Sitting of 27 February 2001

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

  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Tuesday 6 March.

  MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Tuesday 6 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  US National Missile Defence
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What recent discussions he has had with the US Administration on national missile defence. [149702]
  Mr. Alan Simpson: What recent discussions his Department has had with the US Administration in relation to national missile defence; and what assessment he has made about the implications of any such involvement for the UK. [149712]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is today attending the NATO North Atlantic council in Brussels, with the new United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
  My right hon. Friend recently held discussions in Washington with Vice-President Cheney, National Security Adviser Rice and Secretary of State Powell on a range of issues, including national missile defence. Those discussions, and those that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had last week with President Bush, clearly demonstrated the constructive approach being taken by the Bush Administration. The US Administration reaffirmed their commitment to a national missile defence system, but stressed their willingness to take their time to consult allies, Russia and others. They confirmed that no
  694
  decision had yet been taken on the development or deployment of a specific system. It is therefore too early to assess any implications for the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Savidge: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on weapons of mass destruction reflects concern across the political spectrum at the dangers of national missile defence, not least to the arms control process, and support for the Government, urging caution on the issue? Will he reassure us that there is no foundation for media reports stating that the Government have cut a deal to assist, encourage or advocate NMD, as that could undermine our policies and principles, our national interest and global security?
  Mr. Vaz: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but the fact is that we made our position clear at the discussions between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister, and I can do no better than to quote from the joint communiqué:
  "We recognise the existence of a common threat stemming from the growing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction … we are already working together in this area and agree on the need for further substantive bilateral consultations as well as consultations with other allies".
  The United States of America is our closest ally and our strongest friend. It is important that we should discuss those matters with the US Administration. It is also important that they should consult ourselves and others, as they have agreed to do. We shall proceed on that basis because that is in the best interests of transatlantic security.
  Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend will know that, on 3 July last year, the Secretary of State for Defence told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that there was no significant threat to the United Kingdom from an attack by a rogue state. Why would we wish to change that position by making ourselves the most obvious target if we were to become the front-line partner of the American star wars initiative? Why has the United Kingdom invested more than £100 million so far in the star wars technology—a project that not only would breach the ABM treaty, but would have no international support across the developed world?
  Mr. Vaz: Throughout my hon. Friend's career in politics he has had a long-standing commitment to the views that he has just expressed. The Government's position is absolutely clear. There is no difference between what the Secretary of State for Defence said last year and what the Prime Minister and President Bush said at Camp David last week, which is that there is a common threat. If our closest ally feels vulnerable, it is right that we should listen carefully to its concerns. There is no specific proposal on the table, as my hon. Friend knows. There is ample scope for consultation, and we have made it clear that we will look carefully at those very serious and sensitive matters. It is extremely important that we work with our allies to ensure that those matters are resolved. There is no significant threat to us, but there is a common threat that affects the security of a number of countries.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: On the subject of national missile defence and the phantom

  695
  European army, will the Minister inquire of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why they appear to say one thing to the President of the United States and another thing to leaders of European Union countries? Is he aware that the French have a rather good ambassador in Washington who is having tremendous fun every evening dining out in political circles and reading out the conflicting messages that 10 Downing street is sending to Europe and to Washington?
  Mr. Vaz: I am not responsible for what the ambassador does in his leisure time; I am responsible for telling the House that there is confusion because of the activities of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). He travels like a weasel to Washington, giving out old draft documents and insulting the American Administration. The situation is clear and was set out by the President and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Camp David meeting last week. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what was agreed in the joint communiqué. It said:
  "The United States welcomes the European Union's European Security and Defence Policy intended to make Europe a stronger, more capable partner in deterring and managing crises affecting the security of the Transatlantic community".
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as we have said on numerous occasions, NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy. No matter what confusion the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green wishes to sow wherever he goes, that remains the position.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: The Vale of York is between Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, although neither is in my constituency. Before the Government consider any application from the United States on the national missile defence policy, will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on what the cost of upgrading those two listening stations would be?
  Mr. Vaz: I have had no discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on that matter.
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I represent the constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, which is very close to Fylingdales. The people of my constituency will welcome very much the consultation that was implied by the communiqué that was issued at the weekend. However, will there be any consultation with local people in the North Yorkshire moors area, should there be any further developments? Will there be any consideration of the fact that the base at Fylingdales is in a national park? Will that have any bearing on any potential developments at the site?
  Mr. Vaz: I have listened to my hon. Friend and I can do no better than to pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Mr. John Bercow: I welcome the generous compliment that the Minister has just bestowed on the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon.
  696
  Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. He will be delighted to know that he has got up the Minister's nose to such an extent.
  Why does the Minister not abandon his waffle, dither and procrastination and just admit to the House that the reason why he will not tell us clearly whether he and the Government are, in principle, in favour of national missile defence as a protection against the antics of rogue states is that the Ministry of Defence and his Department are irreconcilably split? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State for Defence can see the merits of such a system but that CND man—the Foreign Secretary, who consistently championed one-sided disarmament throughout the 1980s—remains feeble, passive and hopeless on this subject?
  Mr. Vaz: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is working himself up into such a lather. The position is very clear. We recognise that there is a threat, as the President of the United States said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. As the ally of the United States, we will be consulted, as others will be. That is the way forward. No specific proposal is on the table but when such a proposal is available for discussion, it will be discussed in the proper way. There is no difference between any members of the Government on that point; there is one specific policy that deals with the need to work with our allies, to be consulted by them and to move forward on this issue.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not clear that the Opposition must be bitterly disappointed at the outcome of the meeting in Washington because it was so obviously a success? On missile defence, my hon. Friend must know that the United States Administration is dropping the word "national." Although the conclusions of last August's Foreign Affairs Committee have been adopted, is it not clear that the Bush Administration's concept of such defence has moved on from a land-based strategy to a sea-based or space-based strategy? If that is technologically feasible, how long will it take before such a system becomes operational?
  Mr. Vaz: There is no timing on that because no specific proposal is before the House. As for my right hon. Friend's first point, he is absolutely right; there were tears in central office last weekend when it was seen how successful the meeting had been between the Prime Minister and President Bush. The joint communiqué dealt with a number of crucial issues, including the President's support for the European security defence initiative and the support of our Government for consultations on NMD.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Minister's smug complacency takes the biscuit. The only weasels are those who sit on Labour Benches. Last week, the Prime Minister undoubtedly left the President of the United States with the impression that he would support the missile defence programme. However, on this side of the Atlantic, as reported in the Danish press, the Foreign Secretary reached an agreement with the Foreign Minister of Denmark last month that neither country would give the United States any indication that it was prepared to provide sites for the radar installations that are necessary for the missile shield to function. Is it not about time that the Government showed some leadership on the matter

  697
  rather than saying one thing in Europe and another thing in Washington? Is it not the truth that the only things to put in the box marked "handle with care" are the Government's promises?
  Mr. Vaz: It is very sad when Opposition spokespersons prepare their supplementary questions before they hear the answers to earlier questions. The hon. Lady will know that she is completely wrong. Her question goes to the heart of the way in which the Opposition want to deal with the policy; they provide misinformation to everyone, causing massive confusion. The fact is that no decision has been made. An agreement was reached at Camp David last week that there should be consultation between the United States and the United Kingdom, and further consultation with allies and with Russia. That remains the position.

  Iraq
  Mr. Bill Michie: What UN Security Council meetings are planned in the next three months to discuss policy towards Iraq.[149703]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): To date, the Security Council has scheduled meetings on Iraq issues on 8 March, 31 March and an unspecified date in April. In addition, the Iraq sanctions committee meets on a regular basis to discuss all aspects of Iraq policy.
  Mr. Michie: The situation is serious and future loss of life on both sides—by accident or design—is a stark reality. Since I accepted what was at the time the King's shilling and wore uniform, I have been convinced that politicians who vote for war and armed conflict should be the first on the front line, thus possibly avoiding future conflicts throughout the world. Will my hon. Friend talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to find an alternative to break the deadlock before more lives are lost, because two wrongs do not make a right?
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend would agree that continuing a wrong does not make a right, and that is what we confront in the Iraqi regime. I am pleased to spell out the differentiation. Nothing that we or the United Nations do is intended to hurt the Iraqi people; that is not the purpose. The purpose is most definitely to prevent the Iraqi regime from developing weapons of mass destruction, from attacking its neighbours—as it did 10 years ago—or from using chemical weapons against its own people, as it also did in the not-so-distant past. Let us keep the balance right and implement policy as effectively as possible. We must not abandon our resolve to prevent the Iraqi regime from acting in the way that I have described.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I welcome the Minister to what I believe is his first Foreign Office Question Time? If any information were required on the need to review policy towards Iraq, was it not to be found in the rather cold and frigid reception for Colin Powell as he toured Arab capitals over the past two or three days? With three out of five of the permanent members of the Security Council no longer supporting the
  698
  sanctions regime and no Arab Government, apart from Kuwait, being prepared to offer public support for the regime, is it not now time to do what the Minister was hinting at over the weekend, which is to institute a full-scale review of policy towards Iraq, out of which should come a sanctions regime that is related to military and dual-use equipment, but excludes non-military sanctions?
  Mr. Wilson: The purpose of the sanctions regime and that of United Nations Security Council resolutions is to achieve exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has described: to target the military capacity of Saddam Hussein. Of course, there are items that fall into the dual-use category.
  It is no part of my intention, or anyone else's, that humanitarian goods should be caught up in the sanctions regime. As I have said, if there are concrete examples of that happening, they should be drawn to the attention of the Government and the UN sanctions committee. Merely to assert that there are such examples plays into the propaganda efforts of Saddam Hussein, in whose interests it is to claim that, by definition, if we prevent him from building weapons of mass destruction, we are visiting humanitarian suffering upon his people.
  That is not true. Saddam Hussein is inflicting that suffering, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows. There is $11 billion lying in bank accounts that Saddam Hussein could be using for the humanitarian good of his own people. He chooses not to do so because he prefers the propaganda value of that $11 billion to the practical effect of the money.
  Ms Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend the Minister has said that anyone who points to the dire humanitarian consequences of the sanctions regime against Iraq is a dupe. He will be aware that two successive UN co-ordinators in the regime have both said clearly and publicly throughout the world that there are massive humanitarian consequences of the sanctions regime, and that, as relevant UN officials, they cannot support it. Does he believe that they too are dupes?
  Mr. Wilson: I said absolutely no such thing. I respect the many people who are genuinely concerned about the sanctions regime and the way in which sanctions are implemented. I am not speaking negatively about those who hold that view which, doubtless, is shared by my hon. Friend. It is positive to say that we must distinguish between two approaches. One is directed against weapons of mass destruction, and one is purported to be directed against the humanitarian interests of the Iraqi people. In so far as there is purported to be confusion, it serves only Saddam Hussein. That is why he seeks to imply that one approach is the inevitable consequence of the other.
  If the approach can be better, of course it should be better. Everyone agrees about that and is trying to take the agenda forward. The logical conclusion is not to abandon sanctions, to allow the means of developing weapons of mass destruction—including the development of the chemical weapons programme—and to allow another attack on Kuwait or anywhere else. It is in our interests to distinguish the two objectives, and we shall do that more effectively in future than in the past. The objective remains clear. The primary objective—which is in the

  699
  interests of the world, and of the region—is to stop Saddam Hussein developing the potential that we are discussing.
  Mr. Tom King: If we ask our brave pilots in the RAF to undertake challenging and dangerous missions, are they not entitled to expect the widest support in the United Kingdom and throughout the world community for the task that they are carrying out, which is of the highest humanitarian order? If there is concern about whether people understand why the task is being undertaken, is it not beholden on the Government to ensure that there is a much clearer picture in people's minds in the United Kingdom and more widely of the real threats that are posed to the southern Shia people and the marsh Arabs, given the brutality and awfulness that was suffered by the people of Kuwait? Will the Government make a great effort to support our pilots in the task that they have been given?
  Mr. Wilson: The raids of a fortnight ago were launched precisely in pursuit of that objective and were not an extension of policy towards Iraq. We were merely saying that if we ask aircrews to cover the southern no-fly zone, we must make sure that they have the best protection possible. I find it difficult to believe that we cannot achieve full consensus on that point, even if on no other. If we ask our aircrews to do a job, we must protect them. It is as simple as that.
  Like me, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) went to Kuwait at the weekend, and there are plenty of reminders there that we are not talking about some hypothetical threat. It is not an invention of paranoid minds that Saddam Hussein might do certain things in the region; he did them 10 years ago. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would join me in wishing to mention the people whom we met in Kuwait—mothers, daughters and children of 660 prisoners of war who have never been accounted for. The Iraqi regime has made no attempt to tell those prisoners' loved ones whether they are alive or dead or to describe their treatment. Those people are not propaganda, but real, flesh-and-blood human beings. If we had some movement from the Iraqi regime on such questions, some of the other claims made on its behalf might be a little more credible.
  Mr. Steve McCabe: What discussions does my hon. Friend plan to hold with the Indian authorities and at the United Nations about the alleged activities of the Delhi-based company NEC Ltd, which is alleged to be supplying missile material and biological weapons material to the Iraqi regime? Is that not exactly the type of activity that must be ended if there are to be any developments in policy towards Iraq?
  Mr. Wilson: Any alleged breach of sanctions should be investigated, including that one. Breaches of sanctions are occurring; we cannot have sanctions without breaches. However, that does not invalidate the case for sanctions, which will play the key role in stopping Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction. I undertake to write to my hon. Friend on the specific case to which he referred.
  Discussions are taking place, and that is one reason for Colin Powell's presence in the region during the past few days. He has talked with representatives of neighbouring
  700
  countries to try to persuade them that sanctions must be enforced. Sanctions were not invented by the Government or by the United States; they are carried out under United Nations Security Council resolution 1284. The way out for the Iraqi regime is to allow the inspectors in to see what is going on. If that happens, sanctions can be suspended and, ultimately, lifted. That is a simple, straightforward way ahead, but it requires Saddam Hussein not to develop weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons, and not to attack his neighbours. The House was united on all those objectives 10 years ago, and it should be united now.

  British-American Relations (Europe)
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: When he will meet the US Secretary of State to discuss bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and the United States with regard to Europe. [149704]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Secretary of State Colin Powell between 5 and 7 February during a round of visits to Washington. He discussed the whole range of British-American relations.
  Mr. Fabricant: The Minister will be aware that President Chirac has said that the raison d'être of the European rapid reaction force is to contain the United States. [Laughter.] The Minister may laugh, but that is what President Chirac said; I shall say it in French, if the Minister likes. [HON MEMBERS: "Go on."] It would, perhaps, be out of order to do so.
  The Minister read, with some smugness, the communiqué issued from Washington last weekend. Is he aware that, since then, the French and Italian military attaches have said—not in their spare time, as he said, but in time paid for by their Governments—that the information given to President Bush was incorrect? If the Minister read the Nice treaty, he would find that it contains reference to an independent command structure.
  Mr. Vaz indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fabricant: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to shake his head; I suspect that he has not read the Nice treaty. If he has, he will know that it identifies an independent chain of command for the European rapid reaction force, independent from NATO. That is the whole raison d'etre of the force. Does the Minister not realise that we live in a small world, and that he cannot do what the Liberals do—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister should now answer the question.
  Mr. Vaz: Indeed, it is a small world. I have read the treaty of Nice. When the hon. Gentleman reads the treaty—a copy of which I will send him, as it was signed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary only yesterday in Nice—he will find that defence is not mentioned in the treaty itself. The clauses and propositions concerning defence are in the annexes.

  701
  May I clear up a further point? There are 372 million people in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman quotes a couple of defence attachés from countries that he names. I much prefer the views of the Heads of Government at Nice, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of this country. Our position on European security and defence policy has been made absolutely clear.
  May I tell the hon. Gentleman whom he should thank for ensuring that defence was part of the European Union? He should thank his right hon. Fried the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who signed be Maastricht treaty. That was the first time that a common defence framework was mentioned in a European treaty, and we must thank the right hon. Member for Horsham for that.
  I was very pleased, and the entire House should be pleased, with the communiqué that came out of Camp David last week. It is important that we treat these issues seriously. Throughout the process, our American allies were told what was happening. Before Nice, they were sent copies of the treaty and the annexes. After the treaty was approved at Nice, a communiqué from NATO was drafted by the Americans and the United Kingdom Government, among others.
  Mr. John McFall: Does my hon. Friend welcome the accord at Camp David, which repudiated the isolationist policies of parties such as the Conservative Opposition and particularly of people such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who says that our EU partners are influenced by anti-Americanism? Is it not the case that a country such as Britain must be friends with both America and the European Union in the interests of jobs, as well as world security?
  Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition are so bitterly disappointed because of the success of the Camp David meeting and of the Nice treaty that they have nothing to proclaim as result of those two events. My hon. Friend is right that we have a close and strong ally in the United States of America—as demonstrated by the meeting between President Bush and our Prime Minister—and that we are a leading player in Europe, shaping the European agenda. That is the best of both worlds.
  Mr. Francis Maude: Last Thursday, the Foreign Secretary said on "Question Time" that the EU rapid reaction force would be "firmly anchored within NATO." One of the papers that was signed at Nice—not by a couple of military attachés, but by the Heads of Government and Heads of State to whom the Minister refers—stated that
  "the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation".
  Will the Minister tell us how that is consistent with the force being "anchored within NATO"?
  Mr. Vaz: That is absolutely consistent with the force being anchored within NATO. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the Petersberg tasks. If he looks back, he will recall that, in 1992, two members of the Government of whom he was a member,
  702
  Sir Malcolm Rifkind and the noble Lord Hurd, signed up to the Petersberg tasks. The process began under the previous Conservative Government.
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Petersberg tasks deal with certain humanitarian and crisis management issues. He also knows that NATO is the cornerstone of our transatlantic security policy. Of course, we will have to draw on the planning, resources, capabilities and assets of NATO. That remains the case. As Lord Robertson said on the "Today" programme this morning, there will be only a very small number of cases involving minor issues that European nations will have the capability to deal with themselves. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to when he quotes that sentence.
  Mr. Maude: It is not at all clear whether the Minister is denying that the rapid reaction force is anchored within NATO. He appears to be saying that it was never meant to be and that the Foreign Secretary was talking about something else. He certainly has not begun to explain how the Foreign Secretary's comments last Thursday are consistent with what he signed up to at Nice.
  However, that is not all. We are told by President Bush that the Prime Minister assured him at the weekend that European defence
  "would in no way undermine NATO",
  that there "would be joint command" and that
  "planning would take place within NATO."
  The Prime Minister used the words "within NATO", but the papers to which he signed up state:
  "The European Council has decided to establish … The Military Committee of the European Union; The Military Staff of the European Union."
  Is not it clear that the Prime Minister's assurances to President Bush were simply not true?
  Mr. Vaz: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman starts to read the annexes in English rather than German. If he does so, he will see that they are fully consistent with what the Prime Minister said to President Bush on 23 February. They are also entirely consistent with what the Foreign Secretary said last week. Lord Robertson, who happens to be the Secretary General of NATO, said:
  "It is very difficult to see circumstances other than the very smallest ones, which will be done perhaps by individual countries grouping together, where they would not require or want or find desirable to have NATO assets and capabilities."
  He is dealing with those small circumstances that are defined in the Petersberg tasks, and not with the major situations that have been described. NATO remains the cornerstone of our transatlantic defence policy.
  Of course, we have to draw on the assets, planning and capabilities of NATO. That is why the Prime Minister made those remarks to President Bush and why the president is so reassured. What upsets the right hon. Gentleman is that there was agreement at Nice and that the President of the United States supports the European defence policy.
  Mr. Maude: The Minister has utterly failed to explain how the phrases "anchored within NATO" and "joint command" are compatible with what the Government signed up to. On television last week, the Foreign

  703
  Secretary claimed that he had written most of the papers himself. That is an improbable contention, but let us take his word for it. I have read out some of the words that he claims to have written, but they are inconsistent with what the Government are now saying.
  Why will not the Government accept that they have signed up to a project that is deliberately designed to be autonomous from NATO and which, as our American partners have said, runs the serious risk of undermining it? The only way of wringing even a qualified approval from the United States is by misrepresenting what has been agreed. Is not the right course now to accept that that is the wrong way to achieve the desirable aim of enhancing European defence co-operation and capability, and that the right way is to return to the European Security and Defence Initiative model agreed by my right hon. Friends in 1996, which was genuinely anchored within NATO?
  Mr. Vaz: I am sorry, but I shall have to invite the right hon. Gentleman to come and see me in my office, where I can properly explain these issues to him. He has been relying so totally on what has been said by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, that he does not understand the issues. I am sad about that, but let me explain it to him for a third time. NATO remains the cornerstone of the Government's defence policy and that of Europe. Of course, the European rapid reaction force is anchored within NATO and will act only once NATO finds that it does not want to be fully engaged. That is the point.
  Mr. Maude: This does not say that.
  Mr. Vaz: It does say that. The right hon. Gentleman takes one sentence out of a whole set of annexes. I will use my highlighter pen and send him a copy of the document that will set the position out. That is how it is to work. It has the support of President Chirac, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of this country. I know that it does not have the support of the right hon. Gentleman, because he simply cannot understand it.

