina Schulz, of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, considered that in Germany the SGP had forced the government to reduce its deficit and its debt and had accelerated structural reforms; even labour reforms were started.
However, too often my experience of EU affairs has been that the difficult practical problems—the nuts and bolts—of any project are always swept under the carpet in favour of the big idea itself. I believe in travelling hopefully, but not blindly.
What are the tests that face a continuing political will to create a lasting EMU? First, one must establish just how far national sovereignty has to be sacrificed to secure a successful common currency. Secondly, the one-size-fits-all monetary policy of the euro-zone is only now being tested. The Irish situation is the first of many that will test the successful working of the system. Thirdly, there are substantial problems affecting the political relationships of member countries that must be resolved.
As our report makes clear, two of those problems are the terms of enlargement and the urgent need to change the CAP. In my view, a failure of will to meet those tests must seriously weaken the chances of a lasting success for the euro. The quicker that the Council of Ministers faces up to the solution of those problems, the greater will be the chances of that success.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I want to add my voice to those who have commended this report. It is an excellent document, full of interesting detail. It contains a broad spectrum of views from those who gave evidence, combined with balanced conclusions.

957
As other noble Lords have pointed out, the essential dilemma, to which only the future will supply answers, is whether the one-size-fits-all interest rate can survive the effects of the inevitable future economic shocks without a central budget to counteract those effects. That is the main political risk. The business and financial market arguments seem to be unquestionably in favour of the euro.
The initial weakness of the euro, which surprised those of us who expected it to be strong—of whom I was one—is explained by the huge attraction of the economy of the United States in recent years and by the massive consequential capital flows into the US dollar that that has engendered. Such flows have delayed the balancing adjustments in international reserve portfolios that I and others believed would make the euro strong initially. But the weakness of the euro, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has pointed out, has benefited the euro-land economies and has helped them to emerge from relatively sluggish circumstances and high unemployment, which a strong euro might have delayed.
Now the situation appears to be changing. The US economy is less attractive and the euro-land economies are showing reasonable, steady growth. As capital flows start to unwind, the euro is beginning to increase in value against the dollar. The government bond market in Europe is already larger than that in the United States, but the most exciting development has been the growth of a corporate bond market in euros. Although still much smaller in total than the US corporate bond market, and despite the turmoil of the past few months, the fact remains that, although down on 1999 levels, the volume of issues in 2000 was three times that of 1998.
The situation is much less rosy in equity markets, where rationalisation is still in full swing. Stock exchanges are fighting with the rapid advances in electronic trading systems and are uncertain how best to cope with the huge potential of the market for equities in euro-land. They are also battling with the still widely different regulatory environments that exist within the so-called single market. This is an area of great potential. Big changes can be expected and must take place in the coming months, especially as the focus of global investment is less concentrated on the United States and the attractions of euro-land become more real. As Europe's principal financial market place, the UK is rightly playing a very active part in this process. But our non-participation in the euro could increasingly work to our disadvantage, not to mention the huge extra stimulus to the development of the euro as an international currency that would follow from the inclusion of the pound sterling within the euro.
With the introduction of notes and coins, 2002 will be a critical year for the euro. Much will depend on how the citizens of euro-land react to the euro when it hits their pockets. I have French friends who still talk about ancien francs Will the French consumers take to the streets and make euro bonfires of the new notes, or will they welcome the new currency and benefit from
958
the transparency that it will bring? Their reactions will be critical to the response of people in this country and to their appetite for joining.
There is still a lot to play for, and there is much uncertainty and excitement ahead. However, as this admirable, interim report concludes, I believe that the euro has been a success so far.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, when I first saw this report, I thought that the Select Committee would quite impartially have addressed the question whether or not we should join the euro, but would objectively have studied whether the existing euro set-up was working satisfactorily. It seems that I was unusually innocent in that thinking. Most of today's speeches have not followed the edict set out at the beginning of the report. As it is obvious that in some cases it has been forgotten, perhaps I may refresh your Lordships' memories. It states:
"This Report does not consider whether, or in what circumstances, the United Kingdom should join EMU; it is intended rather as a contribution to the debate on whether the single currency has so far been—to use the Government's word—'successful"'.
Anybody listening to today's debate might think that none of them was involved in the report. The speeches that we have heard today have been unequivocally pro-euro and thinly disguised—I say "thinly" because your Lordships are always polite—as an attack on the eurosceptics.
I turn to the report to illustrate the point that I want to make. It is no ordinary report. It consists of 222 pages, comprising approximately 100 pages of text and 127 pages of evidence. It contains a very large number of tables of statistics—43 in total—and no fewer than nine tables in the text itself, to which I may later refer. It is quite a formidable document. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, said that the report would be clear to citizens, and my noble friend Lord Barnett said that the report would commend itself to objective readers, whatever those terms may mean—
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I am not aware of having said anything of the kind. I believe that I said it was clear to citizens. I approve of the report. I served on the sub-committee that produced it, but I never said the words that the noble Lord has just mentioned.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the words used by the noble Lord were, "clear to citizens". We shall see it in Hansard tomorrow. In the mean time, the total cost of the document, which will obviously appeal to the broad, general public, particularly those in gainful employment, is £20.30. I do not know the intended circulation of the report, or to what extent it may be claimed that it will be read by the mass of the population or is likely to impress the mass of the population, but it has not even very much impressed the press, to whom, presumably, complimentary copies have been sent. The report has, of course, been

959
considered by those with the resources to acquire it, who do not comprise the bulk of the population either in Britain or in Europe. It has also been read and understood by a comparatively few trained economists, including econometricians for good measure, and by the business community. Those citizens of the United Kingdom have had the opportunity to see and understand the document.
There arc precedents for this. One recalls that Ministers of the Crown do not always read the treaties that they sign. That was the case with the Treaty of Maastricht, when the noble Lord, Lord Hurd (as he now is), together with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted that he had not even read the treaty. Anybody who for one moment thinks that Ministers of the Crown read these reports is barking up the wrong tree. I probably would not include my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who will wind up the debate and whose neutral stance I, unusually, support.
I turn to the report itself. At page 7, the report states in its conclusions:
"Less than two years have passed since it was introduced, on 1 January 1999. Euro notes and coins will not start to circulate until 1 January 2002, and most of the general public will have little opportunity to judge how the euro affects their lives"—
You can say that again! The report continues,
"and to reach conclusions about the success of the euro until some time after that. Even where deep-seated structural and macro-economic changes have begun, it is too soon for their full effects to be felt".
The euro has not been introduced in a vacuum; it must function within other political and legal frameworks. Those are set out in the stability and growth pact and in various other sections of the Maastricht Treaty. That seriously inhibits the action of member states within the euro and some outside. Does anyone believed that the ordinary people of the country are likely ever to be in the position of being able satisfactorily to judge the real impact of what is happening?
As is always the case when such complex issues are raised, there is a mass of statistical information. Indeed, 20 per cent of the report comprises tables of statistics which will not be intelligible to the ordinary people who inhabit the country. They will have to rely on second-hand opinions. Furthermore, there are some 43 pages of statistics from the Government's database and I have no doubt that sooner or later they will appear on a website. We know that the statistical material emanating from computers is not always permanent. Often, it is completely recast. There have been a number of cases in the United Kingdom in which millions of pounds have been spent on computer programs and print-outs which have subsequently proved to be inaccurate. The same thing applies to the statistics which are quoted with authority in the report.
It is no good for us to proceed on such a basis. There is no point in trying to dazzle people with the figures and arguments as they are currently presented. We know in advance that business and large commercial interests will be in favour but the public will not be sure
960
unless a detailed and impartial presentation of the situation of Britain within the euro and outside is made to them in a manner that they can understand and appreciate as being fair. Until that is done, such reports will do no more than touch the periphery of opinion in this country—and mainly professional opinion at that.
It is already clear—it is clear even in the report—that the imposition of a single currency throughout Europe will not succeed for the simple reason that it will automatically impinge on the lack of ability to vary exchange rates and interest rates. That will deal a fatal blow to the expenditure plans of all governments. Only through government action can the lot of poorer people—the great mass of people in Europe be articulated.
Such articulation stands no chance but it could not be put in words better than those used by M Trichet. It will be recalled that in a complete breach of the treaty M Trichet was appointed in advance, outside the scope of Protocol No. 10 of the Maastricht Treaty, in order that he could take over from Mr Duisenberg the leadership of the European Central Bank.
It is most interesting, therefore, to see exactly what he said about the position that would be likely to arise. In evidence to the committee, M Trichet said at page 38:
"One of the observations we are also making is that in general it seems to us the level of public spending as a proportion of GDP is too high and should diminish and the best way to be on the safe side in terms of fiscal policy is to attack directly the question of public spending. In that respect I can mention that the euro area has received recommendations by the Eurosystem that are going exactly in that direction: let us diminish public spending as a proportion of GDP; let us try to have a fiscal situation that will be as sound as possible in all respects, including the one that you have mentioned".
M Trichet is due to take up leadership of the European Central Bank.
The attacks on public expenditure remain the settled polity of the European Commission. Sooner or later, the people of Britain will know that the only way of redressing their position as against those of the rich and powerful who govern will be progressively to bring pressure for more expenditure on public and other services in order that the yawning gap between the rich and the poor can partially be narrowed and suffer no further deterioration.
In that light, I commend the report to the House. Had I time, I could mention many more niceties within it. I hope that it will be appreciated and I sincerely trust that, despite its supporters here today, it will receive a wider circulation than has been the case.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I speak from these Benches as a member of the sub-committee which helped to write the report. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, noted, the report is substantial, although when we began our deliberations the inquiry was to be a short sequel to the earlier report by the sub-committee on the European Central Bank. We regarded this subject as appropriate to fill the overspill

961
period before the gracious Speech. As it turned out, the exercise was very much more substantial than originally envisaged.
The report is extremely useful from many points of view. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that the report may cost £20 but it can be downloaded from the Internet, which many university students use to obtain the report. I believe that your Lordships' reports are used extensively by universities in this country. Certainly, speaking as someone concerned with the economics of science and technology, the reports of the Select Committee on Science and Technology were regularly used by both me and my students.
When we embarked on the exercise we recognised that it was too early to take any definitive views on what would happen to the euro because the period was still very much a transitional one. The European Central Bank had been set up and a single interest rate covered the euro 11, now the euro 12. Big business used the euro for the purposes of trade and the financial markets in the euro picked up and developed in a substantial way, as the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, mentioned. But if one visited any country in euro-land one would find that people still used local notes and coins and, although prices were quoted in euros, most still thought in terms of local rather than euro prices and the euro meant very little to them.
Above all, when we tried to take a view as to how the euro was working and looked at the statistics—we spent some time pouring over pages of figures produced to us—we had difficulty in distinguishing the effects of the euro from the general upswing in the macro-economic situation within the Union. Undoubtedly, the recession of the early 1990s, which Germany and France hit somewhat later than the UK—therefore, they went into recession later—had been extended by the build-up to the single currency and the stringent demands placed on many countries by the stability and growth pact. Nevertheless, we believed that it was useful to flush out what was and what was not available and look at the evidence.
The first issue was what criteria should be used to judge how the euro was working. What does one mean by "success"? On page 7 of the report one finds a very long list of issues that can be used to judge success. I very much liked the approach of Sir Edward George, Governor of the Bank of England, who said clearly that it should be judged by its performance. He went on to point out that growth was up, unemployment down and inflation, given the rise in oil prices, surprisingly stable. He summed it up by saying:
"Basically … it is actually not at all a bad performance; in fact, it is quite a good performance".
The problem in performance that Sir Edward George saw was the one that we all witnessed: the fall in the value of the euro. The general public, certainly in this country, asked what was wrong with the euro and why it had dropped so substantially against the dollar. As other speakers have made clear, Sir Edward George said that he did not think that that was the result of the fundamentals of euro-land but the extraordinary outward flow of both direct and
962
portfolio capital from euro-land in particular, but also the UK, into the United States. He believed that the cause was the imbalance across the Atlantic rather than across euro-land. It is interesting that, as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, noted, the glamour of the dot.com economy, which in part pulled in this money, has faded since the time the sub-committee took evidence from the Governor of the Bank of England. One now sees some rebalancing of the two currencies of which Sir Edward spoke. I found that a particularly interesting exercise.
In the early and mid-1990s I had been somewhat sceptical about the development of the euro. I accepted that it could be seen as the logical conclusion of the single market project and that there could be problems if within that single market countries began to adopt competitive devaluation positions. In particular, I recognised that Germany had fears about Italy and Spain, even the UK, using devaluation as a means of positioning themselves more favourably in the market. But I have also spent much of that time studying the underlying competitiveness of European countries, in particular the relationship between the less advantaged and more advantaged countries in the EU—"cohesion" in euro-speak—and the divergence and convergence among those economies. As a result, I was well aware of the divergence between different parts and regions of the European Union. That led me to conclude that the single currency project needed to be taken slowly rather than too quickly. I believed that the more important project politically was enlargement in order to bring in the countries of eastern Europe rather than the single currency.
But I am a political as well as an economic pragmatist. Once it became clear that the all-important axis of France and Germany was determined to press ahead with the single currency, and therefore it became a political project, I believe that Britain would be ill advised not to participate. It was important that if it went ahead we should make it as successful as possible and that we would do better—as in 1958—to be at the table at the beginning helping to shape it rather than come along as a Johnny-come-lately asking people to change the rules.
At that stage I was very interested to see how it was shaping up. Two particular issues influenced me in becoming far more optimistic about the project than I had been earlier. One was the fact that the effect of price transparency was much stronger, even at the early stage, than had been expected. Several witnesses spoke about the degree to which, even before the introduction of notes and coins, consumer prices had been pushed down as a result of everything being priced in euros. That important matter had been noted by Ireland in particular, but it also emerged from other witnesses.
Over the past 20 years in this country we have suffered from the collusion between retailers and manufacturers in the car market to keep prices somewhere in the region of 20 per cent above those in the rest of euro-land. To some extent, the development of single pricing in the European Union is one of the factors which exposes that collusion and gives the

963
Government, as well as the EU competition authorities, something of a stimulus to do something about it, whereas before they turned far too much of a blind eye to it. The issue of consumers benefiting from transparency of prices is of considerable value. If it already exists at a time when we are not using the notes and coins, how much greater it will be when we have a single currency.
The second interesting issue is the stability and growth pact. It has been mentioned that Belgium and Finland both talked about the advantage to their administrations of the stability and growth pact in terms of providing a degree of external discipline to goverments. I had expected Italy to find life within the euro difficult. In my studies I worked fairly closely with a group of Italian economists. I asked them: "What are your views? How are things working out in Italy in relation to the single currency? Are you being pressed too hard by the stability and growth pact?" A tall man—I confess they were all men—relied: "No, Margaret, you must understand this has been of enormous value to us. At long last we have some external discipline on our government that actually reins in public expenditure. No, it has been tough meeting the criteria but it has very definitely been worth while".
I conclude that I have been influenced by a number of issues, but these are two issues I highlight as being a slight surprise in the evidence that we found. The noble Lord, Lord Shaw, made the point that so far we have seen the euro working at a time when the economy is moving forward quite fast. It is important in the sense that trying to make changes within the economy is rather like trying to change gear with derailleur gears: as long as you go forward you can change gear quite well; it is when you stop that the chain falls off.
That is a test still to come. But my reading of the evidence that we received was that the euro has made a good start. Given the confidence that is now being built up in the euro, and given the reassertion of its fundamentals against the dot.com economy of the US, I am fairly confident of its future.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is an excellent report. I shall not waste time listing everything with which I agree. Instead I shall concentrate on some points of contention. That is less to do with the committee's report and more to do with the precise form of EMU itself.
However, I should tell your Lordships—other noble Lords have done so—where I stand personally on EMU. I use the language so beloved of my right honourable friends in government; namely, that it is in our national interests to join economic and monetary union. The net economic gain is as clear and unambiguous as anything in economics is or is likely to be. That is my position.
The noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead, said that it all started too early. He must know that this matter goes back some 40 years. I certainly started to get
964
involved in it in the early 1960s when people were thinking of it as both a theoretical and practical project. I certainly talked to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, when he was president of the Commission in 1975, about the practical prospects then. Far from being too early, this should have happened long ago. The other comment that one should make at this point is that, given the history of what has happened, the fact that EMU has started is actually a miracle. To anyone who knows the problems at every stage in moving forward, it is a remarkable achievement of which Europe can be proud.
I turn to the report. I look first at paragraph 14, again as a point of contention. I do not regard the end of internal competitive devaluation, coupled with differential interest rates, as a potential downside; quite the contrary. The essence of economic and monetary union is that one gives up competitive devaluation and one gives up separate interest rates. That is the point. It cannot possibly be a downside. Indeed, the point of it is the efficiency benefits that will occur in the way the single market is operating in that monetary and micro-economic framework. Therefore, one should not approach the subject in that way. I add that it is a matter of sadness to those of us who believe strongly in the single market how slow we are still being in removing the large number of market imperfections and restrictive practices that remain, both in European Union producer and consumer markets. But EMU will help, I hope, in moving us in the right direction there.
I turn to paragraph 16. Here I agree with the committee. It says that,
"the ECB has been more transparent than expected".
But, as none of us who knows anything about Europe expected it to be transparent at all, anything it has done is more than expected. But it is surely not transparent enough. The ECB compares most unfavourably in this regard, as in so many other ways, with the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, which is a model of transparency and openness. Therefore, I do not accept that it would be inappropriate for the ECB to publish minutes and voting records. Independence is not, in any way, threatened by so doing or by requiring such secrecy in order for the bank to operate in an independent way. If one really believes that, one has no faith in the European Union in the first place. To say that the ECB would be threatened by normal democratic transparency is a most ridiculous proposition.
That takes me on to accountability. This is a matter that unites most of your Lordships' House, given our own peculiar way of getting here. Accountability to democratic institutions is the essence of democracy. Here again, the ECB compares most unfavourably with the position prevailing in this country with regard to the Monetary Policy Committee. So far, the European Parliament's role in this has been pathetic. I should like to see it show some courage and start to demand an accountability role.

965
I do not see what the problem is—again I slightly disagree with the committee: if it reflected on the point, I am not sure whether it might not come to agree with me—
Lord Dubs: Oh!
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may finish. I do not see what the problem is in making the European Central Bank accountable to national parliaments. It would do it the world of good and would improve policy-making if it regularly had to explain itself to the Treasury Select Committee of the other place or, even more valuably, to the new economic affairs subcommittee of your Lordships' House, as well of course to similar bodies in other countries.
The target of the ECB is stable inflation. It refers to stable prices but it always means stable inflation. That is similar to our target. It follows that the external value of the currency is determined by markets given the inflation target and policy to hit it. I am not one of those therefore who believes that it is appropriate, having done that and let markets determine the behaviour of the external value of the currency, to start talking about whether the currency is too high or too low.
I can only say that we will live to see the same kind of people saying how worried they are about fundamentals compared with the value of the euro being too low. It will not be long before they say that the value of the euro is too high. The answer is that these days, in the free world, markets determine the value of currencies and one should stop all these pronouncements on too high or too low; or, to put it differently, in the usual cynical way: if you know what the price should be, you can make a lot of money by working against markets. I would not advocate that to your Lordships.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer got the inflation target formulation correct and the people who set up the ECB got it wrong. As noble Lords will know, the target in this country is a precise number with a symmetric band, and outside the 1 per cent band of the 2.5 per cent target the governor has to write a letter to the Chancellor explaining what he is up to. Setting an inflation target at less than or equal to a particular inflation rate and then saying it is for the medium term is much inferior as a target method of making policy to our method. Certainly, the lack of the equivalent of an explanation is a weakness. I am not happy with the formulation of the ECB's approach to policy and I hope that it may at some time move in our direction.
I make a similar remark about the stability and growth pact. I entirely accept that one has to have some kind of restraint on fiscal policy. I do not take the arguments of why quite as seriously as my noble friends of all kinds on the committee, but one has to have some restraint as fiscal profligacy could undermine monetary policy. The way in which the stability and growth pact is formulated is
966
extraordinarily unsophisticated. The ECB refers to a deficit of less than 3 per cent and then adds the usual weasel words,
"in all but exceptional circumstances",
which get you off the hook if that is what you need. But that fails to distinguish current from capital expenditure, as our fiscal regime does distinguish. It is entirely correct to make that distinction.
It also assumes that we can easily define the cycle. Our approach assumes it as well and every economist knows how difficult that is. The main point is that capital expenditure should be approached in government budgetary terms differently from current expenditure and should not necessarily be tax financed even over the cycle. If we have stable, democratic and financially sound governments, which at the present time we do have in Europe, I think that then to base fiscal rules on the assumption that they are all stupid is hardly supportive of democracy per se. I hope that EMU will develop so that we achieve a much more sensible stability and growth pact than the one we have at the present time.
In addition, if the European Union is to evolve, it is by no means obvious to me why the emphasis on the fiscal regime should be on national governments. Different circumstances exist. Why should one national government not run a surplus in order to finance another national government's deficit? There is no problem with the economics of that. In order to get my point across to noble Lords and help them to understand it, I ask them to reflect on the position of a large multi-national company with businesses in several EU countries. Let us suppose that someone were to come to that company and say, "What you have to do is balance your accounts in every country and, in addition, you must not be a net borrower". If one really wanted to bankrupt that multi-national, that is how one would do it. If one applies that rule to a multi-national private enterprise, one should at least reflect on whether it might not also be applied to a multi-country European Union.
My comment on the insulting document sent to us by the Treasury is that there must be someone in the Treasury who is still feeling bitter about the behaviour of your Lordships in 1911. I hope that the Treasury takes note of the fact that no one in the Chamber and no member of the committee was responsible for defeating Lloyd George's Budget at that time. I really do believe that the Treasury should forgive us. It should put in a little work and take more seriously the enormous amount work that the committee put into its report.
I conclude by asking and answering four questions. Is the euro working? Answer, yes. Could it work better? Answer, yes. Should Britain join? Answer, yes. Would it work even better still if we joined? Answer, very definitely yes.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, for initiating this