  British Trade International
  Ms Sally Keeble: What assistance and advice on promoting overseas trade is being offered to the English regions by British Trade International. [149705]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): British Trade International, through its trade support arm Trade Partners UK, delivers its advice and assistance in the English regions through international trade teams in the business links, led by nine international trade directors. Assistance covers every facet of international trade, with particular emphasis on small and medium enterprises.
  Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that business link in Northamptonshire, which is a full programme of trade fairs, found in a recent survey that there had been a 6 per cent. increase in the value of export sales by local firms in the last half of last year and
  704
  that, in addition, 65 to 70 per cent. of those exports were to the European Union? Does he agree that the important job of building on that success is ill served by the Conservative party's anti-European rhetoric?
  Mr. Wilson: I do not know very many serious exporters who would support the Conservative party's policy. Indeed, they can be certain that the key to the success of British exporters lies largely in Europe and that any turning of our back on Europe would be disastrous for them. Our record success in attracting inward investment is due to our place in the EU and the Government's position on the single currency.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that British Trade International bears in mind, when giving advice to British regions and elsewhere, the experience of Sainsbury and Wena Hotels Ltd. in trading and investing in Egypt, and warns potential British investors in Egypt of the possible pitfalls of investing in that country?
  Mr. Wilson: The normal advice is available to any company investing in any country. Personally, I would not give such advice on Egypt, with which we have very good relations. The Wena Hotels case to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the subject of on-going legal action. As he knows, because I wrote to him, I raised the matter with the Prime Minister of Egypt when I met him recently. Equally, the Sainsbury story is complex and I do not think that it has yet reached its conclusion. I would certainly not reach the general conclusion about Egypt that the hon. Gentleman has drawn.
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: Did my hon. Friend notice the recent call by the chairman of Ford Europe for the Tory party to rethink its policy on the euro? Does not my hon. Friend think that the Tory party is putting its own prejudices before the interests of British jobs, British workers—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not responsible for those matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nobody is."] Order.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Simon Thomas: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding the export credit guarantee for the Ilisu dam in Turkey. [149706]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have had several discussions about the Ilisu dam project in Turkey. My officials remain in close touch with their counterparts at the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, in order to monitor progress on the four areas of concern set out by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 December 1999.
  Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply. May I draw his attention to the conclusion of the International Development Committee's sixth report, which states:
  "The Ilisu Dam was from the outset conceived and planned in contravention of international standards, and it still does not comply"?
  In the light of the current financial chaos in Turkey, does he agree that the United Kingdom taxpayer should not touch that project with a bargepole? Will he use the last remnants of his Department's ethical foreign policy to ensure that the Government do not support the project?
  Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise those concerns; they have of course been raised a number of times before. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that he will not give his agreement unless there is progress on meeting the points that he has made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they are very important points to do with resettlement, the environment, water disposal and other such issues. Unless they are dealt with, there is no question of the project being agreed. We are very concerned about the human dimension of the matter, and the hon. Gentleman can be reassured that no decision will be taken unless those criteria have been met.
  Ann Clwyd: As the only member of the International Development Committee to visit the site of the Ilisu dam, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that the plan as it stands meets none of the criteria—on environmental, developmental or human rights grounds? It is time that we said to the Turks "Nothing doing; we will have nothing to do with the plan", because 75,000 people cannot be kicked out of their homes without being consulted on the plan well before it is executed.
  Mr. Vaz: No Member of the House has done more to highlight these issues than my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the work that she has done on this matter. She speaks eloquently about these issues. She is either about to meet the Turkish Ambassador or she has met him recently, and I am sure that she has put her views more forcefully than even I could. What she has to say is highly relevant, and I assure her that her views are carefully listened to in the Foreign Office. As I said to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), no decision will be taken until the criteria laid down by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are met.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Minister realise that more than 70,000 people will be displaced by the Ilisu dam project, losing their land and their livelihoods? How many of those people does he estimate will be washed up on our shores and those of other European countries seeking asylum? Does he agree with me and some of his colleagues that it would be preferable to make life better for the citizens of countries such as Turkey by preventing projects such as the Ilisu dam, rather than trying to cope with a continuing stream of people wanting to get a better life elsewhere?
  Mr. Vaz: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. She knows about these matters as she is a distinguished member of the International Development Committee. I reassure her, as I did my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the hon. Member for
  706
  Ceredigion, that these are real issues affecting real people and that, given the humanitarian consequences, no decisions will be taken until the criteria set out by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have been met. If they are not met, no agreement will be given by him.

  Turkey
  Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's bilateral relations with Turkey. [R] [149707]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Turkey is a strong ally of the United Kingdom. It is a NATO member, and a potential European Union partner. Many companies in this country export to Turkey.
  Mr. Chapman: Do not the devaluation of the lira and other events underline the need for Britain and other western nations to maintain a close dialogue with Turkey? If Turkey were to switch from secular, democratic and European paths and instead were to follow fundamentalist policies, would not Europe and the whole of the region be the losers?
  Mr. Vaz: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work as Chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Turkey. He has developed a close relationship with a number of groups in Turkey. I assure him that we are concerned, as he and others are, about the state of the currency in Turkey, and we are monitoring the situation carefully. As he knows, last year at Helsinki, Turkey was given the status of a candidate country for admission to the European Union. It is considering its accession partnership, which was agreed on a political basis on 4 December last year. We shall ensure that that process continues, and shall give Turkey any assistance that we can. However, the fact remains that Turkey must meet the Copenhagen criteria on human rights issues. We are monitoring that carefully, and we shall continue to work with Turkey as an ally.
  Sir David Madel: The question refers to Britain's relations with Turkey. Does the Minister agree that our relations with Turkey will not improve until Turkey withdraws from northern Cyprus?
  Mr. Vaz: Relations between Britain and Turkey are very good, and that will continue. The problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred is on-going. He will know that the Government's position is to support the talks taking place under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. We urge all parties to be involved in those discussions. The hon. Gentleman will know that these matters cannot be solved overnight. These are sensitive decisions, and there must be careful discussion between all the parties. That will continue until we get a just and lasting solution to the problem.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As relations with Turkey are so good, can the Minister tell us what pressure has been put on the Turkish Administration to persuade them to cease military activity against Kurdish people in Turkey and over the border in Iraq? What representations have British representatives in Ankara

  707
  made about prison conditions in Turkey, the large number of people who have been on hunger strike in prison and the continuing violation of the human rights of Kurdish people throughout that country?
  Mr. Vaz: I have spoken personally to the Turkish ambassador following an appeal by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) about the situation in Turkish prisons, which has caused concern. It is important that the Turkish Government address that concern, and the ambassador gave me assurance that he will raise the matter with Ankara so that there are improvements.
  Mr. Corbyn: What about the bombing?
  Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend asks about the bombing. We have also made representations on a number of other issues and will continue to do so.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Government do what no British Government have ever done and express regret about the first great genocide of the 20th century—the massacre of the Armenians? No apology has ever been given, but the matter is topical as the French Government have done precisely that. They have suffered the consequences, I know, but they have done the right thing. If we do not express regret, the evil words of Hitler, "Who now remembers the Armenians?" will be borne out as true. Are the Government prepared to express such regret and to express regret at the fact that no Turkish Government have ever given the slightest apology for the first great genocide of the 20th century?
  Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman was in the House for the previous Foreign Office questions. I set out the policy then and it has not changed.

  Indonesia
  Rev. Martin Smyth: What representations he has made to the Indonesian Government on forced conversions to Islam. [149708]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): Our embassy in Indonesia has made representations to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jakarta on a number of occasions over the situation in the Moluccas. Recent evidence of forced conversions adds a worrying new dimension to the conflicts there and we shall continue to monitor events closely and make representations.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the Minister's concerns as two letters from constituents, who, like many people throughout the kingdom, are concerned about what is happening in Indonesia, arrived on my desk today. Is he aware that forced conversions include forced circumcision and female genital mutilation, often with blunt instruments and without anaesthetic, and has he drawn the matter to the attention of the Indonesian Government? I understand that such practices are against the laws of Indonesia, so surely the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
  Mr. Battle: Yes. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen and persistent interest in the conflicts in the Moluccas and has made regular representations as a result of his excellent Church contacts there. We also receive information from Christian Solidarity and the Barnabas Fund, which have continued to alert the world to those atrocities.
  The situation in the Moluccas has calmed down. The reasons for the conflict there are long standing, although communities had lived at peace for hundreds of years until 1999. We have raised those matters with the Indonesian authorities and, most recently, between 20 and 22 February, our ambassador participated in a European Union mission.
  We were encouraged by the fact that the situation in north Maluku and in Ambon had calmed down over Christmas and over the Idul Fitri holidays and we can draw encouragement from the action taken by Ambon's governor, who has initiated three inter-faith missions to Kesui and Tioor islands, offering to evacuate Christians who are in fear of forced conversion. That is not an answer, however, so we shall continue to press the Indonesians, as I myself have done.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for raising this terrible matter. Has not the time come to point out to Governments who engage in such activities that, as they expect their people to have complete civil and religious liberty when they come to the United Kingdom, so we expect those Governments to practise that on their own citizens?
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman should read the laws of the new Indonesia, which has moved to democracy only in the past 18 months. The laws are in position, but sometimes we fail to understand the largeness and complexity of Indonesia, which has 218 million people, some 700 ethnic minorities and about 500 different languages scattered across 3,000 islands.
  I think that the Indonesians are trying their best to get to grips with the situation. Obviously, it is up to their authorities to implement law and order; we shall exhort them to do so and assist them as best we can, but in the meantime we can contribute, and have contributed in small ways, to conflict resolution by negotiating to bring Christians and Muslims together at local level.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Andrew Love: What progress has been made in the accession negotiations of Cyprus to the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [149711]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vat): Cyprus is making good progress in its accession negotiations with the European Union. It has provisionally closed 17 of the 31 chapters in the negotiations—more than any other candidate. I trust that Cyprus's current good performance on adoption and

  709
  implementation of EU legislation will continue. I look forward to discussing this and other matters during my visit to Cyprus in 10 days' time.
  Mr. Love: I thank my hon. Friend, and congratulate him on his forthcoming visit, which is indeed the only way in which he can find out about the problem of Cyprus.
  In the light of the recent statement by the EU enlargement commissioner reaffirming that there will be no separate negotiations for the Turkish-Cypriot community and that it is an absolute fiction that it will ever be able to join with Turkey, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity provided by his visit to urge Turkish. Cypriot community leaders to enter into negotiations, so that both communities can be satisfied with the outcome when Cyprus joins the European community?
  Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is right: we shall secure a just and lasting settlement of this agonisingly difficult problem only if all sides come together in the talks. That is why we support what has been done by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and give wholehearted backing to Sir David Hannay as he tries to deal with the difficulties.
  Our message to the Cypriot community in this country is that the Government will continue to take their responsibilities seriously, and will support the on-going process. As for EU membership, we look forward to Cyprus joining as quickly as possible. I know from the work that my hon. Friend and others on both sides of the House have done over the past few years that the community here would welcome an early accession for Cyprus. We hope that this will act as a spur to the solving of what is, as I have said, an agonisingly difficult problem.

  Middle East
  Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the middle east, following the Israeli prime ministerial election. [149713]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): The cycle of violence is undermining the confidence of both sides in the peace process. I am encouraged by Prime Minister-designate Sharon's statement that he plans to continue with the peace process, and to ease the conditions for Palestinians.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave his support to financial help for the Palestinian Authority at yesterday's EU General Affairs Council? Given the historic ties that exist between the United Kingdom and
  710
  both Arab countries and Israel, may we have the Government's continuing assurance that they will be even-handed in their initiatives to try to bring peace to the middle east—especially given that only a fortnight ago, in a democratic election, an overwhelming 62 per cent. gave power to Prime Minister-elect Sharon?
  Mr. Wilson: I think that even-handedness—along with transparency—is the key to building and maintaining credibility. I am delighted that yesterday the EU approved the provision of £38 million for the Palestinian Authority: money that had been held in reserve is now being made available. Obviously, the economic health of the authority is very much part of the key, and I am pleased to note Prime Minister-designate Sharon's recognition of that since his election.
  Mr. Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend will share our sadness at the apparent unravelling of the peace process over recent weeks, and the sadness felt by Labour Members, at least, at the defeat of Ehud Barak. As he is doubtless aware, there are some conciliatory signs, not least the fact that the Labour party in Israel has joined the national unity Government.
  May I urge my hon. Friend to ensure, in his discussions with the partners in the middle east, that they put pressure on Chairman Arafat to be tough on some of the extremists, particularly those in Hamas? Will he also urge the Prime Minister-elect to honour and respect the wishes of the vast majority of Israeli and Palestinian people, so that we can have a lasting peace based on "land for peace"?
  Mr. Wilson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the vast majority of the Palestine and Israeli people want peace. That is usually the case in such conflicts. At present, every effort of everyone who has a contribution to make should be to ensure that the dialogue on peace is maintained and takes up where it left off, and that every door is kept open to dialogue.
  Mr. Richard Spring: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment?
  Given our historic links, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the disappointment that is widely felt in the middle east about Britain's lack of influence in the peace process? Does he realise that that is borne out by the embarrassing unwillingness of political leaders in the area to see the Prime Minister's personal envoy, Lord Levy?
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. There our accord ends. I find it sad that such a serious matter should be reduced to such a trivial level on the basis of some ridiculous inaccuracy, on a personalised basis. If that is all the Tory party has to offer a serious question such as the middle east peace process, heaven help the Tory party, never mind the rest of us.

Rail Passenger Services
3.31 pm
Mr. Lembit Öpik: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require railway passenger service providers to compensate passengers for late journeys and to ensure that passengers reach their ultimate rail destination.
I start with a quote from a piece in The Daily Telegraph of 21 February 2001, supplied to me by Jeremy Goodwin, who happens to be a student at Aberystwyth university, headed "Rail Revenge":
Pretoria's 91-year-old railway terminus has been extensively damaged after a mob of about 10,000 home-going commuters, angered by delays to train services caused by a series of signal failures, set it on fire."
My Bill is prompted by the same angry sentiments, but seeks a less inflammatory solution.
German and French trains are so reliable that one can set one's clock by them. That is not so in the United Kingdom. British rail travellers are so used to being late that we are sometimes relieved and occasionally even amazed when we get there on time. Twice I have been so delayed—once by Great Western Railways and once by Virgin Trains—that I have missed the responsibilities that I had to conduct in the House of Commons.
More recently, one of my Montgomeryshire constituents was horrendously delayed, by four hours, owing to the failures of the Northern Spirit service. Northern Spirit's whole approach on that occasion showed that it had little or no appreciation of its responsibility to minimise the inconvenience of those delays.
In fact, before the Hatfield accident, things were not as bad as they may seem to have been. The Strategic Rail Authority's figures suggest that, between April and October 2000, for example, long-distance cross-country services were on time, or within 10 minutes of being on time, 81 per cent. of the time. The problem is that, when trains are late, the compensation systems let us down, so that, on top of the annoyance of the delay, one enters into a bartering situation, where the compensation seems to be in proportion to how loud one can shout.
UK rail travel compensation is, in the eyes of many of its users, something of a lottery. Also, it seems that, on occasion, operators do not deliver their passengers to their destination. That happened to one of my members of staff the other night. She was left at a station late at night, alone. That is not safe and it is not fair. It certainly should not be for the passenger to have to plead with rail staff for some way to finish the journey home.
There is a basic principle at stake. As with any other transaction, if the service is defective or cancelled, the customer should reasonably be able to expect the supplier of that service to make good the deficiency. That is how it should be in relation to the railways. That is what my Bill seeks to do.
My Bill would objectify the compensation process and guarantee the delivery of customers to their destination. It would accomplish those goals very simply by ensuring that, for every minute that a customer was delayed, 1 per cent. of the ticket price was refunded. As the system would kick in only after a 20-minute delay, the minimum compensation would be 20 per cent. of the ticket price. Initially, I had suggested that the process should commence after a delay of only 10 minutes. However,
712
after representations From interested parties, I accept that such a system would be too strict and that the operators could be inundated with small claims. Additionally, as the rail passengers committee for Wales has pointed out, overly small claims could clog up the system and entail unreasonable administrative expense. I therefore think that 20 minutes is a reasonable starting point.
My Bill would also oblige operators to deliver their passengers to their destination, and not to leave them stranded in stations as a result of cancellations or missed connections. In other words, operators would absolutely and positively have to get their customers to their destination, if not on time, at least eventually. None of those proposals is rocket science. They would simply bring the rail system roughly into line with the way in which we operate in most other spheres in which customer and supplier enter contract—which is what happens when one buys a ticket.
Eurostar has proveed that such a system really can work. Eurostar's compensation system operates so that, if one is delayed for between 61 and 180 minutes, a voucher is issued for a free single journey. If one is delayed for more than 181 minutes, a 100 per cent. money refund is made for the delayed part of the journey. However, compensation is paid only when the delay was within Eurostar's control. I believe that that condition is reasonable, and it is not very different from what I am proposing. That condition also demonstrates that such a compensation system can run in tandem with a professional and profitable rail business.
I am therefore asking Ministers to accept the principle of such a system and to enter into a dialogue on it with passengers and rail operators, with the goal of creating an objective compensation system and a guarantee of arrival at the destination.
I accept that various issues will have to be thought through, such as who will pay when two rail operators both contribute to a delay. Additionally, what will happen when Railtrack is responsible for a delay? Will passengers claim compensation from the operator, who will subsequently work out appropriate compensation with Railtrack? Conversely, when would it be unfair to make operators pay for lateness? Would it be unfair to expect compensation if there had been a natural disaster? I should say that, by natural disaster, I do not mean leaves on the line, but earthquakes, flooding, or even the remote possibility of an asteroid taking out a large proportion of the British rail system.
There are probably other matters that I have not thought of that will have to be tidied up. However, the principle behind my proposals is simple enough: compensation proportionate to the delay and a guarantee of arrival—if not by railway then by other means—are the organisational responsibility of the operator.
I hope that the Government will commence that dialogue to examine what we can do to create such a system. I also assure the House that my proposals are not intended to punish the rail operators or as a way of hitting them over the head just because we are unhappy with the service. My proposals are intended simply to make sure that we have a system which ensures that, when consumers have bought the service of being delivered somewhere on time, they are compensated when their valuable time is lost.

713
I believe that if Ministers commit to those two principles, passengers everywhere will be very grateful. I also believe that such a system would take the lottery out of the current compensation system, which is so frustrating for those who have to negotiate with rail operators who have not delivered the purchased service. Best of all, such a system would also end the worry of being abandoned in the middle of nowhere because a train has been terminated far from home.
I am not looking for victories over the rail services, but for a sensible, common-sense system that everyone can understand and a process that every railway user can initiate. Such a system would also avoid the potential for frayed tempers when, very reasonably, passengers request a refund because Britain's rail service network has not achieved the standards that we would all expect it to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lembit Öpik, Mr. David Chidgey, Mr. Bob Russell, Mr. Adrian Sanders, Mr. Brian Cotter, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. David Heath, Mr. David Rendel and Mr. Richard Livsey.

Rail Passenger Services
  RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES
  Mr. Lembit Öpikaccordingly presented a Bill to require railway passenger service providers to compensate passengers for late journeys and to ensure that passengers reach their ultimate rail destination And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed.[Bill 52].

  Points of Order
  3.41 pm
  Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the serious situation in the countryside as a result of foot and mouth disease. Almost every constituency is affected. Have you received any application from the Government to vary the business of the House for today? The debate that we are about to begin is singularly inappropriate for people who have been affected by the disease, as it is about a matter that has concerned them very deeply. I am sure that they would feel that the House would be displaying greater responsibility if we were to leave the subject, at least for today.
  Mr. Speaker: The point that the right hon. Gentleman raises is not a matter for the Chair. However, I am sure that his concerns will be duly noted.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On a slightly different point of order, Mr. Speaker. During questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday, when Madam Deputy Speaker was in the Chair, I asked for an undertaking that the right hon. Gentleman would keep the House informed while the foot and mouth disease outbreak continued. He replied, quite specifically, "No, I will not." Are you prepared to deprecate that statement, Mr. Speaker, and to ask the Minister to think again? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. It is for the Minister to make his replies. I have no control over the way in which the Minister replies in the House.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Foot and mouth disease has been confirmed on the Isle of Anglesey, and there are suspected cases in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). Thousands of visitors from Ireland on their way to Cardiff for Saturday's rugby union international are expected to travel through Anglesey and by routes to the south of my constituency. Have the Government given you any indication that they will give a further statement to the House to give leadership and guidance to agencies, Government Departments and quangos as to how problems arising from the foot and mouth outbreak should be dealt with? My constituency office is being inundated by questions from members of the public seeking guidance.
  Mr. Speaker: Once again, I must say that this is not a matter for me. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns will be noted.

  Hunting Bill (Programme)
  3.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Hunting Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 20th December 2000 (as amended on 17th January 2001 and 8th February 2001):

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in one day on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day.
  2. On that day—

  (1) proceedings on Consideration shall (unless previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock, and

  (2) proceedings on Third Reading shall (unless previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Twelve o'clock.

  3. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
  4. In the application to proceedings on Consideration of Sessional Order E made by the House on 7th November 2000, paragraph (2)(d) shall have effect as if it required the Speaker to put—

  (1) a single question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which creates a defence in respect of the hunting of rabbits and on any amendments in the name of a Minister of the Crown which are consequential on that amendment;

  (2) the question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which creates a defence in respect of deer-stalking and flushing;

  (3) the question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which expands the defence in respect of the hunting of rodents;

  (4) the question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which creates a defence in respect of the hunting of mink; and

  (5) a single question on any other amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown.

  5. Paragraph (4) of Sessional Order E made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration.

  Lords Amendments and Messages
  6. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

  (1) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or

  (2) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords;

  and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
  I can be brief, as the motion before us is simple enough and I am keen to get on with the substantive debates on this Bill. Essentially, the motion provides that Report stage should run until 10 pm tonight and be followed immediately by Third Reading. That is by no means an odd or unusual way to proceed. I reject the suggestion, implicit in the amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), that insufficient time is being allowed to consider the Bill.
  716
  The Bill is not long. It does not fill even seven pages. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said in Committee that it was
  "after all, a very short Bill".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 February 2001; c. 442.]
  Not only that but, unusually, the whole House has had two opportunities to debate the issues—on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House.
  The Bill was extensively debated in Standing Committee. Indeed, the Committee sat on 15 occasions and the Government even extended its proceedings at the request of the official Opposition. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) led for the Opposition in Committee, and he took a very constructive view of the length of time allowed for debate. In the initial debate in the Programming Sub-Committee, the hon. Gentleman accepted the Government motion without seeking to amend it. In return, the Government did not think unreasonable his request for an extra day in Committee, and we agreed to it. I understand that no other request was made for a substantial amount of extra time in Committee.
  We had some good debates in Committee. Although some speeches were a little on the long side I thought that, on balance, the debate was very constructive and enormously well informed as a result of the Burns report. I regret, however, that despite the extension of time that we provided, we were not able to deal with all the amendments that had been tabled.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and also for making provision in the voting procedure tonight for us to deal with amendments in response to points that I made about deer stalking and about rabbits and rats. However, the programme motion does not allow for the new Government amendments to be the subject of debate in any protected way. We might reach 10 o'clock and have to vote on the amendments without having the opportunity of assessing whether they meet the case that was put in Committee, as the Minister has tried to do.
  Mr. O'Brien: I certainly hope that the House will be able to manage its affairs. I have no wish to impose unreasonable deadlines or time scales on the House. In my view, our propcsals are entirely reasonable. The programme motion allows the House some leeway in terms of the time that it allows to discuss the various issues.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I should like to finish answering the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) first.
  I think that the programme motion is reasonable. I do not want to have specific times allocated for debate on amendments. It is the Government's view that we have identified some of the key issues that were raised in Committee and in respect of which I felt that it was important for the House as a whole to take a view. May I make it very clear that that does not mean that the Government are asking the House to vote on all the amendments? It is the Government's view that our amendments cover the key issues arising out of the

  717
  debates in Committee that need to be debated by the House as a whole. Therefore, although they are Government amendments, they have been tabled to facilitate debate. The Government's position is not to support or oppose any of these amendments. I have a view on them, and will no doubt be able to express my views on some. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed may find that my position is not too far from his on some points.
  Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I will give way first to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), as I promised.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are to have a fairly free debate and that the Government do not have a distinct view. That being so, is it not yet more important that the House should have an opportunity to vote? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if we were to vote on but three or four groups of amendments, which is not unreasonable, the time taken for that would come out of the substantive time available? That will make it even less likely that we get to the important groups of amendments towards the end of the selection list.
  Mr. O'Brien: I want to ensure that we have sufficient time to have reasonable debates on these issues, and I think that the programme motion allows precisely that. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues, who take a particular view on these matters, had managed the time in Committee a little better, we might have been able to ensure that we got through issues in a more expeditious but sensible way.
  Let me offer some observations: during the Committee's deliberations, the Chairman had to call representatives of the official Opposition to order on no fewer than 52 occasions because they were straying beyond the terms of an amendment under discussion. I do not accuse them of filibustering, because the Chairman would have brought them to order very quickly if they had been. I accuse them simply of being not quite on the point on many occasions. Indeed, on one occasion, the Chairman was moved to state:
  "I have made it abundantly clear on several occasions that dilation in debates is becoming excessive and repetitious."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 February 2001; c. 286.]
  Right hon. and hon. Members can draw their own conclusions from that. I hope that we will not have excessive and repetitious dilation this afternoon—then we can reach the issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues wish to ensure we debate.
  Finally, let me deal with the ridiculous suggestion from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that only those of us who represent English or Welsh constituencies should be allowed to participate in Divisions on the Bill—[Interruption.] That seems to be his view. I understand the attractiveness of that suggestion for a member of a political party that was so decisively rejected by the voters of Scotland at the general election, but I remind the House of the points that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made when dealing with this issue on Second Reading.
  718
  The powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly derive from this Parliament. Those Parliaments are palpably subordinate to this one and their powers can be rescinded at any stage by this Parliament—although I am not advocating any such course. This is a sovereign Parliament and it is the right of every Member of it to participate in its proceedings, subject to earlier legislation. The arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham would have carried slightly more conviction if the Conservative party had ever objected in the past to the fact that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies regularly went into the Lobby with them despite the existence of the Stormont Parliament.
  Mr. James Gray rose—
  Mr. Edward Garnier rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, but then I shall conclude my remarks.
  Mr. Garnier: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In the Standing Committee, he conducted the Government's business with considerable calmness and in a reasonable spirit. I hope that he will not depart from that conduct on Report. I think that he made a false point when he was dealing with the 52 admonishments from the Chair. If he analyses the speeches that were being made on those occasions, he will find that there was no flagrant abuse of the time of the Committee. If he then translates my point about the Committee to the 11 groups of amendments tabled today, he will find that it is not unreasonable to complain that the amount of time allotted is insufficient. A huge number of amendments and groups of amendments—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention has gone beyond an intervention.
  Mr. Garnier: May I complete the point?
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can complete the point at some other time.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Excessive dilation on a particular issue has just been demonstrated, so I do not need to deal with that matter further.
  Mr. John Bercow: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the argument that every Member should have a right to contribute. Does he not realise that, by saying that, he hoists himself with his own petard? Earlier in his speech, he argued that substantial consideration of the issues in Committee necessitated—or at least justified—circumscription of debate on Report. Does he not realise that many right hon. and hon. Members did not have the opportunity to serve on the Committee? Nor were they able to contribute on their constituents' behalf on important and detailed issues on Second Reading. They want to make their voices heard this afternoon.
  Mr. O'Brien: Again, that was a rather lengthy intervention. As I understand it, that Standing Committee

  719
  was one of the largest ever appointed to consider a Bill. That extension was made at the request of the Opposition. We did so in order to ensure that there was a fair amount of debate—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is replying to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but the hon. Gentleman is not giving the Minister a hearing.
  Mr. O'Brien: The Committee had a fair amount of time to debate the issues. The programme motion provides us with ample time to consider the Bill, given the large amount of debate held already—
  Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
  Sir Peter Emery rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: If hon. Members on both sides of the House adopt a constructive attitude, I see no reason why we should not be able to deal with all the tabled amendments in the time provided.
  Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: When I gave way to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I indicated that I should not be giving way again.
  Sir Peter Emery: I have tried to get in—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. O'Brien: I said that I would give way to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, who speaks from the Conservative Front Bench. I then gave way a second time, and I will not give way again. We need to debate the Bill. Some hon. Members may well want to make lengthy interventions and have lengthy debates that do not deal with the issues. People in the countryside expect the Opposition to deal with the issues, and I am ready to do so, so let us now get on and debate them.
  3.55 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I object to the programme motion on two counts. First, any dispassionate or independent-minded observer who looked in on the proceedings of the House this afternoon would regard the Government's decision to set aside the entire day to debate a ban on hunting with hounds as demonstrating a sense of priorities that verges on the surreal. British farmers are now facing what anyone with a reasonable turn of mind—whatever his or her view on the Bill—would recognise as by far the gravest crisis that has faced British agriculture and this country's rural economy for at least half a century. To spend hours debating a ban on hunting today displays what I can only regard as a warped sense of priorities.
  Mr. John Gummer: Did not my hon. Friend notice that despite the reminder of the point of order, the Minister did not take the opportunity to
  720
  associate himself with the views that most of us have about the seriousness of this occasion? Is not it surprising that a Bill that assaults the sentiments of most people in the countryside has been introduced on a day when the countryside is reeling from yet another blow? Is not it time for the Government to learn a little respect for the countryside?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating the programme motion, and those matters cannot be discussed during this debate. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. I understand the difficulties that people in the countryside have at the moment, but the debate on the programme motion is not the time to discuss them.
  Mr. Lidington: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my right hon. Friend's questions, I simply say that I agree with every word that he has said, but we are faced, sadly, with the fact that the Government have decided to insist on debating this Bill today.
  My second reason for opposing the motion will unite every member of the official Opposition, whatever view he or she takes on the Bill's merits or demerits. As on every occasion when hunting has been debated, my right hon. and hon. Friends will have a free vote not only on the various amendments that we shall consider on Report, but on Third Reading later tonight. Although the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends share my opposition to the Bill, there is a distinguished minority in my party who have, for honourable reasons over a long time, supported such a ban, and they will, as always, enjoy a completely free vote in any Division. However, the Opposition will, as a matter of principle, oppose the motion, as we have opposed other programme motions since the habit of the routine guillotine was introduced at the beginning of this Session. We have made our opposition to the principle of such programme motions clear on numerous occasions, including in the meetings of the Programming Sub-Committee, to which the Minister referred However, as we know, no record is kept of the proceedings of those meetings so Members are not accountable in the way that they are if they speak in the Chamber.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend noted that the Government consistently say that they are upholders of liberty and protectors of minorities? If they truly believe what they say, should they not, on this and any other issue of conscience, allow a full debate until any hour and not use a guillotine? A guillotine is an affront to democracy and to liberty.
  Mr. Lidington: I Agree with my hon. Friend. The very idea of a programme motion is particularly unwelcome and inapposite in the case of a Bill that divides Members in all political parties and on which there will be a free vote. I cannot say on behalf of the Conservative party that we collectively support or disagree with particular amendments or particular details in the Bill. Every individual Member of the House must, in conscience, reach a decision about each of the groups of amendments before us and about Third Reading. They must then speak and vote accordingly. It is therefore a particularly inappropriate Bill for a programme motion.
  As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, the motion has been drafted in such a way as to protect the right of the House to take separate

  721
  decisions on each of the main categories of Government amendments. However, as he also said, the motion does not protect the right of the House to debate those Government amendments. Certainty, no protection whatever is given to Back Benchers to ensure that their amendments are discussed in any length at all.
  Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend agree that the programme motion is doubly surreal, and not just for the reasons that he gave earlier? I thought that such motions were usually tabled when a Government wanted to get their Bills enacted in the face of fierce, official opposition. However, it is apparent from the Bill' s timing—it was the first to be introduced and it will be he last to go to the other place—that the Government do not want it to become law. Why are we having this doubly surreal programme motion? Can my hon. Friend explain what is going on?
  Mr. Lidington: I wish that I could explain to my hon. Friend the Government's machinations in handling the Bill. As he implied, it is clear that even if the Bill is considered in an exceptionally speedy fashion in the House of Lords, it cannot complete all its stages in both Houses before the expected general election in April or May. One is therefore tempted to assume that the Government are engaged in a charade in an attempt to impress some of their own Back Benchers and some of the animal rights groups to which the Labour party has looked both for support and for money in the recent past.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Would not the best interests of the countryside and all those who support countryside issues be served if we were to truncate the debate and have a Division within the next few minutes? We could then Proceed to discuss amendments. The Gallery is full, the country is watching and people want to hear the debate on the amendments so that Parliament can decide. Why do we not get on with that right away?
  Mr. Lidington: The best service the hon. Gentleman could perform for the countryside would be to support the Opposition in the Lobby in trying to reject this programme motion. That would enable the House to proceed at the pace it considers appropriate to discuss all the groups of amendments that are before us.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would willingly do that, but there is a problem: if we do not proceed on the basis of the programme motion, Conservative Mumbers will filibuster throughout the night and wreck the Bill, when what the public want is for us and the other place to reach a decision. Why does not the hon. Gentleman just concede my case?
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentle man is frustrated by the fact that the Bill illustrates the problem that far too little time is being allotted to scrutinise and debate legislation. Programme motions are an impressive procedural device that Governments use to try to constrain Parliament's ability to scrutinise legislation. They allow them to ram through as many Bills as they choose.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Government have a massive majority, a mandate and
  722
  another year to go, but, instead of staying in government for that extra year, they are going to cut and run and go to the country early. Is it not the simple truth that that is why they are subjecting Parliament to a draconian and dictatorial series of programme motions?
  Mr. Lidington: I not only agree with my hon. Friend, but think that even Labour Members would do themselves some good by taking his comments seriously. He has been consistent in his criticism of the way in which successive Governments of both parties have treated the House of Commons and has championed the rights of Back Benchers during his years in this place.
  Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend return to the fact that the measure is not party political and has been trumpeted by the Government as something on which we have a free vote? A programme motion imposes on Back-Bench Members of Parliament a restriction that I cannot recall being imposed while I have been a Member of Parliament. We should be entirely free to debate the Bill for as long as necessary. The Minister seems to have missed the curious fact that he is stopping Back Benchers from speaking on a Bill on which he admits that there is a free vote on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Lidington: My right hon. Friend is correct. The Minister let it slip that he was unwilling to face up to the limitations that the motion imposes on the rights of Back Benchers. In praising the part of the motion that allows for separate votes on the main Government amendments, he said that Standing Committee debates had allowed the Government to identify the key issues. I agree that the Government amendments cover some of the key issues that arose from those discussions, but, as there is a free vote on the Bill, it is plainly wrong for debate to be constrained by their views on what constitutes the chief issues that are worthy of discussion and Division. On such a Bill, Back Benchers have as much right to have a say as Front Benchers and, if necessary, to insist on Divisions on issues about which they feel strongly.
  My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall from our Standing Committee debates that the Bill is in great need of thorough, detailed and meticulous scrutiny. Many ambiguities and uncertainties still need to be explored.
  Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend take up the argument of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who said that, having analysed consideration in Committee, he had gone to great trouble to identify the issues that he felt should be brought to the House on Report? There are 68 amendments in 11 groups, and the hon. Gentleman is not ensuring that the issues that he considers should be debated will be debated. We shall have only five and a half hours of debate. If he thinks that we shall get through the 11 groups of amendments that have been selected in that time, given that many Members who were not in Committee are vitally affected in their constituencies by the Bill, he is in "Alice in Wonderland". There is no need for such a programme motion.
  Mr. Lidington: I agree completely with my right hon. Friend. He brings to bear his experience as a senior Member of this place and as a former Chairman of the Procedure Committee. We are right to listen with attention to his criticisms on issues of procedure.