967
debate and also to the members of the committee, with their vast wealth of experience, many of whom we have had the privilege of hearing during the debate today.
As usual, the committee has made a thorough and detailed report. I have to venture the opinion that its broadly favourable conclusion has not entirely surprised me, as I have been getting to know over the past year or so on which side of the debate on the euro its personal sympathies lie. It is therefore interesting to see in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the report the committee's few concerns about the euro, which in my belief require a much more detailed inspection. I shall spend a little time on those two paragraphs.
Paragraph 14 states:
"But we have noted the potential downside of the 'one size fits all' monetary policy. It has deprived the national governments and central banks in participating Member States of the possibility of adjusting their economies either by alterations in their exchange rates or by differential interest rates".
Too right, my Lords.
The report then moves on to paragraph 15 and looks at the position in Ireland. It observes that the rate of inflation has recently been increasing rapidly and that the Central Bank of Ireland cannot respond by increasing interest rates. Let us look at the Irish situation in more detail. Inflation in Ireland is at its highest level for 16 years. It stood at 7 per cent in mid-December. Interest rates should be at a much higher rate than the current euro-land 4.75 per cent to reduce demand in the economy. Maurice Fitzpatrick, chief economist of Chantrey Vellacott DFK, has suggested that interest rates should be around 14 per cent. As a consequence of the high inflation rate, the unions have recently negotiated a 7.5 per cent pay increase from next April.
Wage price inflation looks to be flourishing in Ireland. In addition, there has been a rapid expansion of credit. By last July it was increasing at the rate of 25 per cent per year. Maurice O'Connell, governor of the central bank, has said that nothing can be done to stem the expansion of credit. He stated
"There is no authority to impose restrictions as we might wish".
A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers in October 2000 stated:
"If confidence erodes and foreign investors pull out Irish property prices could crash undermining the banking system".
The IMF has also suggested that monetary conditions are too loose in Ireland. In a report on the Irish economy in August 2000 it noted:
"Monetary conditions are clearly expansionary from Ireland's point of view contributing to robust demand growth as well as rapid increases in house prices and private sector credit".
The IMF also noted that monetary conditions, now determined on a European area-wide basis, were excessively accommodating for Ireland's cyclical position. Thus the consequences of joining the single currency are all too clear in the case of Ireland where the inability of the national government to put the brakes on an explosive boom could well lead to economic disaster in the long term.
968
Portugal looks to be going down the same route. It is already experiencing the highest industrial inflation in euro-land at 16 per cent. It has experienced a credit boom and a collapse in savings leading to a massive current account deficit. The Portuguese Government have imposed price controls on energy to hold down increasing inflation, but that subsidy arrangement comes to an end this month. Last August, Vitor Constancio, Governor of the Bank of Portugal, warned of the danger of,
"a spiral of higher prices and wages".
Traditionally, Portugal has one of the highest saving rates in Europe. This fell dramatically when Portugal became a member of Euro-land and real interest rates dropped. In October 2000, the Financial Times reported an estimate from the head of a large commercial Portuguese investment bank, Mr Tavares Moriera of Central, that household debt had tripled in five years to reach 90 per cent of disposable income. He feared that:
"Interest rate adjustments next year may push many households over the brink".
As a result of the credit boom, the current account deficit has ballooned from 4.7 per cent of GNP to 12 per cent in 2000. In October, the economic situation caused a political crisis.
Thus we see how in two European Community countries the euro is causing severe economic problems. What is more, its weakness over the past year or so has enabled larger countries like Germany and France to avoid wholesale economic reform, in particular of labour markets, as my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry pointed out. This would also help euro-land to escape from high structural unemployment. Last October in Germany, Hans Henkel, the then head of the German CBI, stated
"In the past, we have been good at exporting the strong mark. We should not have to rely on a weak euro to help us".
He also stated that the government's lack of urgency and commitment to modernising the German economy were now very worrying.
The German Government have recently increased the burden of labour regulation. Three new regulations extend employee representation in the workplace, reinforce employees' right to work part time and restrict the fixed-term contracts used by many companies to improve their labour flexibility. Economics Minister, Walter Muller, accepted that the new rules might scare off small and medium-sized enterprises. The new president of the German CBI has stated that unemployment could be halved if labour regulation were reformed.
In France, much the same situation exists. Starting in 2002, the government have decided to impose a 35-hour week on even the smallest firms. Lucien Rebuffel, the head of the CGPME, which represents over 1.5 million small firms in France, said that the 35-hour week was,
"complex, rigid and what's more of little use when creating jobs".
He added that no other country had decided to go along that road and this clearly means that French companies will face a serious handicap when it comes to increased costs.

969
The French Government have also proposed that workers on fixed-term contracts be paid over 10 per cent more than workers on open contracts to encourage companies to take on workers with full employment rights. The French CBI has said that it is hostile to this proposal, believing that it shows a major lack of understanding of the way modern business works.
The European Parliament has strongly resisted economic reform. The parliament has voted to pass amendments to the takeover directive which would make hostile takeover almost impossible in Europe. The amendments were proposed by a group of German MEPs concerned by the hostile takeover of the German firm Mannesman by the British company Vodafone. It also voted for the early imposition of a tax on art sales, which could weaken the European art market. Furthermore, it voted down postal liberalisations.
The most serious long-term problem facing euro-land is unfunded pensions. Whereas citizens in the UK have nearly fully funded their future pensions liabilities, this is not the case in continental Europe, where a "pay as you go" basis is the norm. A study by Niall Ferguson and Laurent Kotlikoff in the publication Foreign Affairs in March 2000 found that in order to fund pension commitments, Italy will have to raise taxes by 10.5 per cent, Germany by 9.5 per cent and France by 6.9 per cent. These figures are with effect from today's levels the immediate and permanent adjustment needed.
What is the attitude of these countries to pension reform? In France, pension reform was dropped in March 2000. The Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, has stated that he does not believe that "pay as you go" should be replaced by the UK system. In Germany, pensions reform is under threat with large-scale union demonstrations against the planned reforms of the labour Minister, Walter Reister. Why is this pension problem so interconnected with the euro? A common currency would inevitably lead to a common taxation system, despite recent denials. Comments from a senior aide to the German Chancellor (made after a recent meeting with Tony Blair) confirm this. He said:
"Those who are in euro-land quickly feel the direct obligation that you cannot have the one without the other. You cannot have a common currency that is not embedded in a common and appropriate fiscal and economic policy".
Hence the very real probability that the UK will end up, through its net contributions, funding European pensions.
In concentrating on the major problems of the euro, I should like to emphasise that the UK can be part of the EU without joining the single currency. The predictions of politicians and many commentators were that the euro would be strong from day one, I should, however, declare an interest as a manager of an investment trust where we decided to go short on the euro right from the start. I should like to end with the three reasons for doing so, where we forecast the likely unfavourable progress of the euro against the dollar. First, time. Some 135 years have elapsed since the end of the American Civil War. The dollar was fused at the
970
end of it. On the other hand, the euro was cobbled together in only a few years. Secondly, common language. In the USA, this makes mobility of labour much easier than in the EC. For example, a Greek citizen emigrating to Wales or an Italian to Denmark will find it much more difficult than an American moving from one state to another. Thirdly, economic convergence. The examples of Ireland and Portugal show the problems, whereas in the US, economic variations between the different states can be ironed out by market forces.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister how he believes that these problems can be overcome.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, perhaps I may say right at the start that those of us who served on the subcommittee are extremely gratified by the range and depth of consideration which other noble Lords have given to this matter. I hope that we can do justice to those contributions in the remarks that some members are now able to make.
In debating at this time the question whether the single currency has so far been successful, there will be those who will wish to quote Chou en-Lai, who, when asked what he thought of the French Revolution, replied that it was too early to judge. But to leave it there would of course be untenable for several reasons, not the least of which is that, since 12 countries have taken the plunge, our jobs and investment are starting to be affected. Certainly, investment is in many cases predicated on Britain joining.
Our witnesses assisted us in defining the criteria by which we would measure success. To that end. I should like to put a question to my noble friend on the Front Bench: does he agree that we have set out a reasonable list of criteria on page 7 of the report, even though we cannot mark out of 10 the Treasury's response this afternoon? Our analysis of' the evidence in relation to these criteria is the heart of our report. For the record, there is the conclusion—also on page 7—that,
"Clearly there has been considerable progress in relation to some of the criteria, but less in relation to others".
That will not exactly set the Thames on fire, but if someone from Mars were to mark the answers out of 10, he would probably conclude that the euro was doing fairly well on seven or eight out of 10. As has been mentioned, that is, of course, broadly speaking, the overall assessment of the Governor of the Bank of England.
Another broad impression, which we do not spell out in so many words, is that the whole process since Maastricht—which was, of course, 10 years ago—has been one of very careful preparation and of very careful work on conditions and procedures, stability and growth factors and so on, for this project to be a success. That careful preparation has undoubtedly paid dividends.
Nearly all the witnesses gave the rationale, the logic, that the fruition of the single market is a single unit of account, a single currency. They implicitly reject the

971
position, if I can sum up in a slogan, "single market yes, single money no". They think that is an illogical position.
My noble friend Lord Peston touched on the question of accountability and unelected central bankers, and I shall refer to one of the many interesting remarks that he made. I used to share the view expressed by the noble Lord on the publication of voting. However, the very clear view arising strongly from the evidence was that a particular difficulty arose from the fact that the board consists of one member per member state. If votes were recorded, members would be lobbied and they would be different kinds of animals from the animals they are now. They would find it much more difficult to do what my noble friend Lord Peston says they should do—that is, vote according to their own judgment—if they were to be more openly lobbied by their own governments.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I hope that he fully appreciates what he is saying. He is saying that these major figures from each of the countries would find, if they had to express their views in public, that they could not behave honestly. That is the position. It is an appalling reflection on the behaviour of the ECB and the European Union if we have to live with that view. I am simply saying that I do not want to live with that view.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I knew that that would be the counter argument. I do not think that it is quite as devastating as my noble friend said. After all, we could have a totally different kind of central bank—it could be run, like the Bank of England, through a monetary policy committee—but if we have this system we have this problem. We have a similar problem with the European Court of Auditors, which also consists of one member per country. This is a great step forward and we have to look at the issue in an objective way and not use emotive language about the motives of people. If we are not careful, that will be their behavioural response. I hope that it is now on the record that that is the logic, the reasoning, for the view expressed.
Perhaps I may now say a word about sovereignty. On page 103 of the report the German ambassador quotes the following remark of Paul Henri Spaak more than 50 years ago:
"In Europe there are only small nations left, those that know they are small and those that do not".
Some may think that is pushing it a bit, but it is an arresting and fundamentally accurate analysis. If one looks at a world of 5 billion or 6 billion people and at the accelerating development economically in China and elsewhere, one finds that Europe, with a population of some 500 million, has a maximum of 10 per cent of the world's population. In a world of globalisation, Europe is just about large enough to have some leverage in the WTO and elsewhere.
So what about the proposition that the euro is, to quote another phrase on page 46 of the report, "a currency without a country"—which is almost the
972
converse of the previous question? That is one of a number of propositions which are somehow true ex hypothesi and do not enter into other than a definitional state. The same is to some extent true of "one size fits all" rate of interest, an issue to which I will return in a moment.
We can agree that it is a great leap forward—if I may quote Chou en-Lai twice in one speech. Future historians will probably see it as an act of faith at least as great as the establishment of the EEC in the first place.
As to the rate of interest, the objection that different degrees of capacity utilisation require different interest rates is, of course, as my noble friend Lord Barnett, pointed out, as arguable between London and Cardiff as between London and Brussels. The greater difference is, of course, between London and Cardiff. Indeed, typically there are far more variations of capacity utilisation within countries than between countries.
Noble Lords will be interested to know that we spent a lot of time considering the issue of so-called asymmetrical shocks, whereby a particular member state is affected quite differently from the others by an external shock. The more we looked at this the more we found it to be, in practice, overstated. Finland was cited as an example of where such circumstances may be a factor because of its proximity to Russia. We heard about an interesting innovation in Finland—the social security buffer fund, which is referred to on page 23—whereby the flexibility in labour costs of any asymmetrical shock does not have to be in wage costs per se but in total labour costs. I was very pleased that my former trade union colleague in Helsinki gave that evidence.
Other noble Lords have dealt more than adequately with the questions of the euro's value against the dollar and Ireland, so I should like to skip those issues and say a few words about the problem of public opinion. We perhaps did not say enough about this in the report, although it is mentioned on page 48.
Here I should say a word of caution about the reaction on the streets of Dusseldorf—and this goes also for the streets of Burton-on-Trent. It is not axiomatic that we can visualise, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, said, the deregulation of labour markets as a general proposition. At a time of accelerating structural change, we need more labour consultation and protection on some matters as well as updating technology and working practices in other respects.
The difficulties of convincing public opinion, the man and woman in the street, are exacerbated if there is loose talk about deregulating labour markets. For example, deregulating pensions? No. The opposite is required on the agenda. Deregulating holidays? No. We have now agreed a minimum of four weeks holiday and that has massive advantages. What about deregulating standards of training? No. Everyone who has studied the matter in any detail knows that the opposite is true. Deregulating European works councils? No. They are rightly about to be

973
strengthened to help with the restructuring of the European economy. What about deregulating maternity leave? No. That is part of an active labour market. I could go on.
Of course, there are structural changes that require changes in arrangements in the labour market. But the man and woman in the street, in Dusseldorf and in Burton-on-Trent want a prosperous Europe that is also seen to protect their welfare—and if there is an increase in welfare to be had out of all this, why not?
I ask the noble Lord. Lord Northbrook, whether he is aware, when criticising the framework agreement on part-time working and on fixed-time contracts, that this was done by means of a collective framework agreement with the BDI, the German employers, and with the CBI in London as the alternative to a detailed directive. The reason they signed the agreement was that they want to see an agreed role for part-time work and fixed-term contracts as part of the modernisation of the European labour market.
What was the issue in Denmark? The first point was the clear gender gap—with a 10 per cent deficit among women, mainly motivated by anxieties about the future of the welfare state, maternity benefits and so on. To use traditional trade union rhetoric for once, is this a project for bankers, or a project for the people? I say that, if we have to choose, it is a project for the people. But I say to noble Lords: please do not let the issue be posed in such a way. The art of politics is surely to give people an acceptable vision of their role in society. European trade unions have been working hard to adjust to EMU, recognising that European benchmarks for pay and productivity are now more transparent; they will be more so with the introduction of notes and coin. We refer to the matter on page 22 of the report.
So let us maintain a sense of balance on the question of labour markets. It is an important area so far as public opinion is concerned. We shall be negotiating pay in euros. We shall need confidence in the prices index, and in the price tags in the shops. We shall hear a great deal more about this matter in the coming months.
I have the impression that the fashion in what is said about Europe is changing once again in a more positive way. Few now deny that the introduction of the euro is creating the most radical and far-reaching shake-up since the immediate post-war period. We see mergers and all that is associated with this type of restructuring, and we see the extra transparency of the currency itself with the notes and coin at the end of the year.
In conclusion, I ask my noble friend Lord McIntosh this question. Does he agree that there is scope to explain all these matters more adequately in this country—not at a level of high polemics, but systematically, possibly under the 10 headings that we have set out? Perhaps I may make a suggestion to my noble friend. As some recompense for the sins of omission of the Treasury, should not the Government publish a popular version of our report, with a joint foreword written by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Tomlinson?
5.33 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, who disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, over the idea that the European Central Bank should publish the minutes, and therefore the voting pattern, of its members. I never thought I should live to see the day when I should accuse the noble Lord, Lord Peston, of being naive. But if ever there were a recipe for disagreement in Europe, it is to publish the minutes of the bank's decision. It would invite pressure on individual members, no doubt from the nationalistic elements within their own country.
I have no expertise in this subject; however, I have a great deal of interest in it. The report is very important, and for this reason. I have often been dubious about certain values in this House—for example, whether Question Time is really valuable. But when a committee of this kind goes into a subject in depth, it makes one of the most valuable contributions that this House can ever make. The report is important in that respect.
The report gives those of us who do not have the expertise an appreciation of the attendant progress and problems of the euro. That progress greatly affects our political and economic outlook for the future. I read the report first; then read the evidence, which I found fascinating. An enthusiasm on the part of the witnesses came across, even in detached witnesses, such as the Governor of the Bank of England, who gave a correct appreciation of the benefits of the euro, the problems involved, and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who is not in his place, referred to the costs of the report and said that very few people had read it. He said that the press had not taken it up the following day. Like so many people in this country, I am fed information on the euro which is entirely misleading. The press barons working from America who largely control our press have very little interest in presenting a detached report such as this. That is also why it is so important.
Previous speakers have indicated their approach. I make no bones about the fact—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—that my approach is political. I think that the whole movement towards a European Union is political. It will be a remarkable achievement, after the wars of the last century—a united Europe, with a population of between 300 million and 500 million depending on which countries join. To achieve that objective, which would bring such security to the world and make an enormous contribution, requires a successful economy. The way to achieve a successful economy is through free trade throughout Europe, and through the organisation within Europe of a sound economy. That is essential. Also, for a single market, a stable and dependable common currency is an obvious must.
In political terms my view is that the Government, when they were elected and when the Prime Minister's popularity was at its height, should have taken the plunge and entered the euro then. I think that it was a

975
rather mean approach to say that we shall join the euro only when the other countries have proven to us that it is a success. Obviously, this country could have made a great contribution to its being a success. I well understand the argument that the time when we should join the euro is largely governed by economic considerations. But the question of whether to join cannot depend simply on an economic assessment. It depends on a political assessment.
I should like to comment on two or three points that emerged clearly in this fascinating report. First, I have the impression that everyone generally was pleased with the progress of the euro and the performance of the European Central Bank. The gentleman from the Economist said in evidence that it was held in reasonably high esteem. That is a fair assessment. But all the witnesses conceded that the real test as regards assessing confidence in the euro was when it demonstrated how it would deal with a recession, especially one with high unemployment—in other words, when the euro economies had been through a bad period.
Secondly, there was considerable emphasis on the strong performance of the US economy. There was little thought then on the part of the witnesses that there would be a downturn in the United States economy. Therefore, already, to a degree, the evidence given and the assessments made by the committee need to be qualified by what is happening now in the United States. The one exception was, I believe, Professor Fitzgerald who gave evidence on behalf of the Irish Government with the Irish Ambassador. The professor laid great emphasis on the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United States of America and between the Republic of Ireland and this country, with regard to the proportion of trade that they enjoyed. He appeared to be scared of a sudden decline in the value of the dollar and a sudden increase in the value of the euro and of the problems that that could cause for the European Union generally and for the Republic of Ireland in particular. That is a possibility. One hopes that, as a result of combined efforts on both sides of the Atlantic, the rapid changes in value which he feared will not occur.
Professor Fitzgerald pointed out that sterling very much shadows the dollar and that if there was a sudden decline in the dollar it would hit sterling hard, just as it would hit the Irish economy pretty hard. He dealt with the problem of a possible decline in the global economy. Everyone will be affected if the measures taken in the United States do not prevent a decline in the American economy descending into depression.
I have friends in, and a fair knowledge of, the two peripheral countries of the 12 that are mentioned, Ireland and Finland. The problem of inflation in Ireland largely comprises asset inflation. Property has risen in price enormously. I had a friend in Ireland who died two years ago. He had been a friend since the war. His children phoned me to say that they had to put the house on the market. They mentioned an asking price which I considered would be high for the South East
976
of England. I was told that within two days of it being put on the market it had been snapped up by an American. There is so much direct investment in Ireland for a number of reasons.
Ireland has joined the euro and is a wholehearted member of the European Union. It is the only other English speaking country in the European Union and it is a pleasant country in which to live. American businessmen have discovered that they can run a business in Europe just as well from the Republic of Ireland as from the South East of England. That has added to the boom in the Irish economy. That boom incidentally has probably contributed more than anything else to the change of atmosphere in Northern Ireland that makes a political settlement there a possibility.
I refer to a problem which will lead to great political difficulties in the coming election. Labour is imported from Wales into the Republic of Ireland on a weekly basis. Irish firms must constantly increase their wages to attract people to work in Ireland in the many jobs that are available there. I do not have to remind your Lordships of the great decline in the prospects for the Welsh economy. The contrast between the prosperity of Ireland and the lack of prosperity of Wales will become a real political issue in the coming general election. I imagine that the same thing will happen with regard to Scotland. It appears to me that the Government sometimes do not fully appreciate how close our country and the Republic of Ireland are.
Until I retired last year I was the chairman of Severn River Crossing Plc, which is one of the main arteries from the Republic of Ireland into England through Wales. That company has already made arrangements to accept the euro in payment of tolls from the start of next year. Many other businesses have also already made such arrangements. By 1st January next year when the coins and notes are in circulation we shall see a tremendous change in the attitude towards the euro in this country. I believe that the Republic of Ireland will have a soft economic landing from its inflation problem for a variety of reasons which I shall not go into now.
Like the Republic of Ireland, Finland worries about the American economy. If the American economy went into decline, and Nokia, the big electronics company in Finland, which is now entirely owned by Americans, were closed down or manufacturing moved elsewhere, that would be a great blow to the Finnish economy, irrespective of its position with regard to the euro. For we are really talking about a global economy in which the dollar is an important ingredient and the euro is an increasingly important ingredient. Looking ahead, people surely will one day talk of the merger of the dollar and the euro.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, as another non-member of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, I congratulate him and his team on a positive report on the working of the euro. For the first time ever in this Chamber I congratulate the noble

977
Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on his comment that the report should receive much wider publicity. I should like to think that from today that publicity may be received as the report is positive and thoughtful in its entirety.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me as I hate to interrupt him. I do not think that the publicity that has been given has reached the citizen directly but the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, took the trouble of sending a copy of the report to the chairmen of every member of the FTSE 100 index. He received a considerable number of helpful replies from those people. So it has had a quite wide circulation to those 100 people, their economists and staff.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that extremely useful intervention. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said that the report only reaches those in the City involved in business and not the average person on the street. But it is those people who employ the individuals; we need to get the message to them.
Many of the individuals we meet on the street or in the workplace believe that joining the euro is a step too far. We hear so often that they believe that the single market—the freedom of movement of people, goods services and capital—is as far as we should go. Yet we see the gap—it has been as much as 25 per cent—between the value of the euro and sterling. That means that we have a totally unequal market. It is a playing field that I can only describe as a slippery slope. ft is remarkable that over the past two or three years producers in this country have managed to survive in circumstances where products are pouring into the United Kingdom and we are denied the opportunity to export. In agriculture—the area I know best—in food production, 40,000 left the land during the past year mainly due to the disparity in the market place.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said clearly that it is almost impossible to judge the full success of the euro. Yet the evidence received from almost everyone was favourable. He said that it can be judged only by the economic conditions of the European Union as a whole and its relations with the remainder of the world. We are all well aware of the growing influence and impact of the World Trade Organisation. In that sense, we in the European Union have a responsibility to get our act together with regard to the rest of the world in terms of trade.
My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry said that the euro would be seen differently when in hard currency. I have made that point on many occasions. One can spell that out to the travellers. As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, the benefits of the hard currency will come home to the 8 million travellers when crossing the borders in euro-land.
That leaves us with the overall situation in the European Union. It is often seen as economically sclerotic and politically bankrupt. We know that that is nonsense. Equally, we should know that our place in the European Union allows us to share in the benefits
978
of the Union, which by any standards is one of the most economically dynamic regions in the world as well as being a bulwark defending democratic values. If the European Union were so awful, why would so many countries be queuing up to join, knocking on the door? It would be a tragedy if the United Kingdom were to turn its back on Europe just as it was on the verge of reuniting the continent of Europe. Shaping events, not reacting to them, is surely the order of the day.
The EU has a global influence on the economic and political plane. That will be reinforced by the European security and defence policy—and, many would say, by the euro itself. But that does not mean that it creates conflict with the United States. The United States is the closest global partner of the EU and will doubtless remain so under a different regime. For all the headlines, the reality is that the Atlantic relationship is flourishing, particularly in the private sector.
Any attempt to put a figure on the membership is doomed to failure. Any attempt to look forward over the next few years to determine what the economic climate will be is pure speculation. But most policies in the European Union—environment, trade, co-operation against crime, the drugs trade, the single market and economic and monetary union—have little or nothing to do with the Budget. Trying to quantify those matters makes no more sense than quantifying concepts such as collective defence, the rule of law or parliamentary democracy.
The assumptions following some public attitudes that we hear far too often are that the European Union is static and that the United Kingdom has no influence in it. Both are wrong. One has only to pick up a newspaper to see that there is a fundamental debate about how the European Union works on top of years of policy change in areas ranging from economic and monetary union to security, and from the fight against crime to economic reform. In many of those areas the United Kingdom has had a profound influence: in police co-operation, economic reform and moving towards a freer trade.
We need more input not less. I take seriously the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He said that the European Parliament was pathetic in its reaction to the present proposals. I served for 20 years in the European Parliament. I can only say that when the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and I were there it seemed very different.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Barnett said that I should be an exception to every rule. As the last speaker before the noble Lords who will wind up the debate, I am tempted to disagree with everyone but I shall not do so. I note that the Labour Party has a new invitation for the election, that we should vote with our heads and our hearts. On this topic, too often the heart is involved rather than the head.

979
I used to be a wild enthusiast for EMU. In 1992 I wanted immediate entry without any convergence criteria. Since then I am a disappointed enthusiast. Since the Edinburgh summit when Mr John Major was Prime Minister, the EU has become arrested in its development. The steady march towards what I had hoped would be a more integrated state has not occurred. There has been no leadership since Jacques Delors gave up presidency of the European Commission. There is no leadership among chief executives, prime ministers or presidents of Europe, as was evident at Nice. That was no way to run any meeting.
I do not question whether the euro is good or bad, or whether we should go in. I wish to examine the euro critically. Having a single currency without a single state creates problems. Some Euro-sceptics fear that a single currency will lead to a single state. Those who love the EU get defensive about the issue. They do not want to admit that a single currency without a single state will cause severe problems.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Lea that it is too soon to judge whether the euro has arrived. There has been no major event in the past two years that could be described even as a shock, much less a symmetric or an asymmetric shock. We do not know how the system would cope with an asymmetric shock.
We have to examine the euro in an instrumental way as a currency. Is it working? As a past member of the committee, I know what an excellent committee it is and how carefully its reports are written. However, there is one major question for the country that the report does not address. I shall confine myself to my disagreements with the report. Praise will only go to the head of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson.
There is a problem of excess volatility. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston that in a flexible exchange market there is no correct level and there will be volatility. However, I am worried that, although the euro-dollar rate, given in figure 4 on page 39, was more or less between 1 and 1.40 dollars between 1986 and 1999, it has gone below 1 dollar since the establishment of economic and monetary union. It may go up again, but we have to note not just the fluctuation but the fact that the trend of the euro against the dollar is downward. I know that it has turned up slightly in the past three or four weeks, but one must worry when a new currency shows such a steady trend against a leading currency.
It has been argued that the situation is due not to the euro's weakness, but to the dollar's strength. There has been an interesting change in the relationship between the pound and the dollar and between the pound and the euro. The pound used to move with the dollar, but now it has decoupled and is moving more with the euro. However, it is no good denying that the pound is overvalued against the euro. We have to ask why it is so.
I have argued previously that there is a fundamental institutional shortcoming in the Maastricht treaty: nobody is in charge of the external value of the euro.
980
Even in a flexible exchange world, somebody has to be responsible for making a statement on whether the currency is too high or too low. In the United States, the Secretary of Treasury is the only person who makes a statement about the dollar. In Europe, everybody has an opinion and expresses it, from the Chancellor of Germany to every other Minister or member of the Commission.
Those arrangements will not do. That gap in the institutional set-up of the euro must be repaired. Somebody—perhaps ECOFIN—ought to be responsible. Whoever it is, people ought to know who to go to in a moment of crisis for an authoritative statement on whether the euro is high or low. Of course, ECOFIN cannot do anything about the problem because it can give only general orientation to the ECB about the external value of the euro. Some people think either that the external value of the euro does not matter or that devaluations are welcome. Our experience of devaluation has been pretty terrible, so I hope that nobody else starts to rely on it.
It would be very good if the euro were to settle down at some value—I shall not call it an equilibrium value, but some value, plus or minus 5 per cent—and stay there for at least six months. It has not stayed at any specific value for even three months in the past two years. It has been very successful at achieving price stability, but there was price stability before. There has been no great change on that. Inflation was low in the European Union countries and it has not been appreciably altered by the ECB.
This is not about whether we like the EU: it is about whether the currency works. That is a non-emotional question. Currencies are instruments. One cannot die for them—or at least I hope not.
Price stability has certainly not been worsened. I agree again with my noble friend Lord Peston—it is always a surprise when economists agree with each other—that the target has not been set up intelligently. However, the downward trend of the euro is news. We must acknowledge that and not live in a fantasy land where we believe that the euro is on its way up every time it appreciates by 1 cent and that it will soon beat the dollar. We need to forget about the ambition that the euro should be not just a currency, but a revenge against the United States to show how macho we are. The aim of the euro should not be to beat up the dollar. It should aim to be a stable currency against the dollar, at whatever level it chooses. It has failed to do that so far.
That structural defect in the operation of the euro ought to be addressed at some level, either in ECOFIN or at one of the rather untidy summits at 4 o'clock in the morning on the fifth day after the seventh shirt. That situation must be brought under control and the euro has to show that it can be stable to within plus or minus 5 per cent. I do not ask for parity with the dollar any more. I used to want that, but all my life my dreams have been disappointed and one more will not make any difference. It simply needs to stabilise at some level. There ought to be institutional arrangements in the EU to have a single, authoritative

981
spokesperson for the euro. Once that is done, we can address the question of whether we should join. I am not a Euro-sceptic and never have been, but I do not want to join a disfunctioning currency. We have had a disfunctioning currency for too much of the past 40 years. Now that sterling is functioning properly at last, we cannot join another disfunctioning currency.
I should like a sixth condition on top of Gordon Brown's existing five: there needs to be some stability between the dollar and the euro at whatever level, plus or minus 5 per cent. The excess volatility and the euro's downward trend ought to be reversed or fought.
On the other issues, such as accountability, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Peston. It is shocking that the democratic deficit in the European Union has been further deepened by the central bank. The sooner the ECB starts to behave like an institution functioning in a proper democratic environment, the better for all of us. It is no good the central bankers hiding behind secret doors. We have to know why they do what they do—or do not do. They are answerable to the citizens of the European Union, because that is where their legitimacy comes from. They cannot be above the law. They have to be subject to the law. If not, when they fail we shall have no recourse to anything.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a simple question about a matter which I did not understand from his most interesting speech. If exchange rates, among many other things, measure the difference between the functioning and structure of economies, why would he expect there to be stability between the dollar and the euro?
Lord Desai: My Lords, I do not know that a long-term level of equilibrium exists between currencies. I agree with the noble Lord on that point. However, I expect policy to be at least marginally effective in keeping fluctuation between currencies down to a small band. I am not in favour of fixed exchange rates but I believe that, at least in the short to medium term, we should aim to manage currency better. In this case, six months before the euro was launched, no care was taken to stabilise the money flowing into the component currencies. Therefore, the euro started too high. That was the first failure of the ECB and we are still suffering from it.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I join many other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and his committee on an extremely valuable report. I agree that it deserves a wider audience than almost certainly it has. I do not know whether, in addition to sending it to the FTSE 100 companies, the noble Lord sent it to the editors of the eurosceptic press. If he did, clearly they have not read it. I also agree with noble Lords who said that the report deserved a better response from the Treasury. Its document was pathetic.
982
I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, in his place. I had hoped that he might use this debate as an opportunity to explain to the House why he withdrew his Bill this evening at such a disgracefully late hour. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, can enlighten us. The report will of course make extremely depressing reading for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and those who share his views. It demonstrates that the euro is achieving the goals set for it and that it is helping the euro-zone to deliver more growth, more jobs and more stability.
I want to refer to the robustness of the euro-zone and the "one size fits all" argument. A number of noble Lords said that we have been in a benign period over the past few years. They forgot to mention that we have seen extreme volatility in the oil price, which in previous decades has had a severe effect on domestic economies. No such severe effect has occurred in the euro-zone, where inflation remains low and stably low. The rise in the oil price has also had a somewhat asymmetric effect, not least on Ireland—an economy much discussed this afternoon.
I want to say two things about Ireland before moving on. First, according to the harmonised index of consumer prices, the latest inflation figure for Ireland has fallen significantly to 4.6 per cent as excise duty rises have fallen out of the index. I believe that it is generally accepted within Ireland that by the end of the year the inflation rate will have fallen to some 3 or per cent. That is hardly a horror story.
My second point with regard to Ireland is that one of the other main reasons why we have experienced such a high level of inflation is that the Irish economy has been extremely successful. We heard from my noble friend Lord Hooson about recruitment from Wales. Can any noble Lord say when the Irish economy has been so strong compared to the UK economy that the Irish have recruited large numbers of workers from this country?
Why is the Irish economy so strong? The answer is principally because, virtually more than any other member of the EU, the Irish have realised the benefits of membership, played by the rules, worked the rules to their advantage and done jolly well out of it. There is a lesson there for the UK. Unfortunately, I fear that many noble Lords who have spoken about Ireland this afternoon have drawn the wrong conclusions.
Before I return to the effects of EMU on the real economy, I want to refer to the ECB. I had the privilege of being a member of the House of Lords Select Committee on the MPC of the Bank of England. Many of the issues discussed in relation to the ECB. are those which we examined in relation to the Bank of England. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the inflation target of a single point in the UK has advantages over a range, as is the case with the ECB. However, the two greater problems which have been identified are transparency and accountability.
With regard to transparency, I believe that some evolution has occurred. There have been positive developments in the publication of forecasts and, now, the publication of the models which the ECB uses.

983
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that further movement is needed. I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Hooson, but I believe that minutes should be published.
Leaving to one side the question of voting, which may or may not be included in the minutes by choice, at present many people argue that one should be able to identify from minutes of any type how individual governors have voted. However, if the last paragraph showing the voting intentions is removed, I defy anyone to carry out a textual analysis of the minutes of our MPC and to identify who said what. Therefore, I do not believe that to be a creditable argument against greater transparency.
With regard to voting, I understand why the governors seek the protection of anonymity. However, I am also conscious that the arguments which they use are those which are always used by those in power to justify secrecy. It is possible that at present the publication of voting is a step too far. However, if minutes are published—I do not believe that a compelling argument exists against that—the publication of voting would be the logical next step.
I believe that there are two ways to improve accountability. The first is to strengthen dialogue with the European Parliament. Although the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that that dialogue has been pathetic, I believe that my colleague, Chris Huhne, and his colleagues in the European Parliament would argue that over the past two years they have been relatively successful in moving the ECB slowly towards greater transparency. Certainly, they believe that they have not yet finished. However, the Parliament is clearly the logical principal body to which the Bank should be accountable and they should keep on trying.
The second form of accountability is no less important, if somewhat less formal. It is for the Bank's president, chief economist and other senior staff to explain constantly to a range of audiences what the Bank is doing and why. In his evidence, Mr Issing, the chief economist, said,
"As a matter of principle, we do not appear before national parliaments".
He appears to have forgotten that he and Mr Duisenberg appeared before the MPC Select Committee of this House. We found it an extremely valuable meeting. The Bank should not shy away from future meetings with UK parliamentarians or with representatives from other EU legislatures.
They should also follow the practice of some members of the UK MPC in making considered speeches to financial and business audiences, setting out the Bank's thinking on the developments and the outlook for the European economy and explaining how the Bank seeks to fulfil its remit. I believe that all those issues about the details of how the Bank operates are of secondary importance when put alongside its achievements in successfully managing the introduction of the euro and the euro-zone inflation rate.
984
We can also see that considerable success has been achieved if we move away from the inflation performance of the euro-zone and look at the real economy. A number of noble Lords referred to the degree of structural change which has flowed from euro-zone membership. Rightly, the Government have attached great importance to the ability of the euro-zone to introduce greater flexibility into the labour, produce and financial markets. The report sets out changes in labour markets to increase flexibility which have taken place in Spain and the Netherlands, and it refers to the Lisbon commitment to increase flexibility across the euro-zone. Other member states, such as France and Germany, have made less progress. However, to use the words of the German ambassador, they have "made a start".
The key point is not the absolute pace with which individual countries have begun to move and how far they have moved to date but the fact that they have begun to move and are committed to make further changes. On that point, I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who talked about the fact that the EU is not a static body and that developments are occurring across a wide range.
In addition, we must accept that the structural changes which are suggested and implemented are often extremely politically difficult to achieve, whether they be cutting unemployment benefit, reducing non-wage labour costs, introducing fixed-term contracts or reforming pensions—an issue covered by my noble friend Lord Taverne.
When the UK went down that road in the 1980s and 1990s there was a huge political debate and reform was achieved at some political cost. It is hardly surprising that that is exactly what is currently happening in France and Germany. There is considerable resistance to change—it is difficult to introduce changes. We should now have the wisdom to accept the judgment of many euro-zone members that EMU membership has given the reform process substantial extra impulse.
If we look elsewhere in the real economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, explained, we see that there has been an explosive growth in the volume of euro-dominated corporate bonds which is having a strong positive effect on business investment. There has also been an explosion in cross-border mergers and acquisitions, which is another area in which EMU membership has given a boost to economic activity and which is likely to lead to improved productivity and therefore to sustainable growth. As my noble friend Lord Taverne explained, that has almost unanimous business support.
With all that going on, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who said that there is no movement. There may at times be a lack of the visionary rhetoric that was apparent 20 or 30 years ago but, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, people were talking about EMU in the 1960s. In the more pragmatic 1990s, we actually got round to introducing it.
For the moment, we in the UK can only watch those developments with no little envy. In 13 weeks we may well find ourselves in a new Parliament with a firm

985
prospect of an early referendum on Britain's EMU membership. As that battle is joined, the report that we are discussing today will be invaluable in setting the scene and in helping to define the battle lines.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to wind up on behalf of these Benches after such a thought-provoking and timely debate on such an interesting report. Although I enjoyed the debate, if it had been a football match, the score at the moment would be 13–2. However, I shall try to make up for that in extra time.
I must first praise the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson—I am sure that my praise will not go to his head—and all of the other distinguished members of the committee, who have, as many noble Lords have said. done an outstanding job in producing the report. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said, it is truly a formidable report. It has tremendous breadth of research and analysis, and evidence was taken from the key people at the highest level. The report's quality of writing is remarkable—it is a tribute to all of the members of the committee, the Clerk and the specialist advisers. It brings great credit to your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that such reports are one of the greatest contributions that this House can make to public life. I should go further. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said during our consideration of another Select Committee report—I believe it was a report on the Monetary Policy Committee—Select Committee reports of your Lordships' House should be required reading in schools and universities. I totally agree.
When I got down to reading the report, I was struck by the committee's definition of its basic purpose, which the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, repeated today. He said that he was trying to make a contribution to the debate on whether the single currency has so far been, to use the Government's word, successful. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, reminded us, the report's authors conveniently set out in one paragraph—paragraph 28—some of the criteria by which the euro's success or failure can be assessed. Those criteria include: increased rate of growth; greater incentives for fiscal responsibility and structural reforms; increased transparency; enhanced competition; greater liquidity; savings on transaction costs; and higher investment. No one could desire a more worthy wish list.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, mentioned some other categories that were related to progress in bond and equity markets, and my noble friend Lord Northbrook described the impact that the euro was having in some other countries. I do not propose to analyse any of those criteria today. Other noble Lords have done so better than I can. Those criteria are indeed the stuff of tests and measurements, which can be carried out by what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, called an objective observer in a laboratory.
I want to concentrate on just one of the concerns that the Committee considered; namely, that about the future, not the past, which my noble friend Lord Shaw
986
of Northstead said was very important. That concern is aired in paragraph 29 of the report, which is about whether the euro might,
"increase the pressure for closer political union".
Five hundred years ago, Dante—I shall quote him only to relieve the noble Lord, Lord Newby, of the stress of hearing me quote Plato—set out the premise on which the euro is based. I shall quote him at some length. In 1459, he wrote:
"mankind at its best depends upon unity in the wills of its members. The Scythians, for instance, live outside the seventh circle, experience extreme inequalities of day and night and endure an almost intolerably piercing frost; they require a different rule from the Garamantes who live in the equinoctial zone, where the days and nights are of equal duration and where the excessive heat makes it unbearable to wear clothes. But our meaning is that mankind should be directed by a common law issuing from one supreme prince, and applied to those characteristics which are common to all men".
Today, the public—the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, called them the ordinary people—are being confronted with powerful arguments for the modern version of Dante's vision. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and many other noble Lords who have spoken today are deeply affected and attracted by that. We are told that although everyone wants to be in charge of their own fate, nothing is completely sovereign. No man is an island, not even this one.
We are reminded that with global financial markets, economies are interdependent. We are invited to see the euro as just another symbol of global capitalism; to observe daily mega-mergers and global corporate alliances; to note that jobs move to wherever it suits global corporations to employ people; and to hear employers teaching every day the meaning of e pluribus unum—that unity is strength—and that the strong go forward, that the weak go the wall, that size is everything and that only a few will survive. If nobody can stop the globalisation of companies, can the globalisation of countries be far behind?
That is what political leaders in euro-land argued to great effect in order to give birth to the euro in the first place. From their perspective, it is only misplaced romanticism that leads Britain to refuse, as my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry put it, to cross the Rubicon.
Yet, after all of those powerful arguments, the latest opinion poll in our country shows that 71 per cent of our citizens will not vote to join the euro. That is not a success for the euro but it is, I contend, a tribute to the rationality and sophistication of the great British public. I shall try to explain why. Because, in arriving at that judgment, the public have carefully considered two sets of objections to the euro, both of which are well documented in the report. The first set involves economic objections: that it will fail; that it will cost jobs, raise taxes and lower pensions; and that bad things will happen. The public have worked out that that first set of defects—the economic objections—are capable of remedy by delay. In other words, a rational person could say, "I am a cautious man. I think that this may go wrong. Therefore, I will be prudent and wait and see. What's the rush?". In the event that time passed and that man's fears proved to be groundless,