  723
  I was referring to the way in which the Committee flushed out, if I may so put it, some of the inherent ambiguities and uncertainties in the Bill. Some of them arose because individual Members had a constituency or other interest in certain details in the Bill. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has been a consistent supporter of the need to control mink. She put the Government under great pressure on that issue. No doubt one Government amendment is in large measure a response to what the hon. Lady said in Committee.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, like myself, raised issues connected with deer stalking. It was astonishing that on the final day in Committee— the additional day that the Government offered the Opposition, as it became clear that the time provided in their original programme motion was inadequate—the Government admitted that the Bill would prohibit the stalking and flushing out of deer, even though that was not the Government's intention. I found it extraordinary that after the Bill had been drafted in the Home Office, scrutinised in the Home Office, presented on Second Reading and taken through Committee, it was discovered in Committee that the Bill meant something different from what Ministers asserted they wished it to mean.
  Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the Bill as drafted would prevent rabbiting in its traditional form? Hence the need for amendment No. 49 and the amendments that stand in my name.
  Mr. Lidington: We need later this afternoon to discuss matters relating to rabbits and rodent control. However, there are other ambiguities, which were demonstrated as a result of scrutiny in Committee. I contend that they demonstrate beyond doubt that there is a need for further rigorous scrutiny on Report and during further stages of the Bill's passage.
  In February, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), said:
  "The hon. Member for Aylesbury"—
  that is myself—
  "asked if we intend to outlaw them"—
  that is, Welsh gun packs. The hon. Lady said that
  "the straight answer is no: gun packs can fall within the exceptions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 February 2001; c. 386.]
  Those of us who heard the Minister re-read the Bill and remained unconvinced that the Government's intent and policy were delivered by the words in the Bill in Committee.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten it, but I sent him a letter yesterday saying that Deadline 2000 initially wanted deer stalking to be included in the Bill. I should make it clear that the parliamentary draftsmen complied with the policy set out by Deadline 2000, which is now content that deer stalking should be taken out of the Bill. I do not want the hon. Gentleman in any way to traduce the parliamentary draftsmen, as I am sure he would not wish to.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your long and distinguished service
  724
  to the House of Commons, can you remember a Government ever having subcontracted another organisation—called, in this case, Deadbeat 2000—to write Government legislation? Can you recall such a thing, and is that a proper way to carry on?
  Mr. Speaker: I have forgotten lots of things over my time in Parliament.
  Mr. Lidington: I wish to make no imputation against the conduct of the parliamentary draftsmen or civil servants, who, in my experience, obey the instructions of Ministers. One of the most unsatisfactory points about our proceedings has been that we have made repeated criticisms of the detail of the schedule only for Ministers to resort to saying that the Bill had been drafted not by them, but by Deadline 2000. They could not, therefore, explain or justify its ambiguities or the apparent gap between the Government's political intent and the wording produced by their subcontractors, Deadline 2000.
  Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to reconcile the statements made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to the effect that he subcontracted the policy with what is written on the back of the Bill, which tells us that it was presented by the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and other rogues?
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, yes, I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I was about to say that we are going beyond the programme motion before us.
  Mr. Lidington: My previous point was perhaps the most serious concern felt on both sides of the Standing Committee about the inadequacy of the Government's response to the many detailed questions asked during our proceedings. It demonstrates the need for further debate without the imposition of the artificial time limit that we are being forced to consider.
  The motion is a Government attempt to constrain debate and limit discussion to the priorities that the Government consider appropriate. The motion amounts to a disgraceful attempt to gag Back-Bench Members and prevent the House from exercising its duty to scrutinise the Bill, question the Ministers responsible for it and hold the Government to account for the new criminal penalties and duties that they seek to impose on our fellow citizens. It is a thoroughly bad motion, and I advise my hon. Friends to resist it.
  4.19 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: It is a tragic irony that we are debating this matter this afternoon. This morning, I had a telephone conversation with a farmer at St. Issey in the centre of my constituency, which is likely to be subject to restrictions as a result of a nearby foot and mouth outbreak. The farmer asked me what the House of Commons would be doing today to help him. I had to say that, for the first part of the afternoon, we would be discussing the timing of the debate that would take place later. He asked what the subject of the later debate was, and I had to admit to him that it was the Hunting Bill.

  725
  Whatever one's personal views, no one can pretend that the House of Commons is doing its duty by the countryside, the rural community and all the people—
  Mr. Soames rose—
  Mr. Tyler: I will not give way; I want to be as brief as possible. The farmer was incredulous that we would be spending time either on the programme motion or on the Bill this afternoon. He said, "Surely my representatives in Parliament are more concerned about the things that concern the real people of the countryside." I know of no one in any rural area, except on the extremes, who thinks that the Bill is the most important issue to bring before the House.
  I shall not repeat the comments of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) about the programme motion, except to emphasise a point that he made in the latter part of his speech. The Bill is unusual because hon. Members of all parties take differing attitudes to it. At least three options have been before Parliament. Even if those on the three Front Benches could agree a programme motion, that would have been entirely inappropriate, because it is not a matter for those on the Front Benches or for the usual channels. It is a matter for the House as a whole, and it is therefore extremely important that we examine the programme motion carefully.
  I am sure that the Minister meant well when he said that he did not want to restrict or compartmentalise the parts of the Bill, but major issues will come before the House, some of them introduced by the Government only at this stage, and they will not be properly debated before being voted on. It is not good enough to say that the issues have been agreed between the two sides of the House. Nothing about the Bill is agreed between the two sides of the House, because there are not two sides. There are many sides, and if there had to be a programme motion at all, it should have been generous in time and should have allowed adequate space for each issue to be addressed properly.
  That was the proper reason for introducing programme motions in the first place. The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) has always been in favour of a sensible division of debates, to ensure that all hon. Members can express their views to the House and divide on them. The programme motion does not allow for that. The issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in Committee and again this afternoon will come before the House for the first time—
  Mr. Mike O'Brien rose—
  Mr. Tyler: I shall not give way. I want to be as quick as possible. I find it extraordinary that on an issue that has presumably been considered at extreme length in Whitehall, the Home Office has failed until now to acknowledge that there were major inadequacies in the Bill. One would have thought that even the Home Office realised that there was a possible anomaly concerning rodents, rabbits and deer stalking in the Bill as first drafted.
  It is helpful, I suppose, that there will be time for Divisions, but every minute spent on a Division is time out of the subsequent debate. That will be especially true
  726
  at 10 o'clock. We should have provided time for Divisions without reducing the time for debate. I pressed the Leader of the House at business questions a fortnight ago to provide us with adequate time for Third Reading. Again, it will be the first opportunity for many hon. Members to discuss the issues that have arisen during the Bill's passage through Committee. If, however, there are several votes on Government amendments at 10 o'clock, that will necessarily curtail the time available for Third Reading. The programme motion should have provided for a two-hour debate on Third Reading, over and above the time allowed for Divisions.
  It is crazy of the Government to prepare a programme motion before they even know the number of amendments, how significant they are, and which ones will be selected by the Speaker. The programme motion is wholly inadequate. It belies the Government's claim to take seriously the concerns of the countryside. Whatever one's views of the Bill—there are differing views in all parts of the House—the motion is a disgrace.
  4.24 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I should like to endorse everything that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said in his brief but powerful speech. Historians have a habit of referring to Parliaments by various names—the long Parliament, the short Parliament and the addled Parliament. This will go down in history as the abused Parliament, because it has been systematically abused by the Executive in a manner for which there is no adequate precedent.
  I have frequently had cause to take issue with Governments formed by my party, but never have we seen such overbearing arrogance as that witnessed during the past four years, and never has such arrogance been better exemplified than this afternoon. At a time when the countryside is bleeding, the Government bring before us a Bill for which there is no need. They are doing so for the reasons that I described in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), and it is utterly disgraceful that they are behaving in this manner.
  Mr. Hogg: Actually, it is the self-abused Parliament, because the Government majority is ramming through these gagging measures.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: We could say also that Labour Members are allowing it to be the supine Parliament, but the fact of the matter is—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) may be laughing, but this is an extremely serious matter for anyone who cares about Parliament, as it is being systematically denigrated by this Government. Its powers are being eroded and set at nought, and the Government are using their steamroller majority to ignore the views of hon. Members of all parties.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall was completely accurate: this is not a Bill on which there are party positions. Even on my own Front Bench, it is not surprising that there are certain differences of opinion within the Home Office team—views that are honestly and conscientiously held. I happen to agree foursquare with the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, who spoke so admirably, but there are others on this side of the House—one has come in recently—who take a different view.
  It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
  The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 175.

  Division No. 130]

  [4.27 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cranston, Ross

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  (Swansea E)

  (Copeland)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Darvill, Keith

  Austin, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Benton, Joe

  Dobbin, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Best, Harold

  Doran, Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Drew, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Borrow, David

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flint, Caroline

  Browne, Desmond

  Flynn, Paul

  Burden, Richard

  Follett, Barbara

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cann, Jamie

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Goggins, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caton, Martin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Grogan, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Healey, John

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hesford, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hill, Keith

  Connarty, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Hope, Phil

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  728

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hurst, Alan

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jamieson, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (welwyn Hatfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Purchase, Ken

  Joyce, Eric

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Rogers, Allan

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rooney, Terry

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Roy, Frank

  Lammy, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Lepper, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Salter, Martin

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Linton, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lock, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Love, Andrew

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McAllion, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Singh, Marsha

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Snape, Peter

  McIsaac, Shona

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McNulty, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  MacShane, Denis

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stringer, Graham

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Timms, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Todd, Mark

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Truswell, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Morley, Elliot

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

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

  Tynan, Bill

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Mudie, George

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Wicks, Malcolm

  729

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wills, Michael

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wood, Mike

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Woolas, Phil

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Allan, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Amess, David

  Greenway, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Baker, Norman

  Hammond, Philip

  Baldry, Tony

  Hancock, Mike

  Ballard, Jackie

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Beggs, Roy

  Harvey, Nick

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Hayes, John

  Bercow, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Boswell, Tim

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Horam, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brake, Tom

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Jenkin, Bemard

  Brazier, Julian

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Breed, Colin

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Burnett, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burstow, Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Leigh, Edward

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chidgey, David

  Lidington, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Livsey, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Loughton, Tim

  Collins, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cotter, Brian

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Madel, Sir David

  Day, Stephen

  Major Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Maples, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Faber, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fabricant, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fallon, Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Moore, Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Norman, Archie

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Oaten, Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Page, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Paice, James

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Gibb, Nick

  Paterson, Owen

  Gill, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Prior, David

  730

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Tredinnick, David

  Ruffley, David

  Trend, Michael

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyler, Paul

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  Viggers, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walter, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Webb, Steve

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

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

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Willetts, David

  Spring, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Swayne, Desmond

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Mr. James Gray.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Hunting Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 20th December 2000 (as amended on 17th January 2001 and 8th February 2001):

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in one day on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day.
  2. On that day—

  (1) proceedings on Consideration shall (unless previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock, and

  (2) proceedings on Third Reading shall (unless previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Twelve o'clock.

  3. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
  4. In the application to proceedings on Consideration of Sessional Order E made by the House on 7th November 2000, paragraph (2)(d) shall have effect as if it required the Speaker to put—

  (1) a single question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which creates a defence in respect of the hunting of rabbits and on any amendments in the name of a Minister of the Crown which are consequential on that amendment;

  (2) the question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which creates a defence in respect of deer-stalking and flushing;

  (3) the question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which expands the defence in respect of the hunting of rodents;

  (4) the question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which creates a defence in respect of the hunting of mink; and

  (5) a single question on any other amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown.

  5. Paragraph (4) of Sessional Order E made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration.

  Lords Amendments and Messages
  6. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

  (1) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or

  (2) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords; and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day
  Hunting Bill
  As amended in the Committee and in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 1

  DISPOSAL OF FALLEN STOCK
  '.—(1) Not later than 6 months after the date on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State shall by order make a scheme for the collection and disposal of infirm, diseased and dead agricultural animals (in this section referred to as "fallen stock") which would have been collected by hunts but for the enactment or coming into force of the Schedule to this Act.
  (2) A scheme shall regulate—

  (a) the method of the collection and disposal of fallen stock,

  (b) procedures for the notification to the Secretary of State of the whereabouts of fallen stock and the requirements for its prompt collection and disposal,

  (c) any charges which may be imposed for the collection and disposal of fallen stock, provided always that such charges shall meet the cost of the scheme and no more.

  (3) In order to fulfill his obligations under subsection (2) the Secretary of State may appoint agents to act on his behalf on a regional or national basis.
  (4) A scheme under this section shall apply in all of England and Wales.
  (5) Before making a scheme under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be likely to have an interest in such a scheme and such organisations as appear to him to represent such persons.
  (6) The Secretary o State shall publish widely in appropriate journals the details of any scheme under this section.
  (7) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Garnier.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.41 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 36, in the schedule, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
  '.— (1) The Secretary of State shall by order make a scheme for the making of payment to persons in respect of losses incurred by them as a result of—

  (a) ceasing, by reason of the enactment or coming into force of this Act—

  (i) to carry on their businesses so far as they consist of activities prohibited by this Act, or

  (ii) to continue in paid employment so far as that employment vas dependent on activities prohibited by this Act;

  (b) damage by wild mammals which were previously controlled by activities prohibited by this Act.

  (2) A scheme may, in particular—

  (a) specify the descriptions of losses and businesses in respect of which payments are, or are not, to be made and the basis of valuation for determining losses,

  (b) specify the amounts of the payments to be made or the basis on which such amounts are to be calculated,

  733

  (c) provide for the procedure to be followed (including any time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims,

  (d) include provision for arbitration of any dispute as to a person's entitlement to payments under the scheme or the amounts of any such payments.

  (3) Before making a scheme under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as appear to him to represent persons likely to be entitled to payments under such a scheme.
  (4) An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
  No. 40, in page 7, line 14, at end insert—
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make a scheme for the making of payments to persons—

  (a) whose business or employment is materially affected (whether by a reduction in profits or the incurring of losses) by reason of the enactment or coming into force of this Act, or

  (b) who are deprived of any services previously provided by hunts and as a result incur and are materially affected by costs, expenses or losses which would not have been incurred but for the enactment or coming into force of the Schedule to this Act.

  (2) A scheme shall, in particular specify—

  (a) the manner in which losses, costs, expenses or reduction in profits may be calculated, and

  (b) the evidence which may be reasonably required to show the losses, costs, expenses or reduction in profits calculated in accordance with this paragraph.

  (3) A scheme shall also, in particular—

  (a) specify the basis of valuation for determining losses,

  (b) specify the amounts of the payments to be made or the basis on which such amounts are to be calculated,

  (c) provide for the procedure to be followed (including the time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims.

  (4) Before making a scheme under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be likely to be entitled to payments under such a scheme and such organisations as appear to him to represent such persons.
  (5) Sub-paragraph (6) applies to any dispute as to a person's entitlement to payments under a scheme or the amounts of any such payments which—

  (a) has not been resolved within nine months of the day on which the original decision as to entitlement or amounts was notified in writing to the person concerned by the Secretary of State, and

  (b) has not been referred by agreement to arbitration.