987
a rational man could say, "Fine. Now I am satisfied. Now I go in". That is a completely coherent position, and it is the position that the public have wisely absorbed.
The public have also considered a second set of objections, which involves our sovereignty, nationhood and traditions and, fundamentally, the accountability of the rulers to the ruled. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to that as accountability to democratic institutions, which, he said, was of the essence. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made similar remarks. The public have concluded that such constitutional objections are not capable of remedy by delay. There never will be a time when the arguments of sovereignty and accountability can be overcome by observation of economic outcomes or the results of tests, particularly not tests prescribed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, as "pretty meaningless".
No, my Lords. Perhaps it is true that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, the £20.30 price of this report was too much for the public and, therefore, the public may not have read it. But they are well aware of its conclusion. In the "And finally" paragraph of the report, it says, starkly:
"The will to create the euro was political".
The public know, without reading the report, as Sir Edward George does, that:
"Monetary union is fundamentally a political rather than an economic issue".
That is true, and the public know it but, surprisingly—and it may be ironic—they have not responded in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, did. On seeing that it was a political project, the noble Baroness said that we should accept it. But on the other hand, the public have taken a different view and that may be because the public know that in politics, as in law, motive is all. It may be that they are asking themselves where the political will, so-called, to drive the political project, so-called, comes from.
Was the project not driven by envy? Does paragraph 28 of the report not state that the aim was for the euro,
"to rival the US dollar in world markets".
Was it not envy of what Americans had that Europeans wanted, envy of American cultural imperialism, which they saw as paving over precious national identities with a homogenised American version of reality? Was it not envy of American economic imperialism in which American companies march on to world domination in the name of globalisation?
One of the witnesses was the governor of the Bank of France, M Trichet, whom several noble Lords have mentioned today. I do not know whether noble Lords are aware that when M Trichet was asked why it is necessary to have the euro, what is the fundamental reason, his response, which he deploys as a party piece—it is quite effective—is to ask his audience first, "Are you aware, ladies and gentlemen, what is the share of world trade accounted for by America?" The audience is usually baffled and he says, "It is 30 per cent". Then he says to his audience, "And tell me, what
988
is the share of world transactions accounted for by the dollar?" His audience looks blank and he says, "Well, it is 70 per cent". He explains that that is the imbalance, the injustice, which should be corrected by the euro.
My one regret about this magnificent piece of work is that the Select Committee saw no one witness from the American administration. That would have been fascinating.
Those issues of sovereignty and accountability will come to the fore when the debate on the euro begins. But as the Select Committee says, the response to the debate on the referendum, when it begins, will depend on the extent to which the public is provided with accurate information.
At the moment, the Government show no desire for a debate on the euro. One reads every day that the Government's strategy is for no better reason than the polls show that they will lose it. They prefer the sort of language of which Sir Humphrey would approve, as in Dr Itmar Issing's phrase quoted in the report. He said:
"It remains indispensable for the success of monetary union and the maintenance of price stability that congruent institutional arrangements and appropriate behavioural patterns can now develop".
I do not think that the Government liked it very much when the president of the Bundesbank translates that into plain English when he says:
"A single currency does not require a single government but a single government will follow";
or when the governor of the Bank of France, M Trichet, explains that we must have monetary union because,
"it is the essential precondition of political union".
I fear that the Government think it better to follow the strategy of President Johnson in the White House when he was asked by his aides, during a particularly heated period during the Vietnam war, whether he would conduct a public debate on the Vietnam war in America. He thought about it for a few moments and then his famous answer was, "If you have a one-eyed mother-in-law and her one eye is in the middle of her forehead, you do not bring her out of the kitchen". That appears to be the Government's view. They want us to fret alone in the dark with our fears and insecurities in our heads about how we can make it on our own: are we not too small; are we not too weak? Theirs is a basic appeal to fear. But when the referendum comes, I think that they will find that the British public are made of sterner stuff.
The Select Committee has done a splendid job and, as I said, has shown your Lordships' House at its best.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Lord has commended to us the view of the 71 per cent of the public who are opposed to joining the euro. Is that the view of the Official Opposition?
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Official Opposition's view is always to take an interest in what the public think and what are the public's concerns. Therefore, naturally, we are interested in what they have to say.
6.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have congratulated the committee, its chairman, it special advisers and its Clerk on an excellent report. I was particularly grateful—at least for a short time—to my noble friend Lord Tomlinson for his introductory remarks when he said that the committee had ruled out discussion of UK entry and any discussion of the future. I thought to myself, "Well, that cuts out nine-tenths of what I was going to say so I can strike through it". Indeed, I have struck through it.
But, unfortunately, the debate did not take that line. Most noble Lords who have taken part have been talking about UK entry and the future and it is incumbent on me, to some extent, to follow the debate which has taken place.
I do not know that I can follow the exquisite speech of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. A debate on public opinion addressing the euro is neither covered by the committee; nor is it covered by the rest of the debate. But I enjoyed his speech very much. I shall read what he said with great care and as a past practitioner in survey research I shall be very interested to see how he arrived at the conclusions he has reached.
I shall go back to the more fundamental issues rather than the issues raised by the report. But in doing so, I should say that I shall save until the end my response to the unfavourable reaction—I put it as neutrally as I can—to the Treasury's response to the committee's report.
The starting point in the report is the criteria by which the success of the single currency could be measured. That is set out very well by the committee in paragraph 8 on page 7 of the report. It is set out as being the view of witnesses rather than the view of the committee but the committee gives general endorsement to the points made in paragraph 8 and the Government would broadly accept that those are reasonable criteria for judgment.
The important point about our response to those criteria would be contained in the comments made by the Chancellor to the Treasury Select Committee hearing in another place on 25th July last. He said that the test of the success of the euro is implicit in the five domestic tests we are applying. In other words, he was reminding the committee that we have indeed set out five economic tests and I was almost driven to repeating them in Starred Questions this afternoon. Those are tests that we would apply to a successful euro. Therefore, before we apply those tests it is incumbent upon us to reach a judgment as to whether the euro is successful. That is where the committee's work in relation to this report, the previous report and the forthcoming reports that are promised, is so important and valuable. Even the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who appeared to be searching for areas of disagreement with other noble Lords, would agree that one has to make a judgment about success as implicit in the five domestic tests we are applying.
990
A number of noble Lords have said that those tests are meaningless. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington said something of that nature; and my noble friend, Lord Barnett, believed that no judgment could be clear and unequivocal, a view with which I sympathise. However, if a test is meaningful and it is not met we would fall into the trap of making the old mistakes. We would mistake exchange rate stability for more general economic stability which would leave the way open for the stop-go economic policies and stop-go economic results that were a feature of much of the past 20 years.
I do not believe that the tests are meaningless; they are challenging. Therefore, I believe that making a decision during this Parliament is not realistic. A period of stability and settled convergence is needed before membership can be considered seriously. I know I am not saying anything new and I do not intend to, but we have said that we shall make an assessment of the five tests early in the next Parliament.
Having said that, my noble friend Lord Bruce challenged me to say whether the Government were neutral on such issues. No, the Government are not neutral. The Government want the euro to succeed for the benefit of Europe and for the benefit of the United Kingdom. The issue of UK entry is, and in our view always has been, dependent on UK economic interests.
On the success of the euro in European terms, which is the thrust of the report, we accept that some of the tests are still to come, as the noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said. That is true. The noble Lord, Lord Shaw, thinks that we are too early and my noble friend Lord Peston thinks that we are too late. Nevertheless, it is true that we have not been through what one may describe as a full economic cycle. What is wrong with starting at the right time? It must be remembered that at the beginning there were fears of serious economic shocks from crises in East Asia that threatened to spread around the world. Those shocks have been well-absorbed and well-resisted by euro-zone.
That is important not just for Europe, but also for us, because Europe is fundamental to our economy. We have about 3 million jobs that are directly affected by our economic ties with Europe. Over 50 per cent of our total trade is with the European Union; nearly 50 per cent is with the 12 countries in the euro-zone; and the European Union is our largest trade and investment partner. That is why in October 1997 the Chancellor said, as I have quoted so many times
"The potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency are obvious: in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability".
By helping to sustain a zone of economic stability across Europe, a successful single currency should reduce the harmful effects of volatility on investment, employment and ultimately economic prosperity. That view has been reflected by nearly all speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi said that the score was 13 to 2 and with him it became 13 to 3. I ask myself why the Euro-sceptics fled away from this debate. Was it

991
because the raw material with which they were supplied by the committee did not in any sense support their arguments?
It is also important to recognise the truth of what is said in paragraph 17 of the report, in contrast to the general level of comment in the UK press. It speaks of the advantage to the economies of European countries of the low euro in its opening months. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, rightly said that the European business world disagrees with that and the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, made a valuable point about the growth of the euro bond market and how that shows the approval of the European business community.
On economic development, much has happened in the two months since the report was published. There have been a number of developments in the global economy. There has been a sharp slowdown in the United States and in emerging Asia; some renewed weakness in Japan; a cut of 100 basis points in the US Federal Reserve interest rates; and the prediction by Alan Greenspan of growth "close to zero" this quarter as the momentum of weak consumer spending is exacerbated by falling consumer and business confidence.
The Commission's spring 2000 forecasts projected that GDP was likely to show relatively robust growth rates. The most up to date forecasts available from the Consensus survey in January 2001 showed slightly reduced, but not dramatically reduced, projected growth rates. As the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said, the euro has had a significant impact on producing a capital market to rival that of the United States.
The supplementary memorandum to the committee produced by the Treasury after its witnesses had given oral evidence cited the European Central Bank's analysis of January 2000. It said that there had already been consolidation in the financial services industry; it pointed out the increase in the numbers of firms listed in equity markets and in the growth companies. The evidence is that the euro is having profound effects on European financial markets with pervasive consequences not only on their functioning, but also on their contribution to the overall efficiency of the economic system.
In looking at those economic trends it is important to look behind them at the issue of economic reform; in other words, the benefits can be realised only if monetary union is underpinned by markets that work well. We need to make more progress, to build on the foundations of the single market and to improve the functioning of our product, labour and capital markets. That is made easier by the transparency of the single market for all the reasons that I have already given.
A number of your Lordships spoke about Ireland. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that that is hardly a horror story. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson described Ireland as a special case. I believe it is generally accepted that Ireland's share of the euro-zone economy is such that it could be treated as de minimis. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount
992
Harry, made that point. Despite the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, we have to accept that the stability and growth pact is not breached in any way by Ireland. That has been accepted.
If ECOFIN at its next meeting considers the stability and convergence programmes, including Ireland, the United Kingdom will not be backward in arguing for robust and accurate assessments of every member state's stability or convergence programme. That is because we believe that the process of multilateral surveillance within Europe involving peer review is rigorous. It seems to me extreme to argue that Ireland has in any way disproved the success of the euro.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: I thank the Minister for giving way. According to the reference from Brussels, Pedro Solbes claims that Brussels has the authority, under Article 99, to enforce economic policy coordination among member states to protect the common interest. Do the Government of the United Kingdom take that view?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if we consider the powers that ECOFIN could express at its meeting next week, it is most likely that it will express only an opinion, which would not be binding. The next step would be a recommendation, which would have to be considered by the European Commission. The power to take over the economic policy of a member state is a very long way away, and nothing that I have said in support of multilateral surveillance and peer review implies that we would support it.
I should like briefly to refer to the European Central Bank, about which there has been a great convergence of view among witnesses who gave evidence to the committee and Members today. It is important that the European Central Bank should be as open and transparent as possible, because that is the way in which it will gain the trust of the European public and of financial markets. That is a key feature of the United Kingdom Government's current monetary policy framework. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about that matter, not because I presume to criticise the European Central Bank but because I agree with his praise for the Monetary Policy Committee.
To some extent, matters have improved since the publication of the report. The ECB has for the first time published its staff macroeconomic projections, which were included in a short memorandum to the committee, received by members either on Friday or this morning. Those figures, with the projected HICP inflation in the range of 1.8 to 2.8 per cent and real GDP of 2.6 to 3.6 per cent in 2001 contribute very considerably to our understanding of European economic conditions.
I am not sure that I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about accountability to democratic institutions. I certainly cannot agree with those who suggest that because there is a European Central Bank, there also has to be a European central government. I contest the view that further economic

993
union of the kind achieved by the euro inexorably leads to a single political government. That is not the view of the government of any member state. In those circumstances, accountability to the democratic institutions comprising the euro-zone is rather a long way from the accountability of the Monetary Policy Committee to the Government of this country.
In conclusion, I refer to the Treasury's response to the House of Lords committee. It was suggested that the Treasury still nurses a grudge about the rejection by this House of Lloyd George's people's budget of 1909. Although I still bear a grudge about the rejection of the 1909 people's budget, I do not believe that that view is very widespread in the Treasury. The point that I want to make is, "Never mind the width, feel the quality". It is not just a matter of whether the final response is two pages long. One has to consider together the very substantial written memorandum that the Treasury produced before giving oral evidence, the oral evidence that was given to the committee on 11th July and the requests for three further notes, producing an additional supplementary memorandum at the end. Although the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, accuses us of answering none of the conclusions, if we take the Treasury's contribution as a whole to this debate it becomes much clearer that our response has been entirely proportionate.
I do not want to be critical of the conclusions of the Select Committee. However, perhaps I may read a few parts of the press release that was issued when the report was published in December:
"So far, we have examined what is happening in those countries which have joined the euro already, flagging up both the successes and the problems which they have encountered. With the evidence we have received, we are publishing a wealth of features and figures, from which readers can draw their own conclusions…and it is almost impossible to disentangle the effects of the single currency from the other forces at work…All the euro-zone governments from whom we received the evidence assured us that the euro had been successful for them… We recognise that there are also dangers…As for the fall in the value of the euro, so far it has actually benefited the economies of euro-zone countries, but if it continues it could damage the credibility of the euro as a currency".
Those are admirable sentiments. However, I am not sure that your Lordships would have expected the Treasury to comment at that level of generality. If we take the—
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Nobody asked the Treasury to comment on a press release. The press release is inevitably at a certain level of generality. Will my noble friend now say why the Treasury did not see fit to answer the report, which was of much greater substance. We thought that the standard of literacy and understanding in Her Majesty's Treasury would exceed that to which the report had to be reduced in order to communicate it to the media.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I considered taking paragraphs 1 to 19 of the report and seeking conclusions at a lower level of generality. I accept my noble friend's criticism that a press release is at a higher level of generality. I considered that point. I also
994
considered whether it would be appropriate for me to read out sections of the conclusions of the committee's report, and to ask the question—no more than that—whether it would have been appropriate for us to give detailed responses, which could have been anticipated, to points that are fairly and generously put in the committee's report, but which, because of the restrictions that the committee placed on itself, are inevitably still of a level of generality, such that in our view no useful purpose would have been achieved by adding to the very substantial contribution that the Treasury made to this report as the work proceeded.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As chairman of the Select Committee, I am quite upset by this response. It is said that the Treasury welcomes the opportunity to respond to the main conclusions. It is not said whether it feels that it is a good, well thought out report. Therefore, except in so far as it relates to paragraph 3, it is not a response. It is the duty of government departments to respond, in a given period and in some depth, to Select Committee reports.
I accept that the Minister and the Treasury might not want to go into too much detail on these issues, but the Select Committee has every right to expect a considered response. During the six years I have had the job, this is the first time that we have not had a proper response from a government department.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I take most seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, says. I do not want to open up a division between the Treasury and this House and I apologise if I have been in any way dismissive in my comments. I take that back; that was not my intention.
However, I take the view that it would have been almost patronising to put into a Treasury response the phrase, "Yes, this is a well written report"; the kind of response the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested would be appropriate. We take the committees of this House more seriously than that. If one takes the whole contribution of the Treasury to the process of the report and adds to that the short note which appears at the end, it will be found that the Treasury has behaved responsibly in every respect.
I am sure that Treasury Ministers will want to consider the views exchanged in the past few minutes and will want to respond to the chairman of the European Union Committee, sending a copy of the response to the chairman of Sub-Committee A, dealing with the issues that were raised.
I have brought this upon myself because at the end of the debate I raised a note which caused controversy. This has not been a controversial report or debate. The work of the committee was welcomed by all noble Lords who have taken part and the Treasury agrees with it. We join those who congratulated the committee on its work.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for participating in this interesting debate. I welcome their views and in particular the wide appreciation of the report. I especially welcome the specific points of dissent from the report. We shall all reflect on those issues. I welcome the large number of noble Lords from all parts of the House who appear to be impatient for United Kingdom membership of the single currency. However, I again point out that my welcome is personal, as United Kingdom membership is outside the scope of our report. I confirm the score counted by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, as 13 to three. That reflects a wide range of interests in all parts of the House.
There was a great deal to welcome in the debate and I want to address my noble friend Lord McIntosh perhaps more gently than I did in my somewhat abrasive previous intervention. A new standard has been set in basing a report to a Select Committee on what was said by the Treasury in evidence in written submission. We want to know what it thought of our deliberations after we had reflected on its evidence, not all of which was necessarily fully accepted.
I address my noble friend Lord McIntosh in the spirit in which he responded to the debate. He said that the Government would accept that the points listed at paragraph 8 are reasonable criteria for success. My noble friend could say that in the debate, but the committee would have been assisted if the Treasury could have said that in its response. If the Government believe it, they should say it.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister on his visit to Warsaw spoke about the need for better connection between the people of Europe. In the spirit of compromise finally expressed by my noble friend Lord McIntosh, I suggest that we should at first be a little less ambitious and begin that process by connecting the views of our Treasury to our Parliament. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fishing: EUC Report
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of Selbornerose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee, Unsustainable Fishing: What is to be done with the Common Fisheries Policy? (3rd Report, HL Paper 12).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the common fisheries policy is a 20-year programme which will end in 2002. The Commission is required to review the workings of the policy, which has been in place for 18 years, and fundamental consideration must be given to what, if anything, will take its place from December 2002.
There is widespread agreement that, like fisheries throughout the world, those in European waters have not been successfully managed. It is a common problem that many of the global fisheries are either
996
fully exploited or over-exploited. We see daily evidence of the fact that, however hard we have striven during the past 18 years to put together a common fisheries policy, we have not succeeded. The current regulation is an amalgamation of four different strands which were put together during the mid-term review in 1992.
Later this year we shall see the publication of a Green Paper by the Commission which will explore what should be expected of the common fisheries policy. That document will be extremely important and we timed our report in order to make an input into the paper. I am grateful to the business managers of the House for enabling us to debate the report so soon after publication. I accept that the Government have not yet been able fully to respond. We did not expect that and are not asking for it. We wanted only to have an opportunity to make a contribution in good time and we welcome this debate before the publication of the Green Paper.
I begin by expressing heartfelt thanks to our Clerk, Mr Tom Radice, and our two specialist advisers, Professor John Shepherd and Professor John Pope, who took us through the issues with great care. We have produced a report which I hope Members of your Lordships' House believe is clear, relatively concise as Select Committee reports go and does not pull any punches.
We are also grateful to all those who gave evidence, in particular Mr Elliot Morley, the Minister for Fisheries, and his officials in MAFF who briefed us before we began the report. That alerted us to some of the concerns which we later expressed. We also benefited from evidence from the Director-General of Fisheries at the European Commission, Mr Steffen Smidt. On behalf of the committee, I thank them and all the witnesses who helped us with our inquiry.
I return to the four strands of the common fisheries policy. It must be remembered that the policy which began 18 years ago was something of a ragbag. The fact that the policy was brought together in the midterm review does not disguise the fact that it remains unbalanced. The four strands were the structural policy, bringing socio-economic aid; the market policy, helping to promote the sale of European fish; the external policy, dealing with our relations with third countries; and the conservation and management policy, about which, together with other issues, we are greatly concerned.
At the time of the interim review in 1992 this House had an opportunity to debate a report by the Select Committee whose sub-committee I had the privilege to chair. It is helpful to note that there is continuity in this matter, in that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who is to speak in this debate was also a member of the subcommittee. As I reread the report of 1992, which went into greater detail about all aspects of the common fisheries policies, it was depressing to reflect that its conclusions were little different from the report which we debate today. We made a conscious decision that on this occasion we would not produce a heavy volume