  (6) The dispute shall be referred by the Secretary of State to such appellate body as he deems appropriate by order.
  (7) An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (8) In this paragraph—
  "losses" includes losses of income and losses of capital;
  "materially affected" means a reduction in profit or the incurring of losses, costs or expenses which may be measured by ordinary principles of commercial accountancy.'.
  Mr. Garnier: So begins consideration of the Bill following our deliberations in Committee upstairs. I am grateful to the junior Ministers from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department for their presence here to assist us. It is perhaps worth pointing out at the outset,
  734
  however, that today is a black day for British agriculture—a black day in a black fortnight. There appears to be no sign of the problems caused by the foot and mouth outbreak lifting in the next few days or weeks, so it might have been more appropriate, even though the Bill was introduced by the Home Office, for an Agriculture Minister to respond to the debate, particularly on the new clause.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my hon. and learned Friend remind the House that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it plain that he did not think it proper for him to attend on this place.
  Mr. Garnier: Irrespective of what that Minister said yesterday, and rather than rely on the efforts of the two junior Ministers, it might have been more appropriate for one of his deputies to be with us, at least to assist in our debates.
  Amendment No. 36 stands in the names of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and I leave it to one of them to speak to it. Amendment No. 40, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), deals with compensation.
  I shall briefly discuss the new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to put in place an alternative scheme for the collection and disposal of farmers' fallen stock in the absence of the hunts that currently carry out that service. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know, a further agricultural benefit to farmers, in addition to that of pest control, is provided by hunting with dogs.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Hounds!
  Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend complains about my use of the word "dogs". He will understand, however, that I use that generic term to make our debates more understandable to Labour Members. I hope that he also understands that I include hounds within it. As the Chairman said in Committee, no doubt he will have an opportunity to dilate on that particular semantic discussion.
  4.45 pm
  The collection from farms of fallen stock—that is, unsaleable dead farm animals—or the humane killing and collection of injured or sick animals, known as casualty stock, is an extremely important service. Those of us who represent farming constituencies—and, indeed, others who do not, but who have some knowledge of the rural economy—will appreciate that, nature being what it is, farm animals die. They die in abattoirs, obviously, because they are moved through abattoirs to get into the human food chain, but, sadly, they also die on farms. Were it not for the activities of many hunts in England and Wales—the jurisdiction that the Bill will cover—and in Scotland and, I dare say, Northern Ireland, the farming economy would be under even more strain.
  Mr. James Gray: The importance of hunts in collecting fallen stock is perhaps emphasised by

  735
  the example of the Avon Vale hunt in my constituency. It is a mile away from Bromham, where a case of foot and mouth disease was confirmed yesterday. I understand that Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials have been in touch with the hunt with the intention of introducing better arrangements, so that it can still pick up dead stock and have dead stock delivered to the kennels. Were it not for the hunt, what on earth could the farmers do? By its action, the Ministry has demonstrated the importance of the service to agriculture throughout the countryside.
  Mr. Garnier: The point is well made. Indeed, a number of Agriculture Ministers have acknowledged, both in the House and outside, the role played by hunts in the collection of fallen stock. Despite his views on hunting, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has acknowledged candidly the value of that role.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) mentioned the outbreak of foot and mouth, and said that the hunt provided a valuable service in collecting fallen stock. The new clause refers to
  "diseased and dead agricultural animals".
  Have we learned nothing? Is the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) saying that it is right for hounds to be given diseased animals to eat?
  Mr. Garnier: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman intervened in the way he did, at the time when he did. If he had visited a hunt kennels, he would understand that not all casualty stock is eaten by hounds. If an animal was diseased, and if the meat of that dead animal is likely to infect the hounds, no sensible keeper of hounds will feed it to them. The collection of diseased and dead animals from farmland, however, is vital to the proper maintenance of the rural economy. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, he should have found it out by now.
  Mr. Prentice rose—
  Mr. Garnier: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. If he waits, he will be able to make his own speech in due course, and I dare say that we shall all listen with rapt attention.
  The Cobham report, commissioned in 1997 and entitled "Countryside sports: their economic, social and conservation significance", reported that 179 hunts handled 352,000 carcases in 1995—an average of more than 2,000 carcases per hunt. The report estimated that, when the work of the harrier and beagle packs was taken into account, the total number of carcases handled annually by all packs, including foxhounds, deerhounds and harriers, was more than 400,000.
  Other reliable survey information demonstrated the economic value of the work done by hunts in clearing fallen stock; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) pointed out, Agriculture Ministers have been the first to admit that their work is valuable. When he was an Agriculture Minister, the Minister
  736
  of State, Department of Social Security, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), said in a written answer
  "a small survey undertaken by the State Veterinary Service earlier this year"—
  the year was 1998—
  "indicates that … 55 per cent. of calves, 35 per cent. of adult bovines, 25 per cent. of sheep and goats, and 10 per cent. of pigs and lambs, which have fallen, may be disposed of through hunt kennels."—[Official Report, 25 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 606W.]
  Those bare figures, given by a member of the Government, who is now in a different Department, amply demonstrate the value of hunts to the agricultural economy.
  Mr. Hogg: Is not it true that, if that collection facility is removed, the cost will fall on agriculture, particularly cattle producers, who face an appalling crisis at present?
  Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. In my constituency and, to a lesser extent but a still significant one, in his, livestock farmers are the main source of farming activity. Their average incomes are about £7,000 of £8,000. One cannot run a family on that sort of money The cost of fallen stock is met by farmers in some cases, but if that additional burden had generally to be paid for by farmers, because the service provided by hunts was removed by the Bill, no doubt unwittingly by its proposers, it would add yet further to the economic burdens suffered by our farming constituents.
  It is not a party political point. There are Labour Members who represent farming areas and they surely must have spoken to their farmers and heard about their economic difficulties. To have placed upon them yet one further burden as a consequence of the removal of the collection of fallen stock would, as a matter of common sense, be a terrible blow.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, although it may be illegal, in practice, what will happen is that farmers will simply dig a hole to dispose of those animals? That will be very bad for the environment, but it will be an inevitable consequence of the Bill, even though that practice may be illegal.
  Mr. Garnier: I sincerely hope that, if the Bill goes through without new clause 1, farmers will not do that—I am sure that no responsible farmer will do so. There would be an environmental risk, particularly if farmers dug pits near rivers or other water courses. The likelihood is that, should that happen, the water courses would be contaminated, to the danger of the entire rural environment in that area.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Is not the value of the service provided by hunts illustrated by the fact that the National Trust is, apparently, still using the service, even though it has banned hunting of deer on its land?
  Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is accurate in what he says. It underlines the general point that I make: the service provided by hunts in removing fallen stock is

  737
  recognised not only by the Labour Government, but by organisations that recently banned hunting throughout their land.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Can my hon. and learned Friend give some estimate as to the total cost? According to the Cobham report, about 415,000 carcases are involved. I am told that the cost of removing a cow and a horse can be up to £20 each and a pig £10 per 50 kg. If we are talking about 415,000 carcases, the average cost to agriculture could be anything up to £80 million a year. We are talking about very large sums.
  Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is right. His ability to do the arithmetic is no doubt better than mine.
  The point does not need repetition. The valuable service that is provided by hunts in dealing with fallen stock has been recognised for years. It is recognised across party—[interruption] It is recognised even by the Prime Minister, I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). Ouite where he said that, I do not know and quite whether he knew what he was saying, I do not know either.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Joyce Quin, the Minister for—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should know the terminology by now
  Miss McIntosh: I apologise. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), has asserted in the House—it is on the record—that the hunts make a positive and valuable contribution to the removal of fallen stock on farms.
  Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is of course quite right.
  Before moving on to amendment No. 40, I should like to remind the House of some facts— of which I am sure that those who have taken an interest in the Bill will be aware. Two local studies have been conducted—one in west Somerset and one in Wiltshire—of the value of the fallen stock service provided by th hunts. The West Somerset district council report, produced in 1998–99, showed that operating fallen stock services in the study area collected a total of more than 12,000 carcases annually, and that farmers estimated tl at the service saved them each an average of £212.50 annually. Alternative disposal methods were estimated to be about five times as expensive as use of the hunt service.
  The Wiltshire county farms report, published in 1995, indicated that 89 per cent. of farms disposed of cows, sheep and horses through hunt kennels and that 77 per cent. of farms had used the hunt to dispose of livestock in the previous 12 months. The report also found:
  "the hunt currently provides an important carcass disposal service to Council tenants, particularly those which are dairy farmers".
  I return to the point made just a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. We are discussing evidence of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food making use of the fallen stock service provided by the Avon hunt at a time when, sadly, there are a great many more beasts to be cleared from farms.
  738
  Although the service was traditionally provided without charge, some hunts now require a contribution to help meet the costs of their fallen stock service. However, the types of sums that the hunts are charging are way below an economic cost. If one were to employ a knackerman or another professional agency to clear fallen stock, the sums required would—as the West Somerset district council report indicated—be far higher. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, in this week of all weeks, when we are discussing foot and mouth, those oncosts would be unbearable.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Perhaps I misheard or misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman. Is he telling the House that MAFF officials took animals infected with foot and mouth and passed them over to the hunts, so that the hounds could devour those diseased animals? Is that what he is saying?
  Mr. Garnier: I am not sure that I accept the use of the alternative—I think that the hon. Gentleman both misunderstood and misheard what I and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said. MAFF has suggested that the hunt should be used to clear fallen stock not because that stock has been infected by foot and mouth, but because those animals were already casualties from another cause. Some stock may, for example, have broken a leg in a fence or be suffering from some other non-contagious condition that, as Lord Burns might have said, turned out to be fatal or compromised their welfare.
  Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the matter we are discussing is not one that should divide those who are for a hunting ban and those who are against one? Surely it is a matter of good public policy that, particularly now, there should be a safe, efficient and effective way of dealing with casualty stock. The almost half a million carcases that are going to the hunts each year will have to go somewhere in future. That is what this discussion is all about.
  Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is precisely right. Some people would say—although I as the Member for Harborough would disagree—that the south-west of England, part of which he represents, is the headquarters of the livestock farming industry. Nevertheless, it does not matter whether when one represents Somerset, Montgomeryshire, Northumberland, Sussex, Staffordshire, Buckinghamshire or Leicestershire, the point is the same: those animals will have to be cleared off the land in one way or another.
  I hope that Ministers will be able to appreciate the point that we are making. Conservative Members believe that the scheme that we are proposing in new clause 1 is essential. I accept that the new clause may not be perfect in every detail, but I trust that the Home Office lawyers who have been so careful in drafting the schedule and the Bill will, if necessary, be able to adjust its wording to make it suitable.
  However, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is right: despite the differences between his party and mine about hunting, the new clause proposes an essential scheme for the maintenance and preservation of the rural economy.
  Mr. Soames: I have no quarrel with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but there is

  739
  disagreement between his party and the Conservative party. If hunting is banned, there will be no one to fulfil the obligation regarding fallen stock. Hunts will not retain kennel staff merely to clear away fallen stock in the countryside. If the hunts go, the fallen stock system will go too.
  5 pm
  Mr. Garnier: It is possible that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) may have misunderstood slightly the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. I do not know the hon. Gentleman's views on hunting, but I assume that he, like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex and I, abhors the Bill. If the House has its way and the Bill becomes law, the job of Opposition Members is to mitigate its worst effects on the wider rural economy, and specifically in respect of fallen stock. Farmers will be placed in desperate economic straits and put to huge expense if hunts are banned and the fallen stock service is lost. New clause 1 would provide some mitigation for the worst effects.
  Other hon. Members may have other and better points to make in respect of new clause 1, but I intend now to speak briefly to amendment No. 40, which is designed to create compensatory schemes for people suffering a loss due to the cessation of businesses and jobs as a result of a hunting ban, or for people whose jobs or businesses are materially affected by a hunting ban. The proposed schemes would also provide for compensation for loss due to damage done by wild mammals that were previously controlled by hunting, and for loss due to deprivation of any services previously provided by hunts.
  The debate is very timely, in the context of the present foot and mouth disease outbreak. On behalf of my constituents and those represented by other hon. Members with rural constituencies, I again express regret that no Minister from MAFF is present to give the House that Department's view of the matter. We know what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday about economic loss, and I doubt that many Conservative Members were very impressed. However, the right hon. Gentleman's remarks gave me to understand that we are not likely to hear him address the House on the subject again.
  As I said, amendment No. 40 would compensate people whose business or job is materially affected by a ban on hunting, and people who are materially affected by costs, expenses or losses because of the loss of services provided by hunts. The Burns report contains a great deal of information about the economic effect that a ban on hunting would have. I shall not bandy figures with those who disagree with me on the question of hunting, which is the main principle at issue, but I shall draw the House's attention to some of the information that ought to inform the debate. I trust that it will persuade those listening that the amendment is worthy of consideration and support.
  Hunting with hounds makes a fourfold contribution to the rural economy. Hunts and hunting organisations employ full-time and part-time staff. The people who participate in hunting with hounds employ stable staff, or provide further employment by keeping their hunting horses at livery. Hunts, hunting organisations and their
  740
  members and followers incur direct expenditure on goods and services in order to participate in hunting. Finally, expenditure by participants in hunting with hounds stimulates the rural economy by creating a demand for other goods and services. The indirect expenditure arising from hunting generates income and jobs for others. It can enable small businesses to have enough overall income to trade profitably. All of that will go, or will certainly be badly affected, in the event that hunting is banned.
  Other speakers will be able to provide the House with information relating to their areas of the country. I should like to illustrate the points that are relevant to this debate by referring to my county of Leicestershire. The gross contribution to the economy of Leicestershire from its seven packs and their members' hunting expenditure is nearly £9.2 million per annum. In the great scheme of things, and compared with the social security budget, I appreciate that £9.2 million is not a great deal of money, but to the farriers and those who work in the livery stables and the clothing shops in Leicestershire, that £9.2 million is hugely important—it helps their families to survive. We estimate that about 750 full-time and part-time jobs in Leicestershire rely directly on hunting.
  Let me bring this down to an even smaller compass. In the village where I live, other than those who commute to Leicester—of whom there are not many—all the jobs depend, in one way or the other, upon the hunt. That is not to say that all those who live or work in the village are employed directly by the hunt. However, they have something to do with horses; they have something to do with the clothing industry that makes riding clothes, boots and saddles.
  Just a little way down the hill from where I live is a small rural industrial estate where there is a metal worker, a mechanic and a riding equipment and clothing shop. All three of those small businesses are dependent on the hunt for the majority of their income. Abolishing the hunt will destroy livelihoods which those people have spent their lives working to create. We will throw out of work any number of perfectly innocent victims of the Bill.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. and learned Friend makes a very valid point for rural areas. It is, of course, also true for an urban area such as Walsall, which is the centre of the leather industry. It is an important contributor to saddlery, making the finest saddles, I would argue, in the world. That means that saddlery and leather companies are dependent on this business, which supports the wider economic interest of an urban centre such as Walsall.
  Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend makes a particularly telling point which demonstrates the inter-relationship between the rural and urban economy. We cannot simply say that this is an urban or a rural issue. The matter affects all our constituents. My hon. Friend's constituents in the leather trade in his part of the west midlands no doubt sell their products across the country and, I dare say, abroad to Ireland, America and France where, if the Bill becomes law, many of the more well-heeled members of our society will take their horses—or at least themselves—to hunt. My less well off constituents will lose their jobs. The less well-off leather workers in my hon. Friend's

  741
  constituency may lose their jobs. Hunting will go on, but not in this country, and it will be to the economic disadvantage of his constituents and nine.
  Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. and learned Friend remind the House that there is a precedent? The House considered compensation in our deliberations on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, when the Government were driven to offer a compensation scheme. As they conceded the point in the context of fur farming, there can be no possible opposition to a concession it, this area.
  Mr. Garnier: That is a rational argument. Unfortunately, it may not touch the intellects of those who vehemently oppose hunting. That is something with which my right hon. and learned Friend and I will have to deal. We must do our best to persuade the House and the country as a whole of the cogency and good sense of the points that we make.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that very point?
  Mr. Garnier: I think that the hon Gentleman will be making his own speech in a few moments.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members will wish to speak from their own experience and that of their constituents about fallen stock and the compensation that will become necessary as a consequence of the Bill's draconian effects.
  I have taken up quite enough of the House's time; the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is itching to get to his feet. I urge the House to consider carefully the points that I made—albeit briefly. Before hon. Members come to a decision on the measure, I urge them to do their best to mitigate its worst effects. Without our new clause and amendment and without the amendment that will be proposed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, the Bill will be far worse than it need be. Its supporters will have to answer for that in due course
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Like many of the amendments tabled on Report, amendment No. 36 is intended to mitigate the worst of the injustices that the Bill would inflict on those individuals who lose their right to hunt. In introducing the amendment I hope to illustrate that—as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) rightly pointed out—our proposals have nothing to do with whether one agrees with a ban on hunting with dogs. They are entirely about fairness and about compensating individuals, as we should do if we ask people in any walk of life profoundly to change their life style on account of legislation.
  The proposals on fallen stock reflect that view. Anyone who has ever had to deal with that issue would agree that the logic of the arguments that have been made simply serves to underline the importance of our holding an objective view on the consequences of a ban on hunting with dogs.
  The purpose of the amendment is to provide the Secretary of State with the latitude to introduce a sensible compensation scheme, following consultation, for the losses in employment and the effects on damage and pest control in some parts of Britain that will arise from the restrictions introduced by the Bill. The amendment gives the Secretary of State plenty of scope to work out the
  742
  details. The issue is important and must be handled through consultation with the organisations and individuals most affected by the Bill.
  The amendment specifically requires the Secretary of State to consider schemes to compensate individuals who lose business as a result of the Bill and who suffer greater depredations by foxes and other predatory animals because the traditional means of control is no longer available. Such schemes should
  "specify the descriptions of losses and businesses"—
  and—
  "the amounts of the payments."
  They should
  "provide for the procedure to be followed"
  and introduce a system of arbitration in the event of disputes. The system of compensation would be introduced by statutory instrument, thus giving the House a further opportunity to consider the matter.
  Our challenge is to establish a compensation system that genuinely brings fairness into the ban on hunting with dogs. It cannot be just to take away a person's livelihood without making good the loss through compensation. Similarly, it cannot be morally just to take away a person's ability to control a pest without making good the loss that results from the damage caused by that pest.
  Burns was clear on that point. Paragraph 10.60 of the report states:
  "In the event of a ban on hunting, consideration would need to be given to possible action in respect of the fallen stock service provided by many hunts and to whether there would be a case for compensation if hounds had to be destroyed and hunts had no further use for their kennels."
  There are other examples of Burns's acknowledging that as a salient and important point, but perhaps most important of all, the Burns report states:
  "It would be a matter for the Government to consider, in the event of a ban and in the light of clearer guidance about its likely effects, whether any compensation should be paid in this particular case."
  To interpret that, Burns is basically saying that it is a Government responsibility to make a judgment about the case for compensation.
  5.15 pm
  I understand that Deadline 2000 does not believe that there is a case for such compensation. I could go through its arguments, but there would not be much point in my doing so because, clearly, I disagree with them, and there other hon. Members who will no doubt seek to explain why they do not believe that the farming community deserves compensation as a result of a ban on hunting with dogs. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the individuals who hunt with dogs in the uplands of mid-Wales—which, as hon. Members know, is the area that I know best in this regard—would definitely expect an increase in predation on their stock if they could not pursue and dispatch foxes with dogs. Without rehearsing the details of the argument yet again, the reason for that is simple.
  As Burns acknowledged, people in the uplands of mid-Wales genuinely believe that hunting with dogs is the most effective means to control foxes, and Burns had some sympathy with that view. So the ban will remove a pest-control procedure which has been long established in

  743
  the area and which is largely regarded as effective by the experts in pest control—the farmers and the huntsmen. If that were the case for any other abolition or prohibition of a pest-control method, I should like to think that the House would, as a matter of course, consider the case for compensation.
  My concern is that because we sometimes stray into areas not directly related to the objective consequences of our actions, those who simply do not like hunting and want to ban it think that there is no case to compensate those who hunt for the loss that they will incur as a result of the prohibition. Obviously, hon. Members are entitled to make up their own minds, but I simply disagree with that view. We have to subjugate our feelings to our values—one of which must surely be that of fairness.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind two points, the first of which is the Bill's significance to those whose paid employment depends on the continuation of hunting. If hunting ends, they will simply lose their jobs, because it will not be legal to employ them to do what they are trained to do.
  Secondly, given that this proposal extends beyond the principle of hunting and could therefore be supported by hon. Members who would like to abolish hunting but who nevertheless understand the fairness case, I hope that my hon. Friend will press amendment No. 36 to a separate Division.
  Mr. Öpik: Indeed. I would have made that request later, but I shall do so now. I hope that we shall have a separate vote on amendment No. 36—if you see fit, Mr. Deputy Speaker—because compensation involves a free-standing, specific and crystal-clear binary decision. In other words, although we can discuss fallen stock—also a fairly clear issue—it must be a matter for the House to state publicly in its vote whether we believe that, as I claim, a moral wrong will be committed if we take away such rights without compensating those who will lose their jobs and their ability to control pests in the way that they have done previously. That is a powerful reason to have a separate vote on amendment No. 36.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said that there is some sort of moral wrong in criminalising an activity and not paying compensation to those who would break the law as a result of continuing that activity. We regularly criminalise certain activities. The House has criminalised all sorts of things, from burglary to whatever. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, in all cases when we change the law, we ought to compensate those who carry on an activity that was not previously criminal? I do not seek to equate hunting with burglary; I am saying something quite different. [Interruption.] I am trying to be brief, so I do not want to deal with that matter further. The House regularly makes criminal certain things that were previously legal—whether handguns or whatever—and in those circumstances, we do not always pay compensation.
  Mr. Öpik: The Minister has talked himself into a hole. He used burglary as his first example. Of course, we would not compensate individuals if their right to burgle
  744
  houses were taken away. However, what kind of a comparison was that? Burglary was never legal; it certainly has not been in my lifetime. It is not sensible to compare burglary with foxhunting, which is manifestly legal and, more to the point, regarded as a legitimate activity by a large proportion of people.
  The Minister needs to think hard about the logic of his argument. I have not a shadow of a doubt that the individuals in my constituency who go hunting foxes with dogs genuinely do not think that they are committing a moral wrong. In fact, I would go further: they do not understand why that civil liberty is being taken away. For that reason, the case for compensation in this example is very much more like the case for compensation when fur farms were closed down and when handguns were taken away. Those examples relate much more closely to the character of this debate than does any comparison with burglary.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I used the wrong example. Burglary has always been illegal. However, badger baiting has not always been illegal. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should have compensated badger baiters? Dog fighting has been banned. Is he suggesting that we should have compensated those who participated in that? Handguns were banned. Is he suggesting that everyone involved with them should have been compensated? What is he suggesting as a general moral principle? He is ducking the issue by picking up on the particular point I made when I compared foxhunting to burglary. I accept that that was probably a bad example, but will he now deal with the much sounder pints that I have just made?
  Mr. Öpik: I accept the Minister's point about the comparison with burglary, so let us move on from that. He has given three much more interesting examples that serve merely to highlight the case for compensation.
  The Minister asked about badger baiting. Badger baiting was never a form of pest control, and I do not think that anyone never pretended that it was. It was a form of entertainment through the torture of animals. The Minister has sat through the lengthy debates in the House and in Committee, so he knows that at least a proportion of the people who control foxes with dogs do not regard it as anything less than a legitimate form of pest control. Even if he wants to claim that some people go foxhunting purely for sport, I hope that he will at least accept that a proportion of them believe that the Government's proposals will outlaw a legitimate form of pest control.
  The Minister cannot question the fact that some people will lose their jobs, and that that is not their fault. Those people will not understand why, in relation to compensation, the hon. Gentleman seeks to compare the abolition of badger baiting with a ban on the hunting of foxes with dogs as a means of pest control.
  Mr. Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us who want hunting to be banned and who see compensation as a separate issue are not yet convinced by the Minister's response? Frankly, I feel slightly uncomfortable about his intervention.
  When fur farming was banned, members of the public who were involved in a legitimate activity—an activity that many of us thought was reprehensible for animal

  745
  welfare reasons—were compensated when their right to engage in it was taken away and, as I understand it, they have gone abroad and used the money to set up farms in Denmark. I fail to understand the difference between fur farming, which was reprehensible and legal, and foxhunting, which I also regard as reprehensible and legal. What is the difference?
  Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend takes a very different view from me on the question of a ban or foxhunting, but he highlights a fundamental point. We should not be divided on the issue of justice.
  The Minister's second example was dog fighting. Again, that was never a form of pest control. It was a barbaric form of entertainment based on the torture of animals and it had no legitimate justification in terms of the wider interest. Furthermore, although I do not want to put words in the mouth of Lord Burns, I am fairly confident that had he been commissoned to study bear baiting and dog fighting, his report w ould have provided an unarguable case in favour of a ban without compensation. Of course we would not pay compensation in those circumstances and those examples are inappropriate.
  The Minister's third example is, however, appropriate. The banning of handguns removed the ability to participate in a legal activity that the Government regarded as dangerous. I did not agree with them, but the ban warranted compensation. The Minister was wrong to say that none was paid, because an enormous amount was provided. To the hon. Gentleman's credit, he is nodding in agreement, but he cited the banning of handguns as an example of where we should not pay compensation. His acknowledgement makes the opposite case.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman refers to handguns, and the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr Baker) referred to fur farmers, as did I. The banning of self-loading rifles in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is another example because compensation was paid to those people who lost their large-magazine self-loading rifles.
  Mr. Öpik: I am sure that we could give many other examples, and there is a common theme to those that have been cited. When we have banned an activity—either on moral grounds or because it is in the public interest to do so—as long as we have genuinely believed that the individuals who will lose their livelihoods or incur costs have not acted in an overtly reprehensible manner that affected the quality of our society, we have paid compensation.
  Perhaps Labour Members do not want to pay compensation because they believe that people who hunt with dogs are so barbaric and reprehensible that they do not deserve to have that right. I remind the House of the precedents: handguns, fur farming and self-loading rifles. We all have different opinions about me morality of using such items or being involved in such activities, but I like to think that we are united in agreeing that we need to treat people fairly. People who hunt with dogs will not understand the logic of compensating for the closure of fur farms and not compensating foi the closure of an entire industry. Thousands of jobs are at stake and, in some areas, the ban may have a serious effect on predator activity.
  Mr. David Heath: I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue to great length the activity of hunting but will
  746
  concentrate instead on the people whose jobs depend on it. Many kennel maids and hunt staff are among the lowest-paid people in the industry. Clearly they should be compensated if hunting is banned. It is reprehensible that the Bill does not recognise that group of people and their rights.
  Mr. Öpik: I was coming to that issue—although as my hon. Friend has raised it, I shall not dwell on it for too long. People who are directly involved in the industry—perhaps looking after kennels or dogs—may not have strong views about hunting with dogs. Hon. Members on both sides of the House might be able to strike up a friendship with them and come to respect them. They might understand that they have a great love of animals and the countryside. Were Labour Members and others who oppose compensation to meet them, they would discover that they are ordinary folk who are having their livelihoods removed without receiving compensation. It is simply not just to do that to individuals. That may not be high parliamentary language, but the problem is simple: we are about to punish people for a decision which we are making and in which they have played no part. Normally we compensate people when we do that.
  5.30 pm
  I am concerned that some Members who support the ban are unwilling to accept the simple and powerful objective that lies behind amendments Nos. 36 and 40. It is almost as if they think that it is a sign of weakness to compensate individuals who are losing their livelihood and that it is dangerous to associate the case for compensation with a ban on hunting with dogs. Some comments suggest that the distinction has been blurred. Taking away the right to hunt with dogs is one thing, but not compensating individuals who have been involved in that activity in good spirit and good faith, and as morally as they can, is another.
  I believe that amendment No 36 raises a materially different issue from that which arises from new clause 1. I would be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would allow a separate vote on amendment No 36, so that we might make a clear statement on where the House stands on the case for compensation for those who lose out in the ways that I have described.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Changes in public policy have never resulted automatically in compensation being paid. If that were the position, when we changed the law on anything under the sun, people would be knocking on the door of the relevant Minister pleading for compensation. Let us say that there was a change in the law on drink-driving, the limit was reduced and some publicans lost trade—publicans would tell Ministers that they wanted compensation.
  Three examples have been cited, and I have a fourth and better one.
  Mr. Garnier: Did the licensed trade go to the Home Office when the breathalyser was first introduced to ask for compensation? I do not think it did.
  Mr. Prentice: I am advised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) that it did.

  747
  However, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) gave us three examples, and I have a fourth, which is more relevant.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), as the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, presided over the BSE catastrophe. The entire head deboning industry was wiped out. The heads of animals were cut off, and they were of no use to us in Britain because we do not eat cheek pouches. However, in France they are a great delicacy. The pouches were turned into a pâté in France, and that kept an industry running in Britain.
  The head deboning industry went down the pan and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham swept to one side pleas for compensation. I would give greater credence to pleas from those on the Opposition Front Bench for compensation if they could point to a record of providing it when they were in government, of compensation being given as a result of changes in public policy.
  Mr. Hogg: In substance, the hon. Gentleman is right. Head deboners were not compensated, and I have always been troubled by that decision, which probably was wrong. However, I was also responsible for firearms legislation at the end of the 1980s. The hon. Gentleman will remember that owners of large-magazine, self-loading rifles were compensated. I was glad to play a part in that process.
  Mr. Prentice: BSE is slightly more relevant to the debate than self-loading firearms. That brings me to my point, having been prompted by the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). I believe—I am sure that the view is not shared by any Opposition Members—that diseased animals should not be fed to hounds. That is wrong. Have we learned nothing from the catastrophes and the chaos of the past decade? It is wrong to feed diseased animals—not animals that have broken a forelock or have tripped, become concussed and then died—to hounds. Diseased animals should be incinerated.
  I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough made no reference to the Burns report as new clause 1 is all about the disposal of fallen stock. At paragraph 3.59, on page 62, Burns refers to the EU waste incineration directive, which introduces new requirements for hygiene and incinerators. Because of the requirements of the new directive, Burns says:
  "It is not clear…whether all the hunts would be able to continue the fallen stock service even if hunting was not banned."
  We have not heard the whole story from the hon. and learned Gentleman, just a partial rendition.
  Mr. Garnier: Before the hon. Gentleman accuses me further of misleading the House, would he care to read the entire paragraph that he has cited? It adds, in terms, that the hunts have incinerators that they might find it expensive to upgrade. Diseased fallen stock are not fed to the hounds; it is those that have died as a result of breaking a bone or other injury. I said that when the hon. Gentleman intervened on my opening remarks; it may be that he has forgotten that, but if he wishes to make a point
  748
  on the basis of the Burns report, he should do that report justice by reading the whole of the paragraph to which he refers.
  Mr. Prentice: I was going to continue my point about diseased animals by referring to the Phillips report—not, thankfully, all 16 volumes of it, but just volume 1. Hunt kennels and knachers' yards earn a multiplicity of references throughout all 16 volumes; if the hon. and learned Member for Harborough has the report to hand, he might consider page 86, paragraph 438. As far as hunt kennels were concerned, there were no adequate checks between 1991 and 1996 on whether hounds were fed specified risk material. They could well have been, and I suspect that they were. The regulations in place at the time—the 1982 regulations—required knacker meat to be treated as unfit for human consumption and to be stained, but there were no provisions in respect of specified risk material.
  Who knows what dreadful, contaminated stuff was fed to the poor hounds in the kennels? It is wrong for diseased animals to be fed to other animals, and the new clause serves no useful purpose.
  Mr. Soames: Let me try to reassure the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who seeks always to find a way to denigrate hunting or show that its practitioners act improperly. No hunt, no huntsman and no hunt staff would ever feed to their hounds anything that it would be improper for them to eat. I know that the hon. Gentleman's pea-like brain will find the proposition impossible to understand, but those people love their hounds and would never do any such thing.
  In his ignorance, the hon. Gentleman does not understand that hunt kennels are approved premises for rendering animal by-products, including carcases, under the Animal By-Products Order 1999. Diseased stock would be disposed of by hunts absolutely properly.
  I support the proposals in new clause 1 on the disposal of fallen stock. The views of the hon. Member for Pendle on hunting and the countryside are way off-beam, compared with what really goes on. However, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made a reasonable, sensible and careful case, as he always does. In the past two years, for example, the market in bull calves collapsed and it was impossible to sell them. Had it not been for the hunt service putting those animals down humanely and disposing of them, the countryside would have been a shambles.
  I remember when my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I served together at MAFF. We were concerned about the tidiness of the countryside and the possibility of farmers burying stock, and the remains of diseased animals leaching into the water supply. That ceaused us extreme anxiety. I remember the seriousness with which MAFF dealt with the matter and tried to produce a satisfactory proposal.
  The countryside would have been a shambles, were it not for the hunt service. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, the hunts have worked with farmers in every county at a time of great difficulty for farmers. When we consider the pressure that farmers are experiencing as a result of the wicked, awful foot and mouth outbreak, as my right

  749
  hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal observed, how can the House waste a day debating the banning of a perfectly legal pastime? That reflects a warped and improper sense of priorities, at a time when farmers the length and breadth of the land are worried for the future of their industry.
  Mr. David Rendel: I am slightly confused by the hon. Gentleman's argument. I thought that his side was arguing that more than one day should be spent on the Hunting Bill.
  Mr. Soames: We shall all leave the hon. Gentleman alone in a darkened room and let him keep taking the tablets.
  Hunting with hounds provides a genuine agricultural benefit to farmers, in addition to pest control. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out, the collection from farms of fallen stock—that is, unsaleable dead farm animals—or the collection and humane killing of injured or sick animals is an extremely important service.
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), then an Agriculture Minister—and a very good one, incidentally—stated in a written answer—[Interruption.] I hope that the Under-Secretary will be good enough to do me the courtesy of listening to what I am about to say. If he could spare me a moment of his valuable time, instead of conferring with Deadbeat 2000, I should be grateful.
  The parliamentary written answer to which I want the Under-Secretary to pay attention was from his right hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, then a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It stated:
  "a small survey undertaken by the State Veterinary Service earlier this year indicates that around 55 per cent. of calves, 35 per cent. of adult bovines, 25 per cent. of sheep and goats, and 10 per cent. of pigs and Iambs, which have fallen, may be disposed of through hunt kennels."—[Official Report, 25 June 1998: Vol. 314, c. 606W.]
  Mr. Gummer: Has my hon. Friend noted that it is he who has had to bring those figures to the notice of the House? Surely that is precisely the kind of information that the Government should have brought to the notice of the House in order for there to be a proper debate, but perhaps it is not in the brief of Deadbeat 2000.
  Mr. Soames: The information is not in the brief of Deadbeat 2000, as it would show hunting for what it is—an integral part of the countryside, not just for sport but for the proper use and support of the farming industry.
  Mr. Hogg: Does not my hon. Friend's point make it plain that the House is entitled to the advice of Agriculture Ministers, because the new clauses impact on agriculture? Is it not a scandal that no Agriculture Minister is present in the Chamber to advise us? If Agriculture Ministers could not be present, the proper course would be to adjourn the debate until they could be present.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Soames: I wholly agree. My right hon. and learned Friend will recognise that had I worked for him, as I did for my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal
  750
  so happily for almost 18 months, he would have insisted that a junior Agriculture Minister was present in the House with the Home Office team, in view of that Department's obvious ignorance of what MAFF does.
  Mr. Russell Brown: I find it somewhat ironic that the Conservative party yesterday demanded that MAFF officials and Ministers be present in the Chamber, and is now asking again for Ministers to be here, when those people have to deal with a foot and mouth outbreak.
  Mr. Soames: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House for only a short time and that he will not be with us for much longer. We seek the presence not of officials but of Ministers. It is not they who are lighting the bonfires and dealing with the foot and mouth outbreak, but the state veterinary service—and a very good job it is doing. It is right and proper that an Agriculture Minister should be present, not least to dig the poor, wretched Under-Secretary out of the hole into which he is getting himself.
  The Government cannot ignore the consequences of a ban, or merely wish or magic them away. One cannot ban hunting overnight without proposing compensation or some other arrangement for the farmers or the good order and stewardship of the countryside. Neither can one abolish overnight, at a time of enormous difficulty for agriculture, the method by which fallen stock has previously been disposed of. The Government cannot ask us to take such legislation seriously and not to believe and understand the deep and burning resentment in the countryside. That feeling exists not just because people who live in the countryside have given up on the Government for failing to understand the thrust of their complaints, but because of the Government's total ignorance and inability to understand the consequences of what they are doing.
  I do not wish to bang on about figures, but I should like briefly to mention some significant ones. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough mentioned the Cobham report, which states that 179 hunts handled 352,000 carcases in 1995. The national survey of hunts recorded that 200 of the packs surveyed currently provide a fallen stock service. Those hunts handled a total of 366,000 carcases in the previous 12 months, at an average cost to each of £18,000 per annum.
  Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman will know that MAFF has tended to advise individuals with a fallen stock problem to take that problem to the hunt. That advice has been given by the Ministry itself.
  Mr. Soames: Indeed it has. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham expressed concern about the absence of a MAFF Minister. It is not the poor, wretched Home Office that will have to deal with farmers ringing up and saying, "I've got 10 bull calves to be put away this morning. There is no market for them, so I'll have to get them destroyed. How am I to dispose of them?" What is to happen to such farmers? Will they have to ring the Reading office, which is Sussex's nearest regional office? What will the MAFF regional office tell them? It cannot tell them to find a knackerman, as there are no knackermen left. Those are the serious consequences.