997
but try to concentrate on the essential issues, in the hope that that would concentrate the minds of the readers and those who took note of our report.
Therefore, the report that we debate today is slimmer but comes to the same conclusions: that the common fisheries policy has not worked in almost all aspects that it set out to achieve 18 years ago. The scale of failure in terms of conservation and management is such that it is in danger of bringing into disrepute not only fisheries management but all other aspects of EU affairs which seek to apply the concept of sustainable development. After all, fisheries is the one sector which must take into account what we mean by "sustainable development" and "ecological approach". The very fact that emergency action has had to be taken to try to take pressure off cod and hake stocks in the North Sea demonstrates just how unsuccessful have been the measures after 18 years.
Quotas have been drastically cut in the past two years. Mr Elliot Morley has had a terribly hard row to hoe in enforcing what has certainly been necessary. That is also a reflection on the failure adequately to grapple with issues which go back to the early years of the common fisheries policy. We now have a situation in which there is widespread recognition within the fishing industry that the present scale of the sector is unsustainable; in other words, too much capacity seeks to exploit diminishing stocks. Equally, there is wide concern about the environmental impacts of the fishing industry and the lack of ability to put in place environmental auditing of aspects of the common fisheries policy.
There is further concern about the impact of the European Union's policy on third countries' fisheries. Very often we have tried to alleviate our own problems by imposing things on others in ways which have caused serious problems for those third countries. All the witnesses we saw, whether it be the Minister, the Director-General, representatives of the fishing industry, environmental interests or those involved in research, accepted with varying degrees of force that there was a need for a fundamental reshaping of the common fisheries policy.
I should perhaps ask rhetorically whether the common fisheries policy really matters. Clearly, it matters for reasons that I list. First, it is the livelihood of those in Europe who try to derive a living from the fishing industry. Frankly, those communities have been let down by the failure of policy. Secondly, there has been a demonstration of the European Union's lack of ability to implement sustainable development and concern for the environment, which again brings into doubt its ability to manage a much wider range of policies. There is also criticism from our neighbours Norway, Iceland, Greenland and Canada, all of whom have an interest in ensuring that we get our fisheries act together, instead of seeing their own efforts thwarted in part at least by our inability to act as they would hope. There is a failure to order our affairs so that we act when decisive, fast action is needed. Iceland and Greenland, which admittedly have fewer problems, have demonstrated that ability in running fisheries,
998
but Europe has never been able to act in that way. That is why we must record that the failure has long-term implications that go way beyond the fishing industry.
I move on to one or two more positive aspects. In paragraph 22 we state that since the interim review we have seen the phasing out of tuna drift nets and the introduction of the precautionary principle in fish stock management. A much greater consensus has been built up between the scientists and industry in determining stock levels, albeit everyone now accepts that, sadly, the dire forecasts of the scientists have proved accurate. There is also a much greater inclination on the part of member states, not least the Commission, to accept shared responsibility in managing fisheries. As a concept the sub-committee warmly welcomes zonal management which means that in future responsibility for administering the policies is shared between those who are involved at the sharp end. One of the disastrous aspects on which we reported in 1992 was how little communication and agreement there appeared to be between the different links of the fishing industry.
Having pointed out one or two matters which have perhaps improved, the basic problem is over-capacity: too many vessels with too great a capacity try to exploit declining stocks. It is astonishing that, in spite of the existence of a financial instrument for fisheries guidance to try to match capacity with effort, it has been so organised that, if anything, multi-annual guidance programmes have increased rather than deceased capacity. That takes some believing. True, the number of vessels has declined, but as new technology comes along and the common fisheries policy in its wisdom gives grants for modernisation of the fleet, which means increased capacity, so all we have achieved over the years is more modern fleets and capacities which have not greatly changed. The Director-General himself agreed that fundamentally the multi-annual guidance programme had not achieved what it had set out to achieve.
There has been a failure to achieve uniform enforcement. I do not fall into the trap of blaming one country after another. Nevertheless, if one does not have standard enforcement between member states clearly there is a problem of credibility. Many member states believe that they enforce respectfully when others do not and that is their justification for disobeying the regime. There is also a failure to protect juvenile stocks, which is becoming ever more chronic, and, above all, a failure to integrate the structural policies with common fisheries policy proposals for management and conservation.
Having listed that catalogue of disasters, perhaps I should repeat once more that, although European Union fisheries are just about as bad as they come, other countries have had problems that are almost as great. We know about the need to close a large proportion of the Canadian fisheries off Newfoundland and the US fisheries off the Georgia banks. However, when rethinking the common fisheries policy in the EU there is now an overriding need for clear long-term strategies. There must be political will that we have failed to galvanise in the

999
past. Inevitably, as far as concerns the United Kingdom the responsibility for negotiating in the Council of Ministers is left to a Minister at the MAFF. There was a time when the Minister of Agriculture himself attended such meetings relatively regularly. Fisheries have become more and more marginalised and it is now relatively rare that the Minister of Agriculture himself attends the critical meeting of the Council of Ministers in December.
I wish to place on record my great admiration for the way in which Mr Elliot Morley has handled the negotiations. I said earlier that he had had difficult decisions to make. He is well aware that his inherited problems arise from a failure to take action in earlier years. But we now need to enlist the help not only of the MAFF but of all the other departments that are involved in and responsible for putting in place a common fisheries policy and the funding of it. In relation to the United Kingdom, the DETR, the DTI, the devolved administrations, and, above all, the Treasury must be brought into the discussions and accept ownership of the problem.
We set out an overriding objective in paragraph 83. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is to speak in the debate because in the committee—although we all have Cabinet responsibility for the report—it was she who urged us to put in place this overriding objective. I willingly agreed with her. The objective in paragraph 83 states:
"To ensure that the exploitation of marine resources takes account not only of ecological processes but also social and economic consequences".
Every future measure taken in the common fisheries policy should be tested against that kind of objective. One would not pay people to modernise their fleet if that was a clear objective; and zonal or regional management would be put in place much quicker because only those involved at sea know precisely how to manage one fishery as opposed to another. If ever there was a case for not having blanket proposals over European waters, this is it.
In paragraph 85 we list seven other objectives. Time does not allow me to go into each of those. But I would draw attention to the socio-economic elements. I hope that others, when speaking in greater detail, will be able to deal with some of those. The socio-economic elements are our key concern. If it is recognised that we need to reduce capacity and balance stocks, it must be recognised that the full impact is ultimately carried by the fishing community. One cannot address one's responsibilities to the fishing community in the halfhearted way that has happened in the past. There was a policy called PESCA which has come to an end. That did not rigorously address the need to find alternative employment, facilities and support for these communities. The issue needs a complete rethink.
However much long-term strategy is put in place, inevitably we shall have a problem which can only be addressed by complementary measures such as effort control. That means limiting days at sea or quotas.
1000
In paragraph 99 we say that we would like to see a long-term licensing system put in place. That equates making a living out of catches with the interest of conservation. At the moment, it would be unrealistic to start charging for licences.
A few witnesses argued for returning fisheries to member states. Having listed my criticisms of the European Union, one might wonder why anyone would want to suggest that there should be another go at that. Fish have no respect for exclusive economic zones. One must have collaboration. We collaborated with Norway. We should collaborate more with Iceland and Greenland. This is a case for collaboration within Europe.
We are failing the fishing industry. We are failing in our responsibilities to future generations. I am talking of sustainable development and the environment. We are failing third countries. I have not had time to deal with that matter. The Green Paper must demonstrate a fundamentally changed attitude. There must be a response to the Green Paper from the Council of Ministers and others which is much more far-sighted than anything which has emanated from their deliberations before. Once the Green Paper is published, I am certain that the committee will wish to return to the subject. We are determined to make sure that we do not get the inadequate response we were given in 1992. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee, Unsustainable Fishing: What is to be done with the Common Fisheries Policy? (3rd Report, HL Paper 12).—(The Earl of Selborne.)
7.24 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I am never sure of the protocol of the House, having been a Member for a very short time. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to the debate. She has had a very difficult time over the past few weeks. I am sure that she understands how we all feel.
I commend the report for its content and approach to the issue. The report begins with five trenchant comments on and severe criticisms of the common fisheries policy. As the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said, the CFP failed totally in its sustainability objectives. Warnings about the difficulties facing fishing have been ignored because of a lack of political will. That is partly true. I shall return to that matter later. I am not sure that "lack of political will" is the right way to describe it. No one would disagree that the fishing industry must be helped to address the changing circumstances. Fishing communities deserve attention from senior politicians. In some senses, the senior, and perhaps junior, politicians have paid too much attention to the siren cries of, especially from the catching side of the industry, "There are plenty of fish in the sea"; "The scientists are wrong"; and "Allow us to manage the matter and it will work out all right". Whether that is not enough attention to detail or too much of it and not enough standing back and looking

1001
at the whole picture is perhaps a matter for debate. Everyone agrees that a comprehensive approach is needed.
The difficulty is in arriving at an agreed set of solutions. The common fisheries policy has few, if any, friends at all. But, equally, there are few solutions, in totality, which will meet with unqualified approval.
When discussing the common fisheries policy and what might take its place, I am reminded of the story of the village idiot who was asked by a passing motorist for directions. He scratched his head and said: "Well, I would not start off here". Many people feel that about the common fisheries policy. Yet the truth is that we have to start off with the common fisheries policy. It is all we have. In broad terms, for the foreseeable future, it is all we are likely to have.
There are those with the view that the only way to deal with the matter is to have national control of fishing; to abandon the common fisheries policy. I see a couple of heads in front of me nodding in agreement. I suspect that, although I do not have eyes in the back of my head, there are a couple of heads nodding behind me. I do not mean to be sarcastic, but a dislike of the common fisheries policy and the European Union not only crosses the Floor of this House but extends to every quarter of the House. There is nothing new in that.
There are three strands to the common fisheries policy: the catching side, which some people regard as the most important because it is a primary element of the industry; the processors and the retailers together, certainly the processors; and there are the consumers. The consumers are the most important part of the chain. But they all depend on one fact—there has to be enough fish in the sea to be caught in the first place. That remains the starting point.
The catching side of the industry, which I have known for many years, in my experience—I come from fishing stock on both my father's and mother's side—does not like regulation. It does not like controls. It does not and never will want controls. It will never be happy with regulation. But I am happy to see that fishermen are coming to terms with the fact that more control is essential for the stocks and the industry to have a future.
The Select Committee identified the cause of a great many of the difficulties as the member states having not enough of a political role. There is some truth in that. I spent 27 years as a Member of Parliament in the other place listening to the strident voices of the fishing industry saying, "The real problem is that you will not let us control our own affairs. The real problem is that the scientists have got it wrong. You do all these fancy calculations but we can tell you that there are plenty of good-sized fish in the sea". They denied the evidence in front of their own eyes. I remember going to a small fishing port in the north east of Scotland where boxes of whiting had just been landed. They were passed as being the right size to be sold. I said, "You must have grabbed hold of every one of these whiting—grabbed the head with one hand, the tail in the other and
1002
stretched as far as you could to make them long enough to pass the minimum size". They were fairly puny things.
The same is true of the cod stocks. As a boy, I remember cod being landed not by deep-sea vessels but by in-shore vessels, which were as long as I am tall. They may not have had quite my girth but they were certainly as long as that. Now, when you see a cod, you are lucky if it is a large size. That has been happening year after year. No one has grasped the nettle that the fishing effort has to be controlled. I do not know how you can have a sustainable fisheries policy that does not control the total allowable catch—the amount of fish taken out of the sea—and control to some extent how it is shared out. No one will give up relative stability. No one will give up "their share".
I ask noble Lords to consider what would happen to any fisheries Minister who went to the European Union to demand that the total allowable catch be reduced beyond what the scientists had said. He would be hung, drawn and quartered. He would be pilloried everywhere. That might represent a lack of political will in facing up to that kind of pressure. I am not sure whether that is what the Select Committee means. If it does mean that, it does not spell it out clearly enough for me.
No one doubts that the industry should adjust. I do not like the word "rationalisation". It is a euphemism for cutting down the number of vessels and jobs. We talk about rationalisation and restructuring when we mean that we have to cut the effort. I accept that perhaps too much money was spent on refurbishing vessels. I ask noble Lords to cast back their minds 10 years or so when it was being argued that we were sending fishermen to sea in dangerously old ships, that we were putting lives at risk by making them go to sea in dreadful old tubs and that they had to have modernisation for the safety of the fleet. We should not ignore that point. Unfortunately, in any consideration of the common fisheries policy there are issues to be weighed on each side of the argument. We cannot take a view that we should not have modernised the fleet. The fleet had to be modernised. At the end of the day, perhaps the only way forward is a licensing system.
Figures are constantly being bandied about. We need to know what the Government's thinking is in the immediate as well as in the long-term future. The figure of £75 million to restructure the fleet was given by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in its evidence to the committee. That figure has now become £100 million. I honestly do not know where that £100 million comes from. I do not know what it means. I suspect that no one will know what it means until there is further discussion with the industry. However, if we are to have a real reduction in catching effort, it will not be done painlessly and overnight. We have to accept that. Fishermen do not like being told that they cannot go out to sea, but that has to be part of the solution. Slowly but surely, they are beginning to come forward and accept that. We are seeing restructuring taking place on land as well as sea.

1003
Several quite large processing companies in the north east of Scotland have gone to the wall in recent times. Many jobs have disappeared and more are likely to go.
There are only two ways in which the industry can come down to the size that is sustainable—given the amount of fish in the sea. One is through government support. I am certainly attracted to the idea of having not just a decommissioning scheme but also making sure that money goes into helping communities to adjust to the change in jobs. That can happen either in a regulated and planned way or through bankruptcy and a war of attrition. To some extent, that is what has been happening up to now.
I do not know how this package of help will be put together. Support for the industry depends on structural funds coming from Europe. My understanding is that we can get structural funds from Europe only if our MAGP for reducing the size of the fleet is on target. When I last looked at the figures, we were quite short on that. So where will the money come from? How will it be handled? It is all very well speaking about zonal management—certainly zonal management has a part to play—but the central funds are distributed at the moment partly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and partly by the Scottish Parliament. I am not sure what role the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly play in this area. I hope that we shall achieve a uniform UK-wide package. We cannot allow ourselves to be bullied, browbeaten or seduced by one part of the country saying, "The Scots are getting more than the English" or "The English are getting more than the Scots". We have to have a uniform package in order to achieve unity in the industry. Achieving unity in the industry for the future will be extremely difficult because the different parts are historically at odds.
I am pleased that the committee has drawn the attention of the House to the problems of fishing in third world, especially African, countries. They do not have the capacity to patrol and conserve their own stocks. Perhaps I may give an example. A few years ago—it was certainly after Namibia became independent—I saw video evidence of Spanish vessels, which had no historical right to fish off Namibia, painting out their names and numbers, coming into Namibian waters, fishing until they were fully loaded, going out, then painting their names and numbers back on and going off to Spain. I hope that I shall not fall into the trap of saying, "It is all Johnny Foreigner's fault". It just so happens that the vessels were Spanish, and we have enough trouble with the Spanish in their own waters without them being anywhere else. But we have to understand that we have a part to play in what happens in fishing throughout the world. We need to be forward thinking. I am glad that the committee is indeed forward thinking.
The committee has produced an extremely valuable report. As it says at the start, it is one of a long list of reports over the past decade, most of which have been, if not totally ignored, almost totally ignored. One
1004
hopes that the Government will give take more action and accept more ofthe recommendations of this report than has been the case in the past.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, before I address the topic of the debate, I should like to express my profound appreciation to noble Lords on all sides of the House and indeed members of staff of the House for the deep support and sympathy they have given me over the past few weeks. It has certainly enabled me to be here today.
I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. The chairman has correctly highlighted the issue of the report which I should like to address. I refer to the balance between the environmental and socio-economic aspects of fishing. In paragraphs 86, 87 and 88 of the report, the committee highlighted certain recommendations on the protection of the marine environment. It stated:
"There must be a much more effective liaison between DG Fisheries and DG Environment. The whole ecosystem of the ocean is greatly affected by fisheries activities".
The committee went on to highlight that the common fisheries policy is lagging very far behind the common agricultural policy in even recognising that environmental considerations have to be a fundamental part of any activity.
It took agriculture a long time to realise that it was making a terrible impact on the ecosystem and to understand how that then impacted on the attitude of consumers to food and its production. With the common fisheries policy we are still at the beginning of such a process. In paragraph 88 the committee highlights the fact that the fisheries sector still seems to be lagging behind most others.
When I read the government responses to the committee's report, I was struck by the fact that the Government's priorities pleasingly include,
"an economically and environmentally sustainable industry".
However, their second point states only that there should be,
"greater integration of environmental considerations into policy making.
I should like to ask the Minister whether, on reflection, she feels that that statement is strong enough. I believe that the lessons we have learnt from the common agricultural policy demonstrate that we should pursue total integration of environmental considerations into policy making. I hope that, when the Government take their reply to the Commission, they might ask for total integration rather than simply "greater" integration, because the starting point is already so low that it would be hard for it not to be greater than is the case at present.
One of the difficulties that we must face is that, institutionally and structurally, both the Commission and the UK have failed to integrate in any way their fisheries and environmental policies. Evidence we heard included several powerful examples of where significant improvements could be made. Perhaps I

1005
may begin with an example from English Nature, which when commenting on the national position states that:
"We have given advice to the Ministry of Agriculture in the UK: we have asked to be on the Fisheries Conservation group of the Ministry and have been told that the time is not right for that".
That is a little depressing, given that English Nature is one of the Government's advisers on matters of conservation. If it feels that it has a contribution to make to the fisheries conservation group, I should have thought that the Government would be pleased to welcome its representation.
English Nature goes on to say that,
"an EU Biodiversity Strategy for Fisheries and an EU Fisheries Integration strategy is being developed",
and that those dialogues need to be brought together. The committee heard a great deal of evidence concerning how little such dialogues are being brought together. That should start with policy making and then feed through to what the World Wildlife Fund pointed out; namely, that,
"environmental conditions should be attached to the existing structural policies".
It goes on to say that environmental conditions should be attached to the funding streams which will then result. To that end, the Royal Society for the Protection for Birds highlighted the fact that,
"structural funds should shift away from capital investment towards promoting environmentally-friendly fisheries".
The society continued by developing a theme which ran through our entire inquiry; namely, that environmental and socio-economic advantages can be delivered effectively, in particular for inshore fisheries, on a regional level. The government response does not specify whether they are pressing for a redefinition of Europe's inshore fisheries and how best such fisheries might manage themselves. A number of examples were cited to the committee which demonstrated that their managers understand the importance of biodiversity and they want to be able to exercise the degree of management which would enable them to achieve the desired environmental advantages.
In our discussions, the Minister, Mr Elliot Morley, said that,
"In institutional terms I think environmental issues are being taken into account".
Later he pointed out:
"So you are beginning to see environmental considerations actually being applied to fisheries management".
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, pressed the Minister further on that point by saying:
"Do you feel that is going to happen or is it still a bit laid back?"
The Minister replied by saying,
"No. I think it is going to happen but there are still issues of conflict".
I believe that all members of the committee would agree with me when I say that I do not feel that that was a sufficiently strong response.
Perhaps I may turn for a moment to regional or zonal management as a method of bringing together fishermen and those responsible for the economies of
1006
their regions, along with scientists. Striking evidence has shown that management formed on a more regional basis will be far more effective at delivering the benefits we want the revised common fisheries policy to achieve. I was struck by the suggestion put forward by the World Wildlife Fund to the effect that,
"pilot regional or zonal management committees Mould be formed for all European regional seas".
Have the Government considered pressing for such pilots, which could come into being well before agreement is reached on exactly how the CFP is to be reformed?
One difficulty that we need to face on a national level is that, at the regional level, fisheries are seen rather as things apart. Funding streams are in place which take into account the restructuring of agriculture as well as the regeneration of towns. However, funding delivered through MAFF or rural development plans has never taken on board to any significant degree the restructuring funding that should be made available through PESCA, to which our chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred earlier. Our regional policy as regards all areas with fishing-dependent communities needs to take into account the more political question of whether such communities should continue to depend on fishing or whether they can diversify. If they do wish to diversify, then it is no good if fisheries money can be spent only on fisheries activities. Fisheries funding which comes from Europe needs to be spent in a relevant region on projects completely different from fishing. Otherwise, we shall never see adequate diversification.
The fact is that regional dialogue is still in an infant form. If we are to see reform of the CFP by 2002, then as a nation we need to make the regions, government offices and RDAs far more aware of the kinds of actions they should be taking to make such dialogue more effective.
I shall conclude by saying that I was extremely convinced by the case for regional management. It was favoured by many members of the committee. I hope that we as a nation could be at the forefront of demonstrating how effective regional management can be delivered. Furthermore, we should build on partnerships already established, for example, between parts of the south-west region and our fellow local authorities in France, where they, too, are facing the same kinds of problems. We could build on a great deal of common ground. If we were to adopt a common approach, then we should be able to develop strategies that will deliver a rounded policy for fishing in the future.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, back in her place after the awful tragedy that she has had to endure. I feel particular sympathy for her as I narrowly missed having my daughter in a similar situation a few days later.
I should like to pay an enormous tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for chairing this committee. I feel that I have learnt a tremendous amount from his

1007
brilliant chairmanship. We were also most ably assisted by our Clerk, Mr Thomas Radice, and his assistant, Marilyn Byatt. I should like to thank them most sincerely for all their assistance so freely and courteously given.
The noble Earl has probably said all that needs to be said about this report. However, I should like to emphasise one or two points. The whole subject of discards is one that worries me terribly, not only because of the dreadful waste, often of commercial species, equivalent to 40 per cent of the final landed catch—I repeat, some 40 per cent of the catch—but especially with regard to the damaging pollution of the seabed. Here I should like to quote one of our witnesses, Mr Venmore, who was a shell fisherman. He said:
"That ground was then barren for three months because it polluted the sea bed and I could catch absolutely nothing".
In this case he was referring to discarded mackerel.
"That is happening throughout the whole of British waters. It is a crime, quite frankly, against humanity. It cannot be justified".
I should also like to quote Mrs Murray, who, on page 74, stated:
"That is why I say to you that it is absolutely essential that the United Kingdom Parliament actually grasps the nettle…and says 'Enough is enough, this policy is lunacy' and to safeguard not only our fishing industry but to safeguard the fish stocks, we do need to initiate some sort of domestic legislation. The fish stocks do not have the seven years that it took between 1976 and 1983 to actually negotiate an agreement with our European partners. They will not survive that long".
A big part of the future of our fish supply, I am sure, lies in aquaculture, but fish stocks must also be preserved for our own and future generations, and that in turn means a complete restructuring of our entire fishing industry. I urge Her Majesty's Government to take action now before it is too late.
I wonder how many people saw the headline in Fishing News on 19th January. It stated:
"House of Lords EU Committee issues powerful warning—Whole Industry Could Disappear. A hard-hitting report by an influential House of Lords committee into the prospects for reform of the CFP concludes that the 17 year old policy 'has totally failed to achieve its fundamental objective of ensuring that fishing capacity and effort is consistent with self sustaining fish populations and food chains'".
MAFF has been ignoring the seriousness of this situation for far too long and it must recognise that, sadly, the situation is not going to disappear overnight. I believe that action is required, and required now.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Selborne for his chairmanship of our committee. He was immensely tactful and had to reconcile some rather differing points of view from time to time. He can rest assured that he has produced a report which, as he said, does not pull any punches. That is obviously true to anyone who has read it.
1008
Like him, I am very disappointed that we are treading a well-worn path in this debate. Like our debates on the common agricultural policy, our debates on the common fisheries policy always seem to be very well received; they gain an enormous number of compliments and we are told how well regarded they are in both Brussels and in government circles. What a pity, in that case, that they never seem to be acted upon.
The report we are debating today is a good example of what I am talking about. On page 9 of the report, Box 1 lists the previous reports of parliamentary Select Committees. There have been six of these since 1992, all increasingly critical of the common fisheries policy. This, our most recent report, turns up the heat even more. It is studded with conclusions that highlight the disappointment, and even anger, at the lack of progress—and, still, the apparent lack of political will to find a solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, quoted from the report that the CFP,
"has totally failed to achieve its fundamental objective".
Paragraph 1 of the report continues:
"This has happened despite repeated warnings from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and despite reports from Committees of both Houses of Parliament and others".
In paragraph 6 it states that,
"disappointingly little progress has been made on the key recommendations of the earlier reports, and indeed in many respects the position is getting worse".
Wherever we look we find that the common fisheries policy has been a disaster.
In relation to capacity reduction, the report states that the Multi-Annual Guidance Programme IV,
"has so far dismally failed to produce reductions in total EU fishing capacity, which on the contrary has continued to show net year-on-year increases".
Even worse, British taxpayers' money is being used to modernise the Spanish fishing fleet. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, of course, that we have to modernise. I agree—but we are paying to modernise the Spanish fleet, not our own. If we are going to modernise, let us modernise our own fleet, at least. Even worse—this is the contradiction at the heart of this matter—we are paying to modernise the Spanish fleet on the one hand, and also our money is being used to pay for effort reduction on the other. The two things are mutually contradictory. It is not just barking up the wrong tree; it is just barking, quite frankly.
Effort control is another failure. The use of square mesh panels which would allow juveniles to escape was recommended by the Select Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Selborne in 1992. It took eight years before the recommendation was acted upon—which is absurd—and then only in the North Sea and the west of Scotland haddock fisheries.
Meanwhile, net sizes were not increased elsewhere. The Commission and the member states managed somehow to agree among themselves in December 1999 to allow smaller fish to be caught because the net mesh sizes were not reduced, thus ensuring that more

1009
juveniles would be caught, more breeding stock would be caught, the breeding stock would be destroyed and, therefore, scientists would say "There is a crisis here. They will have to become quota fisheries as well".
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned the scandal of discards. The illustration on the loose cover of the report is of a young boy, Andrew White, 16 years of age, holding up two fish. In one hand he is holding a nice big saithe—not as big as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is used to; it is not nearly as big as he is, either up or around, but it is nevertheless a sizeable fish—and in the other hand the boy is clutching a kind of super sardine, which turns out to be a whiting. In that picture it is the big fish that will be thrown overboard and discarded and the little fish that will be retained. That is absolutely scandalous.
Enforcement is another major failure, I am sorry to say. I shall not be as squeamish as my noble friend Lord Selborne; I shall point the finger. We had quite convincing evidence that British fishermen are subject to strict enforcement at sea, whereas we had evidence from Dr Christian Lequesne that the French view was that "social peace" should be traded off for what he euphemistically called "flexibility on controls"—in other words, anything for a quiet life. "We'll leave you alone but do not debag the Minister". I have yet to hear of anyone who believes that the Spanish fishing fleet is properly policed. We had an example of its activities in Namibia. It is hardly surprising that under those conditions the British fishermen feel that they are seriously disadvantaged when it comes to enforcement.
The overwhelming evidence we took showed that the common fisheries policy has been a failure, is a failure and will continue to be a failure. The Fisheries Minister's job, quite frankly, to quote a previous Minister of Agriculture, Mr John Gummer, is,
"to ensure that if there are only ten fish left in the sea, you get your share and if possible a few more".
That is not a policy at all. If it is a policy, it is a policy of despair.
Whether we look at it from the point of view of the fishing industry, of fish stocks, of the environment or of social policy, there appears to be no prospect at all of the common fisheries policy being radically altered for the better. Indeed, I believe it can only get worse with enlargement, if it ever comes in. Then there will be more boats chasing fewer fish. I cannot see how that will lead to anything better than we already have.
Britain's fishermen have been particularly harshly treated under this policy. That is borne out by documents released recently under the 30-year rule, in particular a Scottish Office memorandum dated 9th November 1970 which says of British fishermen that,
"in the wider U.K. context, they must be regarded as expendable".
That is very nice for British fishermen to hear, I am sure!
1010
If it is still the view of this House and of the Government that our fisheries are expendable, then we must agree that responsibility for our fisheries policy should remain in Brussels, in spite of the catalogue of failure that is the history of the common fisheries policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that the common fisheries policy is all that we have. That is true. But there is an attractive alternative to jumping out of the window—it is not to jump out of the window. There is an alternative to the common fisheries policy; namely, to return control of our fisheries to Westminster. The principle of "equal access" to UK waters for EU fisheries was a political bargaining counter, to allow us to enjoy the manifold benefits of membership of the European Union. It had, and has, little to do with fisheries, conservation or social policy.
We heard convincing evidence from a number of witnesses that national control of fisheries works. It is, after all, likely that with a fishery, as with anything else, if no one owns it, no one looks after it. Norway, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Greenland, Namibia and the United States are all examples of countries which have found ways of managing their fisheries that work—if not perfectly, then certainly much better than the shambles that is the CFP. Morocco can also be added to the list. The Moroccans have recently discovered that it is in their much greater interest to control their own fisheries than to continue in agreements with EU countries, particularly Spain, and they are refusing to renew those agreements.
Britain's waters provide, or provided, about 75 per cent of resources for the EU fleet, as it will become in 2003. The example I have given shows that national control of fisheries can work; indeed this was supported by evidence from non-EU members of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission as to how it was possible for precautionary fishing bans to be declared in their waters within hours of receiving scientific advice. This requires a speed of executive decision-making that is quite beyond the bureaucratic abilities of the European Union and its institutions.
I agree that fish do not respect national boundaries and that there must, therefore, be international agreements. But these should be intergovernmental. It is not necessary to have a common fisheries policy in order to have international agreements on fisheries. It should be possible—indeed it is possible, as in the examples I have mentioned—for an individual state to manage its fisheries and to have legal agreements with other nations which have an interest in and border on its fisheries.
National control would enable the UK to licence all vessels to fish in our exclusive fishing zone. It would allow us to introduce and enforce agreed conservation measures. We should be able to introduce closed fishing areas immediately. It would enable short-term transitional aid to be paid as the enforcement measures bite. It would allow us at last to enforce our own rules, regulations and conservation policy.

1011
The reason the common fisheries policy is such a disaster is contained in a 1991 Commission report which is so self-condemning that it needs no further comment. The report states:
"the fisheries sector will behave in a way consistent with the achievement of the European ideal".
Exactly! That is what it is doing, and that is why it is such a failure.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, at the outset I should declare an interest, as recorded in the report, as a trustee of the World Humanity Action Trust and as a member of other voluntary organisations concerned with the environment.
I should like to begin by paying a warm tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for his magnificent leadership in the committee. It is a joy to work with the noble Earl. His drive and spirit are quite special: they are matched only by his scholarship and knowledge. On this side of the House we ought also to say a word of appreciation to the Clerk, Tom Radice, and to the advisers for the sterling work they did in producing our findings.
As I listened to my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, I, too, thought of the witnesses, particularly those from fishing communities, who came before us in the committee. There was tremendous strength of feeling. However, what impressed me was that it was not only strength of feeling—I must honestly say that, perhaps a little surprisingly, there was a real willingness to face the issues and to face up to the scientific evidence that was being produced. But there was exasperation, because they believed that this was exactly what politicians were failing to do. What they wanted was a real sense of convincing direction. I believe that we owe it to close-knit communities that have served the nation so well to provide that leadership. We have seen similar situations in this country: we have seen the harrowing things that have happened to mining communities, steel communities and farming communities. In each of these situations, the most important discipline for us is to be able to speak forthrightly and honestly about what we believe needs to be done and then meet the consequences of following that through.
There is a tendency in this House to use measured language and to be careful about not over-egging the argument. However, it would be difficult to over-state the gravity of the situation that faces us in fishing. It is a catastrophe. Stocks are diminishing, perhaps irreparably; and at the same time we have continuing over-capacity for the fishing operation. Drastic reductions in fishing are necessary, and firm regulation to achieve that is vital. If ever there were an example of international interdependence, it is to be found in fishing. Fish are no respecters of national or coastal waters or of exclusive zones. If we are going to manage the crisis that confronts us and survive it, we must work together as an international community. If we
1012
cannot start by handling this matter effectively on our own Continent of Europe, what prospects are there on the wider global stage?
As I reflect on the report that we produced, certain priorities keep coming back to me. First, there has to be an agreed strategy. We cannot go on with an approach governed by tactics alone. There must be a strategy within which the tactics find their place—a strategy towards which everyone can work.
My own view is that part of this strategy, eventually—perhaps not eventually, but very soon—needs to be on licensing fishermen, as distinct from trying to control the boats or equipment with which they work, so that we have a limited professional body of people working to an agreed strategy and taking their place within it. We also need to move towards zonal management—an aspect that is covered in the report—in which stakeholders, not least the fishermen themselves, have a part to play within the total overall strategy. It is by that kind of approach that we can build up a feeling of responsibility for the industry, for conservation and for all that guarantees the future.
Then there has to be effective enforcement. It is extremely aggravating for fishermen who take the situation seriously, and who are themselves subjected to stringent regulation, to see others escaping such regulation.
There must be strengthened enforcement. I can hear the words before they are expressed. The reservations we all have about bureaucracy and the European Union and about the overblown bureaucracy in parts of the European Union are known, but that is no reason for not strengthening European administration where it is needed. It is a sick joke that only 25 European Union inspectors are responsible for ensuring the policy is followed across the waters of the European Union as a whole.
There must be convincing support for communities when the changes are implemented. That needs to be part of the strategy and clearly spelled out so that people know where they stand and can make plans for the future. I also believe—there has not yet been much reference to this—that part of this essential approach involves giving greater emphasis to aquaculture, not overlooking the dangers of parasites and disease, for example, and also the environmental problems inherent in aquaculture, but working to achieve a responsible approach to aquaculture which can boost and stabilise the stocks of wild fish.
I come back to two general points which have already been mentioned in the debate which I believe are crucially important. First, I spent most of my professional life outside Westminster working on third world and development issues. I am appalled by what is happening to vulnerable small communities in third world countries dependent upon artisanal fishing as the irresponsible behaviour of Europe destroys their livelihood and the prospects of their families and communities. That matter deserves urgent attention. There must be far better co-ordination in Brussels between the development directorates and the agricultural directorates responsible for fishing and

1013
the rest. We also need to be certain that such co-ordination is strong in the counsels of our own administration and government in the United Kingdom.
The second general point to which I want to return is the issue of the environment, which was well spelled out by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I sum it up this way—this is very much the way I look at agriculture as well—if we are taking the prospects of our children and grandchildren seriously in terms of inheriting any kind of environment worth living in, indeed, inheriting an environment in which it is possible to live, we must have a fundamental change of mindset. We must stop thinking about agriculture which has certain environmental responsibilities or fishing which must take the environment into account. We must have environmental policy into which we fit agriculture and fishing as part of our general management of the environment. Until we can get that discipline into our overall approach to policy, I believe that we shall always be trying to run up an escalator which is going down faster and faster out of control.
There have already been assurances from MAFF and we look forward to its full reply. There has been emphasis on the indispensability of political will; our chairman has been right to emphasise this again this evening. I believe that in Elliot Morley we have a good Minister who understands the arguments and wants to do his best. But he is a junior Minister and he deserves the priority attention of senior Ministers who can really make things happen. What we need above all is clear leadership and honesty about what is necessary. There is no room any longer for fudging or for preoccupation with tactics because we are faced potentially with a terminal crisis in terms of the availability of fish stocks but also because if we take seriously our responsibility to those communities that have served us well, nothing would be more unforgivable than to fail to speak forthrightly and clearly about how grave the situation is and what needs to be done to put it right.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I was honoured to serve on the committee under the able chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Selborne, so ably supported by Tom Radice, our brilliant Clerk. Our chairman was patient with me. He seemed to cope well with my sometimes furious, sometimes emotional, outbursts.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, I, too, was born to a seafaring family. My family has fished out of Plymouth in Devon for hundreds of years. At one time we were proud to say that we had the largest fleet of fishing smacks in the South West. We have always been inshore fishermen. Our communities are small and close. They share their inherited knowledge and skill. They know their waters intimately, and are dependent on them for food and for a living. We are not landsmen. Our houses are small; they face the sea and our wealth has been vested in our boats and equipment—an ever increasing cost in these days.
1014
Be it the great mid and deep water fleets of the east coast and the north as they face mountainous seas and freezing conditions way beyond the help of lifeboat crews, or inshore boats such as the ones that I have known, they have commonly worked with an element which is unpredictable. There are days and weeks when they cannot fish which makes them all the more dependent on their catches when they do. Restricted fishing is felt in more ways than one.
As I entered the industry some 30 years ago, science and technology were about suddenly to leap ahead and revolutionise fishing as my family had known it, giving us the ability to take the guesswork, the hunting and the local knowledge out of fishing. There they were on the screen of the echo sounders and the fish finders for all to see, eerie in green on those screens, shoals of fish. It enabled us to rape and pillage those fragile stocks, disrupting breeding cycles, particularly in our area. I refer to pelagic fish local to my waters such as mackerel who swim in a tight shoal, sometimes miles long with the soldiers up the front and mature fish outside protecting the young ones inside. We swallowed them up in cod end nets pulled by big purse seiners down from Scotland. We crushed much of the catch. It was used for Fish meal or dumped at sea, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has so elegantly described.
Attempts by the European Union to limit the damage that we did have so far left the United Kingdom with an ageing inshore fleet and a small in number but hugely efficient mid and deep water fleet bristling with new technology, mortgaged to the hilt and hungry for huge catches. Our boats are limited by the European Union's common fisheries policy's erratic attempts to restrain.
Enforcement by the United Kingdom is vigorous. Certain other member countries, with fleets many times the size of ours, display little appetite for such enforcement and watch in amused amazement as our common law processes are applied to European directives. At present, enforcement is down to member states and we are not all playing by the same rules. Our report urges that the enforcement issue must be addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke eloquently on the issue so I shall say no more.
As our chairman, my noble friend Lord Selborne, vividly outlined to your Lordships, the 17 year-old common fisheries policy has failed totally to achieve its fundamental objective of ensuring that fishing capacity and effort are consistent with self-sustaining fish populations and food chains. Our fishermen, who now share our once plenteous waters with member countries—some of whom have fished out their own waters through need or bad husbandry—are in a desperate state. Stocks in European Community waters are now at critically low levels. International scientists and parliamentary committees have given consistent warnings over the years. Our Government must lead the way for the United Kingdom and the European Community with a degree of political courage which has so far been lacking in all member states.

1015
Our report urges that more Community funding will be needed to ease the transition for our fishing communities facing loss of their traditional activities. Good applications of science and technology are now seeing the growth of sea fish aquaculture. The Sea Fish Industry Authority is having great success with its cod hatchery. The first 10 tonnes of product hit the market in 2000. It was but four years ago that your Lordships were minded to pass my Bill to license lobster ranching at sea. I have now opened the first national lobster hatchery at Padstow in Cornwall which will allow the local fishermen to take up licences and ranch those lobsters breeding with the natural stock. We hope to have replenished the local lobster stock by up to a quarter in four years. Scientists, traditional hunters, commercial producers like me and retailers can save the situation given the right encouragement.
The key objective of the common fisheries policy should be sustainable development to ensure that the exploitation of marine resources takes account not only of ecological processes but also the social and economic consequences. Scientists, fishermen and politicians all know that action must be taken now. This is it—the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2002. It is our last chance. Member countries have their particular agendas and constituencies, as we have seen often to our cost. Small though the British fishing industry may be compared with other member countries, it has never been fought for in those quiet corridors of power where deals are done. To counter that, our Select Committee worked hard to publish this report ahead of the European Union Green Paper publicly to expose the problems that face us and encourage MAFF—it is acknowledged as having the best science in the European Union—to prepare our UK Minister to lead the fight to get the common fisheries policy set fair for the future before the whole fishing industry disappears forever.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I had no background in fishing until 1995 when I was appointed chairman of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which considered fish stock conservation and management. Since then I have watched what I can only regard as a complete tragedy, and it is still continuing—the over-exploitation of another natural resource, like the over-exploitation of forests and oil.
When considering fish stock conservation, we found that there was gross over-fishing throughout the world. At that time we were told by our expert advisers that only mature fish can spawn and thus contribute to the replenishment of stocks. However, fisheries were increasingly targeting immature fish so that the spawning stock steadily fell. For fish like cod, which take four to five years to reach maturity, the effect is particularly strong. By 1995 the spawning stock of North Sea cod was only 5 per cent of its value 20 years earlier.
1016
At that time we were conscious of the fact that in 1992 one of the world's most productive fisheries, namely, the Canadian Grand Banks cod fishery—it had fished continuously for 500 years—had been closed completely after a total collapse of stocks. Today, a decade later, there is little sign of recovery of that stock.
We concluded our report with this paragraph:
"In the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union regular supplies of fish are taken for granted, despite clear evidence of over-fishing. Only slowly is public opinion waking up to the fact that other parts of the world have been shaken, too late, from a similar complacency. Too little was done too late to preserve stocks of wholesome fish in the American Georges Bank, and in the Black Sea, and off the Canadian Grand Banks. Year after year, all over the world, the long-term sustainability of fish stocks is being sacrificed in favour of the short-term protection of employment in the fishing industry. But the lesson to be learned from the collapse of the Grand Banks fishery is that ignoring the warning signs year after year can end in the loss of thousands rather than hundreds of jobs. In their heart of hearts, scientists, fishermen, managers and politicians must all know that action must be taken now to prevent a repeat of the Grand Banks fiasco nearer to home. The question is, will they take it?".
That was five years ago. When I was co-opted on to the current committee the situation was not better but worse. Many of the dire predictions of 1996 have proved correct. Overall, the situation is worse. Few of our recommendations have been acted upon. If they were, if was only after a long delay. I believe that that indicates the lack of political will which has been referred to.
Our chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has given an admirable summary of the report. I shall comment on only three issues: first, the proposals for zonal management; secondly, enforcement; and, thirdly, the social problems that will inevitably arise.
We recommend that the revised common fisheries policy should establish zonal fishing zones. Proposals for such a change were made jointly by the Scottish Fishermen's Foundation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. They have been widely welcomed.
Within each zone, a committee would be set up drawn only from those member states with existing fishing rights in that zone. It would include representatives of fishermen, fisheries scientists, environmental interests and fisheries managers. The committee would thus have a detailed knowledge of the local situation and would be able to respond rapidly to any crisis.
I should very much like power to be devolved to such committees from the Commission, but we do not think that that can be achieved at the moment, so we envisage the committees as primarily advisory to the Commission. However, we considered that they should be empowered to take immediate action in any emergency to close areas where it seemed necessary to protect spawning stock or to introduce restrictions on fishing gear. Such changes currently take months, or even years, to impose.
The committees would also propose medium-term management strategies for stocks in their zone. We hope that the endorsement of their recommendations