  751
  The Under-Secretary is right to say that, by and large, we had a cordial and reasonably civilised debate in Committee. However, we are now dealing with the consequences that would flow from a ban on hunting. Those consequences are serious and cannot be magicked away. They require the most serious and detailed answer, to show that the Government understand and have catered for the consequences of hunts closing down and the lack of a collection service in, for example, West Sussex, which has a substantial dairy industry and a pretty substantial beef industry. The county places many requirements on hunts, which provide a wonderful social service for the farmers and the countryside by clearing away fallen stock. I urge my hon. Friends and Labour Members whose minds are not closed to these matters to think very carefully about the importance of the new clause.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: I wish to speak to amendment No. 36, to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) also spoke. Before I do so, may I declare an interest? Many Members will know that I am retiring at the election—and I am going fishing. It is time somebody spoke up in this debate for the fishing industry. No one knows better than fishermen the damage that mink do to the countryside and especially to fish. Mink do not eat many fish, but they destroy many of them. They bite them, tear lumps out of them and leave them looking deformed. Damage to fish by mink has cost one of my local fishermen who stocks a pool in Newcastle-under-Lyme £1,000.
  I know that the Labour party has an anglers' charter and that that says that Labour will protect the environment for all to enjoy, especially anglers, but I must tell the Minister that if the Bill is unamended and mink hunting is banned, we shall not be meeting our manifesto promise. Many think that angling is just for a few people, but it is a big tourist industry. It has been encouraged in rural areas in order to attract work—but I see that the Minister wants to intervene.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Golding: No; I beg his pardon.
  Gamekeepers and water bailiffs who man many rivers call in mink hunts to sweep the rivers in order to get rid of mink. I have a letter from the Northern Counties hunt in Yorkshire, which states that more than half its call-outs are from gamekeepers on the Esk, Dove, Seph, Leven, Rye and Derwent, and from water bailiffs on the Ure, Cock Beck and Wharfe. Unless we consider the damage that mink do to our rivers, our wildlife and our fishing industry, we will not be taking the Bill seriously.
  Many people will lose their jobs as a result of damage by mink. I say to the Minister in all seriousness that unless he can find £40 million to eradicate mink, he should not be supporting the banning of mink hunting and certainly should be considering compensating many anglers and river keepers—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I am having a little difficulty linking her remarks to the particular terms of the amendment, which seeks compensation for people affected by this Act.
  Mrs. Golding: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the amendment also refers to
  "damage by wild animals which were previously controlled by activities prohibited by this Act"—
  by mink, in other words.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It states "by this Act", which is concerned largely with hunting with dogs, not fishing.
  Mrs. Golding: No, but mink are hunted with dogs. Mink are controlled by mink packs and mink hunting will be banned if the Bill is enacted. We really should be considering the fact that the Bill will ban mink hunting. I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for pointing that out, but I thought that that would be understood.
  Mr. Öpik: Is the hon. Lady saying that damage to people involved in, say, fishing and so forth will be very much the same as that suffered by, say, a sheep farmer who loses lambs? She is trying to draw an analogy between foxes that predate on lambs and mink that predate on fish. She is saying that there is a case for compensation for the people about whom she is concerned, just as I am concerned about compensation for people who suffer as a result of fox predation.
  Mrs. Golding: I agree. The poor fishing stock owner in my constituency never had the advantage of mink hounds, but he knew that the Government were not prepared to invest anything in controlling mink. It is estimated that it will cost £40 million to control mink if hunting them is banned. I seriously think that the control of these vicious pests should be considered when looking for compensation for people who will lose their livelihoods as the result of the ban.
  Mr. Hogg: I rise to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on new clause 1 and amendment No. 40. I do so on the basis that I am strongly opposed to the Bill, which I regard as an outrageous infringement of civil rights.
  If we are to have this Bill at all, clearly we must try to address some of its consequences. The question of fallen stock is a very important consequence. The House would therefore be absolutely right to support the new clause, which would at least provide a scheme for dealing with fallen stock. I hope, too, that the House will recognise that if there is a ban, a very heavy cost will fall on the agriculture industry in the dealing with fallen stock.
  It is bizarre that at the very time when the agriculture industry and livestock producers in particular are facing the crisis of foot and mouth disease, this House should be contemplating imposing on them yet a further charge. That makes it even more scandalous that there is not an Agriculture Minister on the Government Front Bench.
  I am perfectly prepared to accept that the Minister of Agriculture is engaged elsewhere—although in his case it is probably in a broadcasting studio—[Interruption.] Labour Members may whine but the Minister of Agriculture made it absolutely plain to the House yesterday that he thought it inappropriate and a waste of his time to explain to the House the problems of foot and mouth disease and to account for his policies. We regard it as his duty to be in the House.

  753
  Let me remind you, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when I was Minister of Agriculture dealing with BSE, I came to the House on many occasions. On about 30—or perhaps 20—occasions, I or my ministerial colleagues came to the House, usually, or at least often, at the request of the then Opposition to account for our policies. We never suggested that that was a waste of our time or otherwise inappropriate: we regarded it as our duty. I very much regret the absence of Agriculture Ministers.
  I return to the subject of new clause 1. We must not impose on livestock producers an even heavier burden at this time. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is wholly right to speak of the very important services that hunts provide in the disposal of fallen stock. If we must have a Bill such as this, not to make proper provision for such disposal is a dereliction of duty.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: To put some value on the service, a New Forest pony might fetch—if one is lucky—£5 at the Beaulieu road market. However, to remove a dead pony that has been knocked over, as so many are every week by motor vehicles, to a knacker would cost in excess of £70. That is a measure of the loss to the commoners of the New Forest that we would be looking to this legislation to replace.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to bring the detail before the House. If one wants more general information, one will find it in the Burns report on page 62, where it states that something like 336,000 carcases are disposed of by hounds. Dealing with such a number would be a significant cost to agriculture.
  Mr. Soames: My right hon. and learned Friend is characteristically generous with his time.
  Just outside my constituency is Ashdown forest, as my right hon. and learned Friend will know, in which there is a splendid and very healthy population of deer. Unfortunately, the deer are often run over. It is the hunt that collects those deer and, if necessary, puts them down and takes them away. If the hunt do not undertake that task, whom does he envisage doing so? Would it be Wealden district council, which presumably does not have a team of knackermen on standby? Who would do that extremely important work for the community?
  6 pm
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend shows the importance of Report stage, which is being truncated. The House has naturally focused on the responsibilities of hunts for the disposal of fallen stock, but my hon. Friend has reminded us about deer on the roads. If there be no hunts, the cost will fall on district councils, and thus on the council tax payer. That is another example of the Government's not thinking through the problems that they are obliged to face.
  Amendment No. 40 deals with compensation. I am perfectly prepared to accept that there have long been differences of opinion on compensation. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) made a fair point against me. When I was Minister of Agriculture I did not provide a compensation scheme for head deboners. However, I provided extensive compensation schemes for the farming industry. I did not provide such a scheme for
  754
  head deboners partly because of the precedents, which were comprehensive, and partly because of the fear of establishing another precedent that could subsequently be prayed in aid.
  I was uneasy about that decision at the time, but I made it. On reflection, I think that it was probably wrong for a number of reasons—at least I would not make such a decision now. To start off with, the argument has moved on, partly as a result of law. The incorporation in domestic law of the European convention on human rights, in particular the obligation to pay compensation when people's property rights are interfered with, has changed the discussion in this area; the debate has moved on.
  Then there are the precedents, some of which operated at the time and some of which have been brought into operation since then. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 provided for compensation in respect of the owners of the firearms confiscated, although it did not extend to consequential loss. The same was true in respect of handguns. The scheme for fur farmers is more generous, and if it is properly implemented will probably extend to consequential loss. The precedents are changing in favour of compensation.
  I am bound to say also that in the end it is a matter of principle, which makes me uneasy with the decision that I took with regard to head deboners. The plain truth is that we are proposing—in my view, wholly wrongly—to take away people's livelihoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) reminded us of saddlers. The Burns report identifies many other occupations of people whose activities are related to hunting. We will deprive them of their livelihoods. We will take away the employment of the people who work directly for the hunts, whether as kennel-men or kennel-maids or in the stables, and also of those who service the hunting industry. For what reason? The honest answer is that we are destroying people's livelihoods to indulge the prejudices and views of certain people in the House.
  There should be a cost attached to that. If we are really going to do such a frightful and odious thing, by God we should pay for it. I do not see why honest, law-abiding citizens, who for generations past have earned their living in a way that they deem wholly respectable—and so do I—should lose their jobs without compensation. That is a scandal. I hope that this matter will be pushed to a Division, because I want to see Labour MPs voting against compensation. By doing so, they will declare their true colours. I view their position on this matter with contempt.
  Dr. George Turner: I do not want to encourage the debate to be any more bad-tempered than it has become. [Interruption.] I am surprised that hon. Members are allowed to call each other pea-brained, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said, if one is pot-bellied one gets away with making such allegations in the House.
  I have voted for the principle of the Bill, but I want some of the consequences of its enactment to be considered carefully. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Turner: No, I want to make my point.

  755
  My experience as a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture, limited though it is, tells me that Conservative Members should be a little more sanguine about the BSE saga, given the consequences for many in agriculture about which they now complain and which lie at their door due to their incompetent handling of the crisis. [Interruption.] Given the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle referred to, and the outbreak of classical swine fever, which is still relatively—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman should be allowed to make his contribution without continual interruptions from a sedentary position.
  Dr. Turner: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Given the great concern of farmers in East Anglia about the outbreak of classical swine fever and the present immense concerns about animal disease and the foot and mouth outbreak, the House and the Minister should reflect on what should happen to diseased animals in future. New clause 1 would introduce a regulated scheme under the control of the Secretary of State for the safe disposal of sick and dead animals.
  Surely one of the lessons that we should learn from the past few years is that we must take greater care when dealing with sick animals. If we had a scheme that required animals to be checked by a vet, would not some of the recent outbreaks have been detected earlier than they were? We have the bones of a good scheme, but I am not sure that it is ideal as currently phrased. It should not be limited to animals that would hitherto have been collected. I believe that there is an argument for a national scheme for the disposal of diseased and fallen stock.
  Mr. Baker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree with me that this debate is not about what our views might be on hunting but about the safe disposal of stock? It is about farming and preventing further bills for the farming community.
  Dr. Turner: That is precisely the point that I was trying carefully to make. There is a danger that the new clause will be seen as part of some other argument and debate. The House would do well to consider it in the broader context of the impact of animal disease.
  Mr. Hogg: I am sure that we welcome the hon. Gentleman's support, but does he agree that, if we have such a scheme, the cost should not fall on the livestock producer?
  Dr. Turner: I note that the new clause tabled by Conservative Members states that the charges should meet the cost of the scheme. This issue should be debated, because such a scheme is clearly in the national interest. Measures that would enable speedier detection of the problems to which I have referred could contribute to the safety of our agriculture industry.
  Mr. David Drew: The answer to this problem is to rebuild the knacker industry, which was the
  756
  traditional way of getting rid of dead stock in this country and in many parts of the world. That could be done within existing means.
  Dr. Turner: I am less certain of that than is my hon. Friend. Given that the scheme could be widely drawn, there is no reason why there should not be alternatives and there would be good arguments for tightening up on notification before disposing of fallen stock. I hope that the Minister will carefully explain why it would not be sensible to consider the new clause more carefully, subject to amendments made elsewhere.
  Those who argue the case for compensation are in great danger of over-gilding the lily. Many decisions made in Parliament on the rules and regulations under which people have to operate routinely put those people to expense. Indeed, we sometimes put people out of work, but we do so because we have good reason. Pest control has been mentioned. The pesticide and pharmaceutical industries exist in such an environment that should a perceived danger—let alone an actual one—become apparent, the House would think it responsible to act without discussing what compensation should be given to companies that would have to replace their manufacturing processes and that had invested heavily in research funding.
  Mr. Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Turner: I shall develop my point before taking an intervention; I shall be happy to do so when I have made clear what I am trying to say. There is no automatic right to compensation when the House legislates to change employment or profit opportunities. On the other hand, when we took guns from people, we gave them the value of their gun. When the state takes from its citizens, there is a case for defining narrowly, not broadly, and the amendments are insupportable—a lawyer's nightmare would result from proceeding on such a basis. They are widely drawn because they are part of an important and emotional debate.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend mentions handguns, to which I referred earlier. He will no doubt recall that there was considerable debate about compensation, which he rightly said was paid for the market value of guns, but dealers were not compensated for loss of profits or future business. A limit was put in place.
  Dr. Turner: That is precisely the point that I was seeking to make, and the Minister has added directly to it.
  Mr. Baker: I understand that compensation should not be given when Parliament legislates; equally, I understand why compensation should be paid, but where is the consistency? How can it be right that mink farmers were compensated when no compensation is proposed in the Bill? What is the difference? Can the hon. Gentleman answer that point? Was it wrong to compensate mink farmers?
  Dr. Turner: At this distance, I do not remember the details of the compensation and I do not like to make up an answer, but, as the Minister pointed out, there is a distinction between paying for guns that were taken and

  757
  compensating manufacturers who could no longer make them or dealers who could no longer sell them. My problem with supporting the amendments is that they are much closer to the latter.
  The amendments carry an implication that would be the equivalent of compensating not only those from whom we took guns, but shopkeepers who could no longer sell them and the manufacturers who could no longer make a profit from selling them. That is the distinction that I draw.
  Mr. Öpik: I do not seek to be unhelpful, but is the hon. Gentleman saying that, despite his concerns about the construction of amendment No. 36, a debate should be held on compensation? If so, am I right to say that he is describing where he would draw the line and that, even if I would draw that line somewhere else and although the practical outcomes would be different, we agree that there is a principle at stake?
  6.15 pm
  Dr. Turner: The short answer is yes. I accept that a debate should be held about the principle, but my problem is that the amendments strike the wrong balance. We must be careful, as we were with mink farmers, and we must consider whether people are able to diversify and reuse their materials. For example, many who argue for the banning of hunting say that it could be replaced by drag hunting. We should debate the nature of the compensation—
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Turner: I must finish.
  There is a nub to the argument. That should be addressed, and I hope that the Minister will do so. The amendments are far too widely drawn and are part of the bigger battle rather than part of a careful look at whether compensation should be paid when it is clear that harm is being done and that those to whom harm is being done have no alternatives.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I suppose that we can give one cheer, but no more than that, for what might be the valedictory address of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). He at least had the good grace to recognise that there is something to the case that has been advanced, but I am one of those who finds this a particularly sad day.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is being characteristically generous to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). Is not it his interpretation that the hon. Gentleman began his speech supporting compensation, saw the Minister frowning at him intensely and retreated at a rapid rate of knots? Which press release will the hon. Gentleman issue in King's Lynn?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not know how many more press releases the hon. Gentleman will be able to issue in King's Lynn because before too long Mr. Henry Bellingham will grace these Benches again. Although it is always appropriate to introduce a note of levity to any debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is particularly good at that, I find this a
  758
  sad day—indeed, a grotesque day. All around the countryside, farmers are facing ruin. All around the country, farmers are wondering not whether they will be compensated under the Bill, but whether they will survive at all.
  We should be debating those grave issues, so it is grotesque for the Government to set aside a whole day to debate this mean, spiteful, vindictive, unnecessary and meddlesome legislation. The Government talk about human rights and civil liberties, yet they seek to extinguish the rights and liberties of some of the most decent, law-abiding people this country knows, many of whom are poorly paid.
  In many ways, the most telling comments came from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who has taken a distinguished and a distinguishable line in all our debates on hunting. He described them with a simple word, saying that they are about fairness. That is what our debates are about: being fair to people whom we are attacking.
  I am not one of those who have been deluded into thinking that tonight we can convert Labour Members sufficiently to defeat the Bill on Third Reading. No, the Bill will be passed and the steamroller majority to which I referred in the earlier debate will be brought into play. There will be honourable exceptions, such as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I am extremely sorry that my fellow Staffordshire Member will no longer represent part of the county of Isaak Walton after the election.
  Apart from a few honourable exceptions, Labour Members will go into the Lobby in serried ranks to carry the Bill—which will be an act of appalling injustice if adequate compensation is not provided for those who will be deprived of their livelihoods.
  I hope that the Minister will demonstrate clearly that he understands the points that have been made. He has already apologised for one extremely inapposite analogy, in which he sought to equate what we are discussing with burglary—he withdrew that, which was good—but he did not really face up to the question of compensation. Members of the official Opposition and Liberal Democrats have made a number of points about that: we have been at one on compensation, although we may take different lines on hunting. I think that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), for instance, is wholly on our side.
  We have talked about handguns, and the compensation provided under the very silly legislation introduced by a Government whom, in other respects, I was prepared to support. I said at the time that I thought the legislation unnecessary and silly, but the fact remains that those deprived of handguns were given compensation—albeit, perhaps, less than they should have received. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) mentioned an earlier Bill under which, much more justifiably in my view, other firearms were taken away. In that case, too, proper compensation was provided.
  Compensation has been provided in other instances, the most recent being the Government's Bill banning mink farming. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme rightly spoke of the terrible depredations caused by mink in the countryside, particularly at the expense of the angling community. In doing so, she in effect appealed to the Government to be consistent. They have compensated

  759
  those who were farming mink; they must now compensate those who will suffer from the activities of mink if hunting is not allowed.
  The Minister must face up to these issues. In example after example, the Government have shown that they do not understand the countryside, and do not appreciate the problems faced by people there. I hope that my hon. Friends will lose no opportunity to point out to their farming and other constituents just how far removed the Government are from an understanding of the countryside. There is, however, just a small chance for the Minister to salvage a little honour.
  Mr. Soames: He can drop the Bill.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: We know he will not do that.
  Mr. Soames: He might!
  Sir Patrick Cormack: That would be wonderful. Failing that, though, the Minister can at least show that he recognises the justice of the case being made for compensation.
  Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the absence of any Agriculture Minister. One should be present. The issue we are debating is admittedly peripheral, given that we are debating it at a time of grave crisis in the countryside; but there should nevertheless be a Minister present to recognise the havoc that the Bill will cause. Where is the Minister? Where is a member of the ministerial team? Why cannot this Minister send his parliamentary private secretary—to whom he was talking a while ago—to find an Agriculture Minister, and explain that there is a demand in the House for an Agriculture Minister to come and listen to the debate?
  Mr. David Heath: There is only agriculture spokesman present, and that is me.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am delighted that an agriculture spokesman is present. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will happily produce one ourselves the moment a Minister enters the Chamber. Opposition Members are slightly different, of course, in that we have a genuine understanding of the plight of the countryside and of what the countryside is all about.
  If we do not receive an adequate response to our basic call for compensation, the Government will have covered themselves in dishonour and obloquy, and will be remembered and castigated in the countryside for generations.
  Mr. Rendel: In many respects, I have considerable sympathy with the principles behind the new clause and amendments. I sympathise with the case for a scheme to deal with fallen stock, given that the Bill would remove the methods currently available to some farms. I also sympathise with the call for compensation. I believe, however, that the way in which the new clause and amendments address those issues leaves much to be desired.
  I agree with a good deal that was said by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), especially in regard to the new clause. If there is a case for a
  760
  Government scheme to deal with fallen stock, that case must surely rest largely on the importance of ensuring that diseased stock is handled carefully and properly, and that any disease carried by fallen stock does not spread. It can be applied equally well to fallen stock on farms where there happen to be hunts at present, and to fallen stock on farms where there are no hunts. If there is to be a scheme, it should surely involve all fallen stock rather than, as new clause I clearly states, fallen stock
  "which would have been collected by hunts but for the enactment or coming into force of the Schedule to this Act."
  I feel that that aspect of the new clause should rule it out.
  Even now, the collecting of fallen stock by hunts leads to what is, in a sense an unfair relation between one farm and another. Some farms can dispose of fallen stock rather more cheaply than others. If hunting is abolished, that will no longer exist.
  There is, of course, a case for saying that the finances of farming will be affected. We ought to ensure that there is a cheap way in which farms can dispose of fallen stock, or else introduce another form of compensation scheme so that farmers' incomes do not drop unnecessarily. Providing only for areas that are currently lucky enough to contain hunts that can collect their fallen stock comparatively cheaply, however, would simply continue the current unfairness.
  I think that there is a good case for compensating those whom the Bill puts out of jobs. It is true that there are precedents in both directions. Presumably the question of redundancy payments would arise: not much compensation might be necessary. In any event, the amendments involved do not just cover those who would be put out of jobs. Amendment No. 36 in particular clearly refers to compensation for loss of stock as a result of, for example, foxes taking stock after the abolition of hunting. Amendment No. 40 is slightly less clear in this respect, but I assume that its reference to losses would also mean compensation for farmers who lost stock when a fox got into the henhouse. I do not think there is much of a case for that: after all, henhouses are attacked by foxes now, regardless of whether hunting takes place in the areas concerned.
  There are strong arguments for the proposition that, if hunting is abolished, the fox population is likely to fall. I believe that farmers will take it upon themselves to reduce the fox population by, for example, shooting more foxes. Clear arguments have been advanced by the pro-hunting lobby that one reason why the fox population is high is that hunting exists. If that is a valid argument—I believe it to be so to some extent—once hunting has been abolished, there should be less reason for people to be compensated as a result of foxes taking stock. Therefore, I do not see that there is a good argument for that.
  6.30 pm
  Indeed, it will be impossible to say whether a particular attack by a fox on a henhouse would or would not have taken place had hunting still been in existence. Who can say which foxes would have been hunted and killed had hunting not been abolished? That aspect of the two compensation schemes rules them out, too.
  Mr. Leigh: I must apologise because, in an earlier intervention, I may have inadvertently misled the House.