1017
by the Commission and the Fisheries Council would be automatic and that in the fullness of time further management powers would be delegated to them.
Such a zonal management system would have various advantages. First, having a reduced number of member states controlling any fishery should make more rapid decision-making easier. Secondly, as all the interested parties would be members of the committee, the squabbles that have been common between fishermen and fisheries scientists over stocks would be resolved before decisions were made.
Enforcement has been mentioned several times. Every member state has always had grave suspicions that it is the only one honouring the national responsibility to enforce the rules. For that reason, we recommend that member states should pool part of their enforcement capacity so that inspections at sea and on the dock can be carried out by a team drawn from at least two member states, appointed by and acting with the authority of the Commission. We also think that the current size of the Commission's inspectorate is woefully inadequate. That point has already been made.
The necessary reductions in fishing effort will mean hardship and unemployment in fishing communities and related trades. There must be much greater expenditure on and investment in those communities throughout Europe. Structural funds should be redirected from providing subsidies for fleet modernisation, which has only increased fishing effort, to mitigating the effects of fishing reductions, which will cause unemployment among fishermen and others.
I finish roughly where I started. The North Sea cod stock is close to collapse. I very much hope that the cod recovery plan that has been adopted will prevent that collapse, but I fear that it may have been left too late.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I was not a member of the committee that produced the report that we are discussing, but I took part in three of the earlier inquiries listed in the box on page 9 of the report, notably that which produced a 300-page review of the common Fisheries policy in 1992 and that of the Science and Technology Committee in 1996. Looking again at those reports, which have been gathering dust in my store room, I am struck by the fact that, despite all that we said, things have evidently got worse, not better, in the past 10 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry, has just said.
The 1992 report, nearly nine years ago, said:
"The fishing industry in the European Community is suffering such acute problems that its very future is threatened. Chronic over-capacity in the Community fleet has led to consistent overfishing … Fishing is becoming ever more intensive, with modern methods causing damage to the whole marine environment … All witnesses agree that the current level of fishing effort is too high and could lead to the collapse of the stocks of some species of fish".
Four years later, the 1996 report spoke of the world's fish stocks being in a state of crisis. We said:
"A substantial reduction in fishing effort is urgently needed".
1018
We recommended the replacement of TACs by effort control, urged that scientific advice should be clearer to avoid providing an excuse for political compromise and said that we favoured a ban on all discards.
The present report is clear, cogent and hard-hitting. One would expect that from the distinguished membership of the committee and its admirable Chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I have listened with much interest to the speeches made by members of the committee. I was particularly struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, with whom I very much agreed.
The report makes it clear that the advice and warnings given in the earlier reports have had virtually no effect. Its first two paragraphs are a damning indictment of the common fisheries policy. The report emphasises the irresponsibility of European politicians, including ours, who come back from meetings trumpeting their success in resisting cuts proposed by the scientists. It makes it abundantly clear that if we go on as we are, stocks of sea fish around our coasts, particularly in the North Sea, will very soon collapse, with cod going first and other species following soon after. Cod do not reproduce, I believe, until they are seven years old, so it will be years before there is any prospect of a real recovery. Not only will it be tragic that these great stocks of fish around this country will be wantonly destroyed, but the livelihood of our fishermen will vanish.
Pages 14 and 15 of the report show that the CFP still ignores the effects of fishing on the marine environment and that, inexplicably, there is no liaison between the conservation interests in the commission and those responsible for fisheries. I very much agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, on that.
What needs to be done? I was struck by what Professor McIntyre told our 1996 inquiry. He said:
We know what the solution to the problem is, and that is simply to reduce fishing effort. If we doubted that at all we had the excellent examples of the two world wars, where for four years fishing effort was practically stopped. Before each of these world wars the stocks were in a poor state. Four years later they were in a first-class state".
Despite our calls for a substantial reduction in effort, the EU has utterly failed to bring that about. The Commission's Director-General of Fisheries admitted to the Committee that, despite what it had been trying to do, the Community might have greater capacity now than five or 10 years ago. Boats are being taken out of service, only to be replaced by more modern, more efficient boats, often heavily subsidised by the EU. The evidence quotes ICES experts as saying that there was a need for a 40 to 60 per cent reduction of effort and nothing short of that would do any good.
The 1996 report argued that the dreadful practice of discards—killing all the round fish thrown back—should be banned, but it still continues. As we heard when we went to Bergen in 1995, the Norwegians have a much better system and allow no discards.
Practically nothing has been done to safeguard spawning areas, shown on the maps at pages 153 to 155 of the 1992 report. Probably half the North Sea needs

1019
to be closed to fishing for some years if stocks are to be given a chance of recovering. The system of total allowable catches—TACs—which in a mixed fishery leads inevitably to discards, needs to be replaced by effort control. There is no sign of progress on that as yet.
Therefore, controlling fishing on a European basis has failed dismally for the reasons clearly set out in the report. The actions of the Commission have often been irresponsible, providing subsidies for new boats and even ending minimum landing sizes for 11 species, including turbot, lemon sole, brill, dab and flounder—a decision which understandably the committee found shocking.
The EU has had 10 years to put things on a sound basis, but it has done nothing. The situation has worsened under EU management. I see no sign of any determination to take the draconian measures needed to secure the survival of so many fish species around our coasts and to give our fishermen prospects for a decent future.
I do not believe that regional or zonal management to be approved at Community level, as proposed by the statutory conservation agencies—in effect, decentralising the CFP—would solve the problem, attractive though it sounds. It might be rejected by Brussels as implying a degree of discrimination.
I conclude that we must remove the fisheries, or what is left of them, from European control. I do not have much confidence in our own capacity to put things right. The dreadful state of our railways, the fiasco of the Dome, the mess over the proposed partial privatisation of the Tube and of air traffic control do not suggest that this Government are capable of tackling a major problem such as this. But at least we could make a start by doing things differently and doing it ourselves—of course, collaborating with other fishing nations around us—without being swamped by Spanish boats and Danish industrial fishermen and living under the threat of foreign boats fishing right up to our beaches after 2002, when the current derogation comes to an end.
Although popular, the Conservative call for being in Europe but not run by Europe is palpable nonsense. In this area we are at present run by Europe, as the Factortame judgment showed only too plainly. It is not only in relation to fisheries that we are told peremptorily what we can and cannot do. Mr Gordon Brown, for example, has just had a rather dusty answer from the Commission about his welcome plan to reduce VAT on the repair of churches.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, I believe that the time has come when we must take back the whole area of fisheries and place it under the control and responsibility of this Parliament. That is now very urgent if we are to save the North Sea cod and other species such as haddock, turbot and hake. Looking around the world, we can see clearly that the only really successful fisheries policies are those run by one country or one administration, such as Norway, New Zealand or, indeed, Namibia or the Falkland Islands.
1020
If we can repatriate our fisheries, as suggested in some of the evidence to the committee, by a parliamentary Act reclaiming our 200-mile or median line limits, as laid down in the Fishery Limits Act 1976, all well and good. If not, we may need to arrange a new relationship with Europe, as I have often suggested in other contexts in your Lordships' House. That would enable us to break free from the shackles of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy.
Such a new relationship with the EU, similar to that enjoyed by Norway, Switzerland and now Mexico, would give us much happier relations with Europe, save us huge amounts of money and give us a much better future. I am not surprised that, according to the polls, 46 per cent of our people now want us to leave the EU. Reading this report on the state of one of the major planks of the EU, one can only conclude that they are right.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I believe that British fishermen can take some comfort from what is a thorough and forthright report. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the Select Committee on its report. The members have been meticulous in their search for a solution to the problems of fishing, as they have been in the past. Unfortunately, little notice seems to have been taken of their previous reports.
I very much welcomed the trenchant remarks of the chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I believe that if I had made the type of remarks that he made, I would have been accused of being an anti-EU zealot. But, of course, the remarks were made by the distinguished noble Earl and I hope that a great deal of notice will be taken of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, mentioned the disclosures under the 30-year rule. He is absolutely right that Britain was swindled out of her national fishing industry with the connivance of the then government, led by Mr Heath. It is quite outrageous that an elected government should have believed that a great industry was expendable and, indeed, that they should have been prepared to take measures and make agreements which would ensure that it was expendable. Even worse, we have continued to expend the British industry while, to add insult to injury, the British taxpayer has helped to build up the Spanish and Portuguese fishing industries, which have then depredated fish in British waters. That was the result of that particular policy at that particular time.
What is worse, this British Parliament is precluded from taking action to safeguard the livelihoods of British fishermen. As we know, if they dared to do so, they would be taken to the European Court of Justice and fined. Thus, we have witnessed the spectacle of the British fishing industry being almost destroyed. The industry has been in decline and fish stocks have sunk, in many cases to crisis proportions, because of the disastrous policy which could have been avoided had we had a decent and courageous government who were not prepared to give away anything in pursuit of their policy of entering Europe.

1021
Like the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy—the only two common policies that we have—has been an absolute disaster. Yet they continue to be supported; indeed, they have to be supported because of the acquis cornmunautaire—the absurd doctrine which insists that a power gained by the European Union must never be relinquished, however absurd and damaging it becomes. Yet something must be done. Many noble Lords have said that we must take back control of our fishing industry, our fisheries and our fishing waters because they are being so mismanaged by the European Union.
Members of another place and of this place, and Ministers in particular, should remember that they are here to protect and further the interests of British people and to give priority to them rather than to those of other countries or the nationals of other countries. They certainly cannot do so under the common fisheries policy. Because of qualified majority voting, under that policy the claims of other countries now appear to take precedence over the best interests of our own with dire results for our fishermen and our fishing industry. As my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside and other noble Lords remarked, that is to the detriment of consumers because it causes shortages and higher prices.
The CFP has certainly not achieved its objectives. Conservation was one objective, but it has certainly not been achieved—indeed, the effect has been positively harmful, because quotas in areas of mixed fishing have resulted in pollution through discards, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, explained. Industrial fishing has also caused a loss of fish stock through over-fishing and by depriving fish of their food.
It is surely evidence of failure when cod, of all fish, is declared an endangered species. Fishing has been banned for a period to allow replenishment of stock. At the same time, industrial fishing goes on apace in the same areas.
Fishing capacity was supposed to have been reduced. British fishing capacity has certainly been reduced, and will be reduced further. However, the Spanish fleet, which is already the biggest, has been allocated large funds to upgrade, modernise and enlarge itself. The British fleet, in contrast, will be reduced by a further 800 vessels.
Even worse, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Judd, who is an expert on these matters, EU funds have been used to buy fishing rights in developing countries. That is to the detriment of very poor indigenous fisherfolk, who depend totally on fishing for their livelihood. That is the new European imperialism—it involves colonisation not by Bible and gun but through bribes, often to corrupt tyrannical governments who misuse the funds provided. Although Britain gets no benefit, we pay thousands—in fact, millions—of pounds towards the cost of that disreputable policy.
As I have already said, the EU takes little note of the findings of Select Committees. Its attitude will doubtless not change with regard to this report, although I sincerely hope that it will. However, it is
1022
increasingly clear that all successful fisheries policies are run and enforced by national governments, who are able to make mutually beneficial reciprocal arrangements with other countries.
In paragraph 120 on page 26, the Select Committee report baldly states: "The CFP is failing". Indeed, the report is entitled, Unsustainable Fishing. Paragraph 126 states that the dire predictions that the Select Committee on Science and Technology made in 1996 have "proved accurate".
The committee asked whether the EU Green Paper will at last call for appropriate measures and whether the Council of Ministers will have the will to act. If past experience is anything to go by, it will not have that will. What then? What will happen if the Green Paper is not successful and the political will is not there? Will the Select Committee recommend that whatever the rest of the EU says, we should recover control over our own waters? Even if it did, is there any chance that our supine EU-orientated political leaders will do the right thing by British fishermen and consumers? That involves taking that action, irrespective of what our EU competitors or partners—whatever we choose to call them—say.
8.54 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness on becoming the minister for the horse. We can now say to her, "Gee, Minister". I could not resist making that awful joke, for which I apologise.
This has been one of the most inspiring debates to which I have ever listened, but it has also been one of the most depressing debates to which I have ever listened. That is not because people do not have knowledge—the knowledge is enormous and the intellectual effort has been great—but because this is a story of failed listening.
The noble Lords, Lord. Palmer and Lord Stoddart, talked about discards. I want to add to that debate by discussing sand eels. The Danes have a quota that allows them to catch 1 million tonnes of sand eels a year. They are used to heat Copenhagen, to fertilise the Jutish Plain and to feed livestock on pig, poultry and salmon farms. As a result of that quota, the Danes are entitled to what is called a 20 per cent by-catch. That affects 200,000 tonnes—I stress that figure—of baby cod and other little fish, which simply get destroyed. That is two and a half times the quota allocated to Scottish fishermen, which is for 75,000 tonnes of mature cod for consumption. In fact, the situation is worse than that. The cod that are caught are small arid it takes many more of them to make up a pound or a tonne of cod.
A policy of industrial fishing has applied in the Berents Sea. In due course, the cod vanished and industrial fishing stopped. In 10 years, the cod came back and there is now a plentiful supply of cod in the Berents Sea.
It is hard to over-exaggerate the damage that that approach will do. That is illustrated by the fact that although the Danes have a quota of 1 million tonnes,

1023
they cannot catch more than 385,000 tonnes. The more that one hears about such cases, the more ghastly the situation becomes. The other day, someone—not me—was listening to the Danish news in Danish. They heard some cod fishermen from Thorsminde—I hope that I pronounced that correctly—admit to chucking 50 per cent of what they catch over the side. There is a premium on large cod, so the fishermen go on catching until they catch large cod and chuck all the small cod over the side. They admit to a 50 per cent discard, so the real figure is probably much bigger. They also said that their quotas are not sufficient to live on—the Aberdeen fishermen say exactly the same. Throwing mature, edible fish over the side because fishermen want bigger fish involves the most appalling waste.
When the picture on the front of the report was drawn to my attention, I was deeply shocked. It is one of the most depressing but most illustrative pictures I have ever seen. The large fish will be thrown away and the little fish will be eaten. Is it possible to imagine a sillier scheme than that?
During the past year or so, the 44 per cent decrease in Aberdeen's cod quota has already caused four companies to go out of business: Marson and Gerry, Allen and Day, Marine Fisheries and Abacus. It is suspected that a further 10 companies will go out of business as a result of the mismanagement of our stocks. On occasion, the EU admits to 60 per cent discards. Therefore, there are discards of 100,000 tonnes for the 75,000 tonnes which we are allowed in Scotland, plus the 200,000 tonnes which are allowed in relation to the sand eel fishing. That comes to a staggering total of 300,000 tonnes thrown away.
If I have a criticism of the report, it is that insufficient emphasis is placed on the appalling damage which discards do. None of those discards can breed, nor can they be eaten. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, they merely pollute. It is difficult to exaggerate the horror of it.
The Norwegians have a perfectly decent system. You are made to land everything. It has been said in the report, and it is admitted, that it is extremely difficult to police that system. But at least it is worth trying. If people are caught, you can throw the book at them and if the book is heavy and large enough and a couple of guys lose their boats as a result, they will not offend. Surely that is the way to go about it.
If there is a quota of one tonne of cod in Norway and you land one tonne and a quarter, you are paid for a tonne and the other quarter is taken away and sold on the open market. Therefore, there is no benefit to you from over-fishing. There is a direct incentive to you to fish very carefully indeed and to make sure that you are sensible about mesh sizes, square meshes rather than round meshes, and so on. You only catch exactly what you want. Surely that is the way in which we should go.
The cod recovery scheme was announced the other day. A European fisheries official was asked whether industrial fishing would be stopped during the cod recovery scheme. He replied that not to do that would defeat the object of the cod recovery scheme. A very
1024
little time later, somebody had obviously got at him because he came back and said that he was sorry, it would be allowed because it was thought that the effects would be marginal. I have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to find out about that. I spoke to her office this morning and I am sure that she will have done everything possible to find out about it. But what caused the change of mind?
Unless we get this right, as everybody has said, there will be no more fishing. Let us remember:
"Little fish are in the sea
For bigger fish to bite 'em,
The bigger fish bite other fish,
And so ad infinitum".
Unless we get it right, the North Sea will be a stagnant pool surrounded by derelict fisheries communities and we shall not be able to have fish and chips. It is possible to get it right if we are sensible. But there is no evidence of anybody being sensible. Let us be honest. The Canadians, the Norwegians, the Icelanders, the Namibians and the New Zealanders all run sensible fisheries policies. I admit that as regards the Grand Banks, the Americans and Canadians learnt the hard way. But in Europe, we seem determined not to learn.
I believe that marginally—just marginally—I should prefer a common European fisheries policy, just. But I am certain that I do not prefer a stupid European fisheries policy. If we are not to have a sensible fisheries policy, we must say, "I am very sorry, 75 per cent of the waters are ours and you are wrecking the whole thing. You do what we say. We shall produce a sensible policy and if you do not like it, we will do it on our own. In other words, you can have our co-operation, which we shall willingly give, but we are not prepared to see our own environment and our own assets ruined and destroyed".
In my 29 years in this House, I do not believe I have ever heard such a damning speech as that made by my noble friend Lord Selborne. That speech alone justified his election to this House. His chairing of this committee has obviously been excellent. I hope that the noble Baroness can give us a good, robust and well thought-out answer. I know that she is capable of it. I hope that she will do it for us.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, having saved your Lordships a further four-and-a-half hours of debate considering the delightful prospect of the implications of withdrawal from the European Union, I hope that I may be allowed rather less than the four minutes permitted by the Companion to intervene before the wind-up speeches.
I should like to mention two points which perhaps have not been fully made. One of them is that the common fisheries policy is not yet the fully fledged EU fishing policy, under the Commission's total control, which has been designed. This present policy, which we have been discussing for so many years, consists of a number of derogations to that grand policy which will not come into being until 2002.

1025
Having listened to the whole debate with much respect and fascination, I noticed that all noble Lords have said that something must be done and some noble Lords have said it more forcefully than others. But I suggest that nothing can be done under the common fisheries policy because to change it requires unanimity among all the member states and that unanimity is just not available. It is not realistic to talk about changing that policy. If the Minister disagrees with me, can she say whether the Government think that there is any possibility at all that Spain, for example, would agree to the kind of changes that we require?
That is why several noble Lords have wisely demanded the only solution to this policy, which is the repatriation of the common fisheries policy. But that is not so easy either. We shall be told that it is impossible. Indeed, when the Conservatives, a year ago, said that they were going to make repatriation of the common fisheries policy part of their next manifesto, my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition was taunted by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, who said that that would mean inevitably leaving the European Union altogether.
Of course, some of us think that that is a very pleasant prospect and that the case for leaving the European Union is unanswerable. But I have to admit that our political establishment is not yet ready for that obvious move.
I have a suggestion for Her Majesty's Government which centres around the negotiations that have just taken place at the Inter-Governmental Conference in Nice. It is clear that we need some form of deal to repatriate the common fisheries policy without tearing up the Treaty of Rome into very small pieces and chucking it into the Tiber.
I point out to the Government that we are in the process of giving eight countries in the European Union something that they very much want and something from which we have had nothing in return—that is, the famous enhanced co-operation arrangements in the Treaty of Nice. We have given them that and have received nothing in return.
I suggest that before we sign or ratify that treaty and its related initiatives we should demand back our fisheries and our agricultural policies. If they do not give us those policies, they cannot have enhanced co-operation. That is the sort of deal that they understand. I believe that that is the minimum that we should require for giving them this opportunity that otherwise they could not have.
9.9 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Select Committee on the European Union for its excellent, thought-provoking, informative report. Reading it made me slightly ashamed that hitherto I had not fully understood the situation. I say that quite openly because the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, used to speak on fishing matters on behalf of our party and on his promotion I have taken up the responsibility.
1026
Noble Lords have said that they feel that the report is hard-hitting and direct and I am delighted that it is. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for leading the committee and for their excellent report.
It is clear that the current system is not working. The forthcoming Green Paper is of crucial importance in relation to the debate. The report, as all noble Lords have reflected, does not pull its punches. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the gravity of the situation, as has been reflected on all sides of the Chamber.
The common fisheries policy does not help with conservation or with the management of the industry. It certainly does not help British fishermen who, at the moment, are struggling to make ends meet. There has to be a balance between too much capacity and too few stocks. As the report says, we need to look at the fundamental reshaping of EU policy for fishing communities that feel let down. As other noble Lords have said, Europe is not able to react quickly, a point I shall return to later.
Is it feasible that a community of 15 states, two of whom do not even have a fishing fleet, can provide the leadership necessary to cope with the situation, for example, off the west of Scotland or in the Celtic or Irish seas? I suggest that that will be even more difficult following the expansion of the European Union.
In the conclusions and recommendations at paragraph 100 of the report the committee refers to zonal management, which the noble Lord, Lord Perry, mentioned. It concludes that there would be considerable benefit, such as more appropriate management regimes, better communications and improved enforcement of regulations. As they have recognised the need for improvements, like the noble Lord, Lord Perry, I want to touch on the zonal management proposals put forward by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.
Those proposals split the European waters into six zones, to which I hope the Minister will refer later. Each of the zones will be managed by a committee of country representatives; 11 for the Baltic, nine for the Celtic and Irish seas; eight for the west of Scotland; seven for each of the North Sea, Biscay and Iberia; and four for the Mediterranean. No one country would be represented on the management committee of all six zones. There would be four EU and five non-EU countries on one; one EU and one non-EU country on two; one EU country on three; five EU countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain and the UK) would be on four; and only France and the Netherlands on five.
Surely that is more likely to succeed as a management arrangement than 15 countries trying to run the whole region. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. The Government have also had discussions on empowering such groups if they are to be established. Again, I ask the Minister to comment on that.

1027
To a certain extent I accept the comment made by many noble Lords that the debate has been informative but depressing, as I believe the report is. The report is realistic and does not duck the issues. Perhaps I may touch on one or two points that have been raised that I believe are extremely important. It is quite clear that the current system has totally failed us and that we need to consider what else we can do—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
I searched in the report for ideas about enforcement. I hope I do not do the report an injustice when I say that it reflects on the difficulties of enforcement rather than considers how the problem can be overcome. I hope that the report will allow us to consider what can be done for the future. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke was slightly depressing in his remarks on enforcement. He said that there is flexibility on controls and that certain countries interpret them in different ways. Those of us who deal with the CAP reforms would reiterate the difficulty. However, the fact that difficulties exist does not mean that we should duck the issue. The important point that has emerged from today's debate is that we must attack certain issues.
Almost every speaker has spoken with dismay about the question of discards, a matter to which I have given a lot of thought. As I have already said, I have no expertise in fishing. However, even if I had, I hope that I would find the practice of discarding dead fish by returning them back to the sea totally reprehensible and unacceptable. Surely it is not beyond the wit of this country to lead the way by devising a set of rules that will stop this appalling practice and criminal waste.
Various suggestions have been made. I mention one or two: the introduction of closed areas; an increase in mesh sizes; the use of square panels and trawler separators; greater selectivity of catch; the tackling of mixed fishery, as opposed to considering the demise of cod stocks alone. There are two particular problems relating to discards—undersized juveniles and over quota fish. We desperately need to reduce the kill of undersized fish. Several noble Lords have referred to the fact that the Norwegians do not allow the practice of discard.
Paragraph 96 of the report refers to Scotland's option of square mesh panels, to which I have briefly referred. It was stated in last week's debate in another place, and repeated here today, that this has already resulted in a reduction of 20 to 40 per cent in the catch of juveniles. I echo the committee's view that the timescale for the adoption of this and other conservation measures needs to be immediate and that they need to be enforced.
With regard to juvenile fish and fish that are too small, sometimes there are real time closures, perhaps followed by a trial trawl. I believe that in some areas the area is closed, a trial trawler is sent in, and, if the fish are still undersized, fishing is not allowed to restart. However, fishing is allowed to recommence when the fish are considered large enough. Perhaps the
1028
Minister would respond to that. The noble Lord, Lord Onslow, gave some very sad examples of the discard of cod.
Today's debate has reminded me of a comment made by a friend of mine, an amateur scuba diver on the west coast of Scotland, about trawling vessels culling fish, mooring lines, anchors and rocks, and causing damage in the form of large grooves in the seabed—something about which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would know—in which nothing can then grow. I hope that the matter can be considered. Not all noble Lords have referred to beam trawlers, which perhaps cause severe damage, although others argue that they do not. Whether or not they do, we should surely obtain a clear, scientific opinion on the matter.
In that connection, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to appendix 6 on page 37 of the first part of the report. Mollusc dredgers, which may cause long term environmental damage, should surely be outlawed under the precautionary principle. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to whether they are used in the six and 12 mile limits and whether the Government have any thoughts on that matter.
I turn to the question of finance. The report is stinging in its recommendations 92 to 94 on the financial instruments for the fisheries guidance. Restructuring requires resources. Training in new ways of earning a living for those who lose their jobs and investment in marketing and new applications are desperately needed. Support for implementing, monitoring and enforcing new rules is required. When fishing, fishermen are often forced to make decisions in favour of their short-term, economic interests, which are not in the long term interests of stock or the fishermen themselves.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said that we must have the political will to take on these and other issues. Above all, there must be financial support for those who continue in the industry, but perhaps with a new vision which balances environmental issues.
In the context of finance, many speakers in last week's debate in another place pointed out that no other industry must operate on such a short information cycle, even allowing for short-term planning. In education, for example, indicative school budgets are announced at about this time for the next financial year. In the fishing industry, quotas are announced just before Christmas and implemented from January. Is such a system sensible and do the Government want to continue with it?
The point was made in paragraph 94 that not only should support for capacity reduction be made available only when a vessel is scrapped but that all support should be tied to some form of decommissioning. That is necessary to ensure that where it is no longer possible to catch previous levels of, say, white fish the fleet does not turn to the destruction of other fish or move to fish in the areas of third-world countries, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

1029
I want to conclude by endorsing wholeheartedly the point made in paragraph 112 which refers to the inspections at sea and in the dock by multi-national teams. Other noble Lords referred to the 25 inspectors as being totally inadequate. My reading and preparation for the debate has left me much more aware about the ease with which anyone who wants can flout the regulations. We must put in place a new form of regulation which ensures that that does not continue.
I want to make two further comments. The debate has been of great value and noble Lords have spoken with great expertise. Although depressing comments have been made I want to thank my noble friend Lady Wilcox for bringing us hope for the future. I am delighted to hear of the launch of her national lobster hatchery. Perhaps next time we shall hear other such announcements because after this slightly depressing debate we need to hear good news. We are at the crossroads and if we do not take the necessary steps immediately we shall be too late.
Finally, I want to comment on the environmental issue, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Two or three of us in the Chamber took through the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill and were delighted that it included the biodiversity action plan. Indeed, we tried to raise a similar plan in connection with marine life. I wonder whether the lack of understanding about what is happening in our seas is a case of "out of sight, out of mind". The public know what is happening on the land because they see it but they do not see what is happening under the water. I congratulate all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I hope that it has raised awareness of this and other issues.
9.24 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I join all noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on the report provided under his chairmanship and on his lucid introduction to the debate. It has been a well informed and passionate debate. That is right and proper because, as many noble Lords have pointed out, fisheries are an important area of EU policy and important to the livelihoods and futures of individuals and communities. It is right to recognise that in relation to the more abstruse issues in the technical debates.
I was grateful to the noble Earl for recognising in his introduction that, in replying to a recently published report, it is perhaps inevitable—I am sorry if I disappoint the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—that the Government's response from the Dispatch Box tonight, like the note supplied to the sub-committee prior to the debate, is somewhat tentative. But the real value of the debate lies in considering the matter now and allowing the contributions to inform the final response of the Government in the fullness of time.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I believe that to be very wise. It means that the Government will listen to what people say before they make up their mind,
1030
rather than go out on a limb, make idiots of themselves and find that they are unable to withdraw it. That happens when either party is in power.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I thought that earlier he sought to tempt me into making definitive statements of policy.
It is important to take into account the fundamental issues that have been raised in the debate, not only in terms of the Government's response but, perhaps most crucially, the forthcoming Green Paper, to ensure that they are heard at European level. There has been a good deal of debate about the importance of political will. We are dealing with a common fisheries policy—we shall talk later about its appropriateness—where political will is required across the Union, including the United Kingdom.
The forthcoming review of the common fisheries policy provides a mechanism to deal with the real and increasing problem of managing our fisheries internationally. Even though it has fallen short of earlier hopes and expectations in many areas, as eloquently described tonight, that mechanism is there and the forthcoming review in 2002 provides us with an opportunity to make the necessary changes.
It is absolutely clear, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said in introducing the debate, that the common fisheries policy must have at its heart the notion of sustainable development. The committee's report proposes that,
"the exploitation of marine resources [should] take account not only of ecological processes but also social and economic consequences".
That encompasses all the fundamental principles of sustainable development and recognises that fisheries management is not just a question of conserving resources. Decisions on fisheries management have to find a workable equilibrium between all the requirements and must have that comprehensive approach to which my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside and others spoke. In that comprehensive approach over-capacity remains a central problem for the common fisheries policy, which we all accept has so far not been tackled sufficiently effectively by EU structural policy.
The Council of Ministers has already begun to consider the future of the structural policy, and the Government have pressed the council to take more effective measures. We argue for a reversal of the current EU policy because we believe it is wrong to allow subsidies which tend to add to the problems that already exist. In particular, we oppose grant aid for the building of new fishing vessels. The UK does not give such grants and regrets that other member states do.
However, it will not be easy to strengthen EIJ policy in this area. In the past the council has been reluctant to accept sufficiently tough fleet reduction targets. We look forward to effective proposals in the Green Paper, but it is wrong to suggest anything other than difficult negotiations ahead in this area. In that respect, my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside asked about our own national compliance with

1031
obligations under the current structural policy MAGP IV. We have already reached our overall tonnage objective set for the end of this year. We are on course to meet our obligations for individual fleet segments. But we agree that these targets will not resolve the over-capacity problem.
Several noble Lords have put the case for giving financial aid to the fishing fleet. The Government appreciate the impact that successive quota restrictions have placed on the fleet, together with the impact of the new recovery plans for cod and hake. Ministers are urgently discussing with the industry the implications of these measures. One possibility is decommissioning to remove surface capacity from the fleet. There are other possibilities of structural measures of various kinds. These issues are being looked at in relation to various parts of the United Kingdom. We are in close contact with the devolved administrations on this issue. The need to have a coherent approach to policy is well appreciated in the light of the points made by the fishing industry.
Several noble Lords emphasised the case for socio-economic restructuring programmes to provide alternative employment opportunities for those leaving the fish industry. The Government agree that there is an important role for such funding, but a substantial programme of grants is already available. There are the DfEE employment and reskilling initiatives. The main EU structural funds include the European Social Fund. Most fisheries-dependent areas in England are within the Objective 2 regions and are thus eligible for European Regional Development Fund support. Regional selective assistance and enterprise grants are also available to help local communities readjust.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and others spoke of the need to focus on the protection of the marine environment. It is clearly the case that there needs to be an improvement in environmental integration within the CFP. That is a Commission priority for the forthcoming review. It is one that we have advocated and MAFF is funding research.
The Swedish presidency is moving the process forward and has produced a paper outlining possible presidency conclusions on the topic. That forms part of the Cardiff process and is due to be submitted to the Gothenburg European Council in June. We will do our utmost to assist the presidency in this area. We have noted the various suggestions that a great deal more should be done environmentally. Progress has been made and we shall certainly be looking to create a much stronger environmental framework for fisheries. We envisage provision to promote environmentally-friendly fishing as part of the structural policy. There are parallels elsewhere of the importance of integrating those two areas of policy.
One cannot talk of environmental issues without also mentioning the problem of discards. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Palmer, raised that issue. The report of the committee noted
1032
that a simple discard ban would not be effective. We agree that the most promising way forward must be to adopt a combination of approaches.
The updated technical conservation rules which came into force on 1st January 2000 have attempted to address part of the problem of discards by focusing on the selectivity of fishing gear. The need to do even more has been recognised in the new arrangements for Irish Sea cod which apply from 1st January 2001 and in the North Sea/West of Scotland cod and northern hake recovery plans. Both of these plans include larger minimum mesh sizes and restrictions on twine thickness; measures that improve real selectivity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggested a number of technical issues in this area. We have noted the reference to the range of issues that could reduce the levels of discard and environmental impact. All of them are relevant and form part of our approach to conservation.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, specifically raised the question of the provision for the sand eel fishery to continue under the North Sea cod recovery plan. The noble Earl very courteously gave me notice that he would raise the point. My understanding is that it arose because Denmark was keen to provide continued fishing opportunities for its vessels in the light of agreeing to the closure of a significant part of the eastern North Sea. Denmark argued that because the sand eel fishery takes place near the surface, the cod by-catch was very low, at around 2 per cent. The Commission accepted that and the fishery was therefore excluded from the prohibition. The size of the total allowable catch for sand eels in 2001 was set, like all other TACs, at the December Fisheries Council. It remains unchanged at 1 million tonnes, in line with scientific advice. No special deals were cut with the Danes. Moreover, the Danes are open to the possibility of reducing the sand eel TAC and limiting the by-catch provision for white fish. We have agreed that we will discuss this with them and the talks are scheduled to start shortly.
The noble Earl quoted figures for the impact of sand eel fisheries. I am informed that they were interesting but very speculative. The reality is that Denmark catches a great deal less than the total quota. It is also the case that the by-catch of white fish is only a much smaller percentage than the figure implied in the regulations. That is why Denmark has readily agreed to discussions with the UK on changes to the regime.
I turn from the technical to the very general. There were references in the debate to the possibility of our withdrawal from the common fisheries policy and indeed clarion calls for it from the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke, Lord Moran and Lord Pearson of Rannoch. We have to understand that proposition in the context of the undeniable need to co-operate fully with our neighbours on fisheries management, especially when fish stocks are low. The committee itself advised that a common policy of some kind is essential. It is the Government's view that calls for withdrawal from the CFP are not only unrealistic but could also be highly damaging. How would it promote

1033
a co-operative approach to conservation, as we have achieved, for example, with the North Sea cod recovery plan? How would it deal with the problem of over-capacity? How would it tackle discards or help with technical conservation measures? How would it lead to more involvement of fishermen in decision-making processes? The answer to each of those questions is that it would not.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on that point. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke said that before we were deprived of our fisheries somewhat deceitfully by Mr Heath when he took us into the common fisheries policy in 1972, the United Kingdom controlled some 75 per cent of the fish in what are now EU waters. I thought that the figure was nearly 80 per cent. If we withdrew and took back that 80 per cent, surely at least 80 per cent would be controlled by us and 80 per cent of the environment could be under our control. When the fish stocks had recovered and we had looked after the needs of our own fishermen, we could lease any surplus to others.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord makes it sound very simple. When I had my seminar on this subject with my honourable friend Mr Elliot Morley, he assured me that some of the figures and propositions that have just been put forward are not achievable. Perhaps I may make one point about the document relating to the former Conservative administration which was released under the 30-year rule. Whatever might have been the policies then, and whatever are the policies now advocated by the Opposition, we do not regard the fishing industry and fishing communities as expendable. That is why we are addressing the review of the common fisheries policy with great care, thoroughness and firm political will in order to secure the kinds of changes that are necessary.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if we cannot secure any changes then that is the problem. If, on balance, we agree to a common policy, what happens if they continue to behave like purblind fools? Are we to allow that to happen? That appears to be our option.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we also have an option to cross bridges when we come to them. At the moment we should concentrate our efforts on achieving effective reform of the common fisheries policy. That is what we are doing.
We believe that there is scope for improving the decision-making processes under the CFP and bringing it closer to those affected by it. To that end, the contributions to our debate covering zonal management from my noble friend Lord Judd, the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, all made clear the benefits of a more regional approach. It will offer greater opportunities for greater efficiency in decision making, more ownership of the issues, increased involvement of those directly affected by decisions and the decision-making process, and
1034
heightened scope for reacting speedily. Several noble Lords made those points, as well as referring to conservation and other emergencies.
We believe that it will be possible to develop a considerable role for regional management arrangements, while respecting the current institutional and legal framework of the European Union and the need for all member states to retain a role in relation to European legislation. I noted the suggestion put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that a pilot regional management system could be introduced. The Commission has already carried out a series of pilot regional workshops which the UK strongly supported. Those workshops brought together fishermen, administrators and scientists to discuss issues concerning particular fisheries. The feedback from the workshops was very positive and in June last year the Council agreed, in what we consider to be a welcome step, to put such workshops on a more permanent footing. They have provided the starting point from which the present recovery plans have been developed.
However, even extremely local decisions may have wider implications, whether for the environment or for budgets. Thus the Council of Ministers needs to retain a role to monitor the decisions taken and to help ensure coherence across the European Union, while allowing for legitimate variation. We believe that the successful manner in which recent stock recovery plans have been put together demonstrates what can be achieved. We look forward to building on that in the forthcoming review.
However, as has been pointed out by a number of noble Lords who have spoken tonight—the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Wilcox, and my noble friend Lord Judd—a key priority is the maintenance of effective and consistent standards of enforcement across the Community. Last year, existing controls were strengthened by the implementation of satellite monitoring for vessels over 24 metres and the requirement for all vessels over 10 metres to keep log books and to record all catches and landings. We have in place more effective enforcement, but a great deal more still needs to be done to instil a culture of compliance with fair and consistent standards across Europe. I would not query that for a moment. We look to the Commission to come forward with proposals to improve levels of co-operation on enforcement between member states
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Judd, noted that there are only 25 European fisheries inspectors. I am sure that this issue will be further examined during the course of the review. However, it is important to make it clear that the purpose of those inspectors is to monitor the effectiveness of national inspectorates. It is not the case that that small number is intended directly to enforce the rules on fishing fleets, although I recognise the issues as regards not having "custodes"—I apologise, I was trying to change the grammar of the

1035
Latin this late at night, but I do not think that I shall achieve it. It is important to make sure that those who are monitoring the monitors are sufficiently resourced.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Baroness Hayman: No, my Lords. That bit I know. I was trying to change the grammar to make it fit into the English of my sentence. Now I have lost my place completely.
As to the important issue raised by my noble friend Lord Judd of the CFP's effect on developing nations and the way in which different policy objectives can interact, officials from MAFF, DfID and the FCO have been working closely on fisheries agreements in developing countries to ensure better coherence between EU commercial policies for fisheries and policies for eliminating poverty in developing countries. That work will continue.
As to the aquaculture industry, a matter raised by several noble Lords, the production of farmed salmon and trout complements rather than competes with the traditional catching sector. It is becoming increasingly diverse, with interests in the farming of cod, halibut, turbot and scallops. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, of the possibilities in regard to lobster.
Sustainable development is a clear requirement for aquaculture to be successful and controls are in place to ensure that the interests of consumers, the environment and the fish are protected. This is supported by significant expenditure on research and development, including work on cultivation techniques as well as on the impact of aquaculture on the environment. It is an area where we can apply some of the lessons that we have painfully learnt from not heeding the warnings given in the past.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon made clear—and on this, at least, I agree with him—the importance of the European Commission taking seriously the conclusions of the report. Last year, Commissioner Fischler outlined the Commission's priorities for the review to the European Parliament. We can expect the Green Paper to cover conservation of resources, the CFP's economic and social
1036
dimension, external fisheries relations, the Mediterranean and good governance in fisheries policy. That is a wide-ranging set of topics. It broadly covers most of the issues that have been raised today.
It is important that, both in this country and wider, we have an effective debate on the Green Paper and a successful outcome in terms of policy. Today's debate has given us the opportunity—certainly from the Government's viewpoint—to be able to take forward, with additional evidence and support, the kinds of policies that we believe are necessary to change the CFP for the future.
9.48 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, there have been some powerful contributions to the debate from all sides of the House. We have not been in total agreement as to whether the common fisheries policy is capable of reform. But we have been in unanimous agreement that the policy is failing—in part, as a consequence of perverse subsidies.
I shall take away from the debate particularly the ringing words of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. They will "hold" in my memory for a long time. The noble Lord said that we owe it to the fishing communities to provide leadership. That is the realisation that we have, having witnessed over the past 17 or 18 years a failing policy which is impacting so severely and unfairly on quite a small minority. We in this House owe it to those people, as do the Government, to try to make sure that the burden is not totally carried by them.
To that extent, while I welcome the Minister's assurances, I felt that her reliance on the availability of Objective 2 areas was just a little too bland. I hope that she will reflect on that carefully. If ever there were a case for a government task force to be set up to examine specifically the inevitable impact on fishing communities, this is it.
It merely remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It has been distressing, but it has given us some shafts of guidance as to what is implied by "leadership" in this sector.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.

  EU: United Kingdom Contribution
  EU: United Kingdom Contribution
  Farmers and Working Families' Tax Credit
  Farmers and Working Families' Tax Credit
  EMU: United Kingdom Voting Rights
  EMU: United Kingdom Voting Rights
  EU Political and Security Committee: United Kingdom Representative
  EU Political and Security Committee: United Kingdom Representative
  European Council Situation Centre
  European Council Situation Centre
  European Council Directorate General for External Affairs
  European Council Directorate General for External Affairs
  Role of Commissioner for External Affairs and High Representative
  Role of Commissioner for External Affairs and High Representative
  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Israel: Effect of Military Action on Palestinian Education
  Israel: Effect of Military Action on Palestinian Education
  European Security and Defence Policy Report
  European Security and Defence Policy Report
  Irish Republic: British Passport Holders
  Irish Republic: British Passport Holders
  British Embassy in Dublin: Issue of Passports
  British Embassy in Dublin: Issue of Passports
  Prison Service: Suicide and Self-harm Review
  Prison Service: Suicide and Self-harm Review
  Charities: Voluntary Registration
  Charities: Voluntary Registration
  NMEC: Assets and Liabilities
  NMEC: Assets and Liabilities
  Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights Consultation
  Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights Consultation
  Millennium Dome Site: Expressions of Interest
  Millennium Dome Site: Expressions of Interest
  Type 45 Destroyer
  Type 45 Destroyer
  Horsham TA Centre
  Horsham TA Centre
  Monitoring of Employees' e-mails
  Monitoring of Employees' e-mails
  Employees: Entitlement to Transfer to Reduced Hours
  Employees: Entitlement to Transfer to Reduced Hours
  Learning Difficulties: Terms used in Legislation
  Learning Difficulties: Terms used in Legislation
  Work Permits and Displacement of Resident Labour
  Work Permits and Displacement of Resident Labour
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  Caesarean Sections
  Caesarean Sections
  Haemophilia Patients
  Haemophilia Patients