  761
  I was trying to work out exactly what the cost would be to the farming community if the fallen stock service provided by the hunts were taken away. I was trying to extrapolate figures from the Cobham report, which estimated that the total number of carcases handled annually by all packs—fox, deer and hare—was 415,000. I understand that it is reasonable to suggest that a knacker man would levy a charge of approximately £70 for the collection of a cow or a horse. I was simply multiplying 415,000 by £70. If we do that, we will get a very large figure.
  That is the figure that I put to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but I accept that that might be an exaggeration. I think that the case is interesting enough without having to resort to extrapolation. I shall try to share without information I have. The costs involved are an interesting fact, especially today, when the farming community is reeling from the impact of further costs imposed on it by the foot and mouth epidemic.
  The national survey of hunts has found that, in the past 12 months, hunts collected 48,000 nimals. The average price difference for collection by other means is £50 per beast, which means that the cost of collecting cows and horses alone would impose an a iditional burden of £2,400,000 per annum on farmers. This is a considerable sum.
  The Cobham report calculated that 179 hunts handled 352,000 carcases in 1995, an average of 2,035 carcases per hunt. When the work of the harrier and beagle packs that also collected fallen stock was taken into account, it came to the figure of 415,000. The national survey of hunts records that 200 of the packs surveyed currently provide a fallen stock service. Those hunts handled a total of 366,000 carcases in the previous is 12 months at an average cost to each hunt of £18,001 per annum.
  The question is complicated by the fact that the hunts make some charge. In recent years many of them have not been able to provide a completely free service. Some of them charge £20 for cows and horses, £10 per 50 kg of pig, £5 for each sheep and nothing for calves. One will see from those figures and facts that it is quite a complicated story.
  I take on board the interesting point made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) If one is devising a compensation scheme, one will have to have some cognisance of the fact that the service is not available in all parts of the country. Presumably, when they produce such an amendment, Opposition spokesmen are prepared to negotiate on the issue. If the Minister comes back with good arguments about why the amendment may not be fair in all the circumstances, the Opposition will be prepared to withdraw it. I accept that he is a Home Office Minister, not an Agriculture Minister, but presumably the relevant information can be passed to him. It is incumbent on him to share with the House exactly what is going on in the countryside, how many of the carcases are being collected and what total cost would fall on the farming community.
  I am happy to take back the figure that I gave earlier. I was trying to work it out as an Ordinary Back Bencher, but the Minister will have much more accurate information. I wish that he could share it with the House.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Before my hon. Friend moves on, can he pick up a point that was
  762
  made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel)? He talked about a level playing field, but he missed the point that a ban, and therefore the elimination of the fallen stock service, would have a disproportionate impact in areas with a particularly heavy livestock population such as in my patch, north Shropshire, and in Cheshire, the south-west or parts of Wales. The impact would be devastating in areas where there is a heavy concentration of livestock. Perhaps more arable areas such as Newbury will not be so badly affected.
  Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point. I must accept that, if hunting is abolished and the fallen stock service vanishes, the type of area that I represent, a very arable area, could probably take the measure on board, leaving aside for the moment the other problems that agriculture is facing. We are not a livestock area. I accept the point that, for hon. Members representing livestock areas, the impact of the end of the fallen stock service may be much more severe. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury, who is a fair man, would accept that point and that, in certain parts of the country, the measure could have a serious effect on farmers who rely on that service.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to share with the House exactly how the service can be replaced. The argument has been made several times, but it must be emphasised: surely, at this time of all times, whatever our views on hunting, we do not want to impose a further cost on farmers. When the farming community is going through a particularly sensitive and traumatic time, it would be unfair for the House of Commons and for Ministers to send out the message that they are ignoring the problem; that it is just a minor one that could be swept under the carpet. The Minister must come back with a sensible response. He must not simply dismiss our arguments, but accept that the collection of fallen stock is a valuable service and that, should it disappear, something must be done to replace it.
  There has been a lot of argument about the number of jobs that will be affected. Those who support the Bill argue that the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of it is much less than the number alleged by the Countryside Alliance, but Burns accepts that between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs depend on hunting. Obviously, an additional number of part-time employees may lose their jobs. That brings the full-time equivalent jobs lost to anything up to 13,600. That is a very large number.
  I accept that, when Ministers are dealing with such a debate, they must tread carefully because the one thing that worries them more than anything else is arguments about compensation. The figures are potentially enormous and the Government do not want to be stuck on that particular needle. I understand where the Government are coming from, but they must understand that the people involved often earn very small salaries—that point has been made many times. A lot of them may earn about £10,000 a year. They may have jobs that are difficult to relate to any other activity. For them, the loss of hunting will be a devastating blow.
  The proposed ban on hunting is different from many other bans. Certainly, it is unfair to equate it with the abolition in the 19th century of cock fighting or bear baiting. Those were minor activities carried out by groups of people who were simply interested in viewing animals being torn apart. Those activities did not offer full-time equivalent jobs to up to 16,000 people. They were not

  763
  traditional activities. Foxhunting is quite a different matter. The Government must seriously address the issue of what will happen to those people. How they will find other jobs? How will they be retrained, and at what total cost to them?
  The Burns report, which is very fair, honestly attempted to try to examine both sides of the issue. It stated:
  "In the event of a ban on hunting, consideration would need to be given to possible action in respect of the fallen stock service provided by many hunts and to whether there would be a case for compensation if hounds had to be destroyed and hunts had no further use for their kennels."
  I appreciate that Ministers do not want to set a precedent and that they have to he responsible for the public purse, and all those other arguments, but I hope that they will give some hope to those people. As hon. Members have said, there are precedents for compensation. Section 5(1) of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, for example, which is the Government's own legislation, states:
  "The appropriate authority may (and, in the case of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, shall) by order make a scheme for the making of payments by that authority to persons in respect of income and non-income losses incurred by them as a result of ceasing, by reason of the enactment or coming into force of section 1, to carry on their businesses".
  There is no doubt that the Hunting Bill, if enacted, will be on all fours with section 5(1) of the 2000 Act. For better or for worse, although I would regret it, Parliament may in its wisdom decide that those 8,000 full-time jobs have to go. Parliament took a similar decision on fur farming, which accounted for far fewer jobs. Perhaps the Government found it easy to be generous in that case because fewer jobs were involved. Nevertheless, Parliament and the Government took the decision to stop fur farming, and quite rightly said that they had to compensate people.
  The fur farming compensation scheme is also very different from other previous proposed compensation schemes, such as those for BSE and natural disasters, and perhaps including the foot and mouth disaster that we have been talking about this week. Those are natural disasters. The Government do not will BSE or foot and mouth on the nation; they have to try to cope with those difficult problems.
  Ministers can create strictly constrained compensation schemes, and they are very anxious not to open the floodgates to wider compensation schemes. However, in all fairness, when Parliament deliberately takes a decision to abolish, for example, fur farming, hunting or—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said—self-loading rifles, is there not an obligation on Parliament to pay compensation?
  Mr. Bercow: I accept my hon. Friend's point that there is a difference in scale between fur farming and hunting, and the compensation that might be required. However, does he agree that it would be outrageous and despicable if the Government were to take the view that they would pay for the principle of equity only if they thought that they could afford the price?
  Mr. Leigh: That is a very fair, rational and ethical point. I was trying to deal with the practicalities of what
  764
  the Government can or cannot afford to do. If the Government have decided to abolish hunting—they have provided Parliament with the means of abolishing it—there is no way in which I would ever be able to persuade the Minister to compensate those who are losing their sport, those whose hunting horses are no longer needed or anyone else who is affected by abolition. I would never get away with that argument with the hon. Gentleman—who is a tough but fair-minded Minister.
  Precisely because he Minister is fair-minded, however, I think that there may be some hope of persuading him that if Parliament takes a decision affecting people employed full time in what has hitherto been a perfectly respectable and legal occupation, a moral injunction would be placed on the Government to provide some type of compensation. Who am I talking about? Very often, they are in very modest occupations, such as groom, farrier, saddler, kennel huntsman, or gamekeeper. They may find it very difficult to find another job.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has talked about the moral case for the Government to provide compensation, but has he considered that there may be a legal case for providing it? Has he considered the 1986 Lithgow v. United Kingdom case—which clarified the point not only that people may be deprived of their possessions only in exceptional circumstances, when it is in the public interest to do so, but that compensation should be paid except in exceptional circumstances? Does he think that if the Government were to proceed with the Bill without compensation provisions, it could give rise to a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights?
  Mr. Leigh: I think that that is a very fair point. In his reply, the Minister—who is a Home Office Minister, not a MAFF Minister—could try to deal with it. I have no doubt that the Government are open to challenge on the matter in the European Court of Human Rights. Article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights provides:
  "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law."
  Ministers have to try to convince the House, and, presumably—if they proceed with the ban—the European Court, that they can satisfy the provisions of article 1 of protocol 1. It is not good enough for the Minister to brush aside the issue and say, "My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put his imprimatur on the Bill, as is required by human rights legislation. Everything is all right, chaps; do not worry. There is nothing to worry about." I think that there is a lot to worry about. If I were a Minister, I would certainly be worried about a challenge being made in the European courts. A hunting ban would, for example, interfere with the rights of landowners.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, who might pull out his Hansard on me, however, he will be aware that the European convention is now, of course, part of United Kingdom law. If the

  765
  point that he is making were taken, it would not have to be dealt with in Europe, as in the past, but could be dealt with in our own courts.
  Mr. Leigh: I happily concede that point, which is a fair one. The Government may well be taken to law in our own courts.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that, under the European convention on human rights, which has now been incorporated into our own legislation, every Bill passed by Parliament has to have a certificate stating that the legislation conforms with that convention. If what he is saying is correct, dogs he think that the Minister might have difficulty issuing such a certificate for this Bill?
  Mr. Leigh: That is precisely the point that I made a moment ago. When we raise issues in this type of debate, the Minister replying may say, "Of course that point has been dealt with; my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has issued a certificate", as if that were the end of the argument. Civil servants do not seem to brief Ministers to reply to the legal issues that have been raised.
  I believe that a ban could be in breach of protocol 1 because it would interfere with the property rights of landowners who participate in hunts on their own land. In reply to the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton Brown) that such a ban could be deemed by the courts as an interference with "substance of ownership" and with the "peaceful enjoyment" of those possessions, such a right is guaranteed in the first sentence of article 1.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold mentioned the case of Lithgow v. United Kingdom, which I do not want to deal with in detail. However, without trying to get into a long legal debate with the Minister, it would be very interesting if, with the help of those who advise him in these matters, he could tell us that Lithgow does not apply in this case. The European convention states that deprivation of possessions is acceptable only if it is in the public interest and conforms to international law or practice. Will the Minister say whether he believes that the European Court, or our courts, would interpret that to mean that a ban on hunting—which is a departure from existing practice—was in the public interest?
  All such matters will be determined later in the courts if the ban on hunting comes into force, but I shall end with two brief points.
  Mr. Gummer: Does my hon Friend realise the seriousness of what he has just said? In the past, Britain has led the rest of Europe in matters of human rights and individual freedom. Although I very often disagree with my hon. Friend about matters European, it seems to me that we ought to be the leaders in that regard: we should not rely on the European Court to protect human rights that, historically, we have protected for ourselves. My hon. Friend is saying that the Government are doing something that no previous Governmetent would have done, and that British citizens will have to appeal to the European Court for protection. Is he fully cognisant of how serious a matter that is?
  Mr. Leigh: That is why the issue is so important. We must pause and hold our breath for a moment to consider
  766
  the issue raised by my right hon. Friend. Britain is one of the freest countries in Europe. As far as I know, Parliament has never decided unilaterally to take away the traditional rights of a quarter of a million people—and certainly the jobs of 8,000 people—simply because the Government believed that those people are acting unethically.
  The proposal to ban hunting represents a major step. Before they proceed, hon. Members must be aware of the legal arguments involved. Those arguments can be dismissed as mere lawyer's talk, but what is the law for? The law is something very precious, whose purpose is to protect freedom and traditional liberties. That is why we have it.
  The Government may have shot themselves in the foot on this matter. They have made it even easier for people to appeal to the European convention and other authorities. If this Bill is enacted, it could well fall foul of that convention.
  However, let us talk not of laws, lawyers, conventions and Europe, but concentrate instead on ordinary people and the English countryside. At present, struggling farmers receive a free service. I accept that that service is not available throughout the country, and that in certain circumstances a nominal charge may be made, but the service exists. The Bill will take away that service.
  Mr. Soames: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the problem is not merely that the service will be taken away, but that it is irreplaceable? There is no other infrastructure in the countryside to cope with the problem of fallen stock. Are not the Government therefore shooting themselves in the foot in a major way?
  Mr. Leigh: One Labour Member attended the debate for a short time and in a throwaway remark said that the knacker industry would take care of the problem. I wonder whether that hon. Gentleman knows what is happening to the knacker industry in rural areas, or to small rural abattoirs. I wonder whether he has tried to visit one recently—if he could find one that still exists. If the fallen stock service is removed, can the knacker industry cope?
  I am prepared to accept that I do not have access to all the figures, but common sense suggests that removing the free service provided by hunts might mean that what remains of the knacker industry will promptly up its charges.
  Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) refers represents a Scottish constituency. Was not that hon. Gentleman imposing his prejudice on my English constituents, and those of my hon. Friend, whereas we have no say about what goes on in regard to this matter north of the border?
  Mr. Leigh: When Opposition Members make a reasonable point such as that, Ministers say merely that this Parliament is supreme and that the Scottish Parliament is only a devolved Parliament. In his opening comments, the Minister implied that the Scottish Parliament is only a semi-Parliament, or half a Parliament. However, that does not resolve the problem that we have no control over the knacker industry or hunting in Scotland. Those obvious and powerful points have been made many times, and I need not repeat them.

  767
  I make one final plea to the Minister. I do not ask for a general compensation scheme for people who are losing their sport, but I do ask that the Minister be understanding of the plight faced by the 8,000 people on low incomes who will lose their jobs as a result of the Bill.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: The hon. Gentleman is being careful to draw a fairly tight line with regard to who he thinks should be compensated. However, does not he agree with the hon Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that that is not what the amendments do? Amendment No. 36(1)(b) deals with compensation for
  "damage by wild mammals which were previously controlled by activities prohibited by this Act."
  The hon. Gentleman is making a reasonable point, but is not he speaking against the amendment, which was tabled by Conservative Members and some Liberal Democrat Members?
  Mr. Leigh: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is terribly important that we do not indulge in debating points when we are dealing with real jobs and real people. Free votes on matters of conscience require hon. Members to develop their own arguments in their own way. We must relate those arguments to real conditions on the ground.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is a reasonable gentleman. If the Minister were to tell him that the compensation scheme was too widely drawn and that it would cost a lot of money, but that he understood the argument and was prepared to respond positively, I am sure that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire would be happy with that reply.
  Mr. Öpik: The Middle Way Group proposal is about the principle of compensation. If the Minister were to say that the Government accepted that there was a case for compensation, we could reply that we were not hung up about the words in our amendment. However, we are committed to the principle of compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) raised some genuine matters that we need to debate.
  Mr. Leigh: That is a very fair intervention. I hope that the Minister will think on it. He may not be able to give us even half of what we are asking for tonight, but he is a fair-minded person and will know that many people on low incomes are very worried about losing their jobs. I hope that the Minister, when he replies to the debate, will be able to give them some hope that some compensation may be available to them.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the outset, may I say that farmers in my very rural Cotswold constituency will not understand why a debate lasting a full parliamentary day is being given to this Bill, when they are surrounded by cases of foot and mouth disease? Cases of the disease have been announced in Wiltshire and Herefordshire. My farmers' livelihood hangs on a thread, and they will not understand why Parliament is discussing this Bill rather than what is, for them, a matter of life and death. However, it has been decreed that we should discuss this matter, so that is what I shall now do.
  768
  7 pm
  The new clause proposes an alternative method of disposal of fallen stock. Lord Burns, in his comprehensive and seminal work on hunting says, at paragraph 10.60:
  "In the event of a ban on hunting, consideration would need to be given to possible act on in respect of the fallen stock service provided by many hunts and to whether there would be a case for compensation if hounds had to be destroyed and hunts had no further use for their kennels."
  New clause 1 and amendment No. 40 deal with those two matters.
  I do not believe that the Government have properly considered the mattes of fallen stock. In preparation for the debate on the Burns report, I asked the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), two questions. Having given the breakdown of the number of animals that were estimated to be disposed of by hunts, the right hon. Lady said:
  "No estimate has been made of the cost to the livestock industry of using outlets other than hunt kennels to dispose of carcases. However, the safe disposal of fallen stock is an important issue and officials will continue to liaise with the livestock and disposal industries to examine the best approaches to this issue."—[Official Report, 28 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1123W.]
  I have no doubt that the Minister will wish to update us as to what the thinking has been since that reply. Considering that the question was posed against the background of the Burns report, which the Government had had adequate time to consider, I thought that that was an extraordinary answer.
  Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend return to his earlier point about compensbtion being crucial? Is it not true to say that if this were a Bill to ban bingo in cities, the party that would be the first to demand that those concerned with bingo—the people who open the doors, take the money and run the operation—were compensated would be the Labour party? But apparently, because it takes place in the countryside, hunting does not count.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend makes some extremely telling remarks [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh. They laugh at the fact that they have produced a Bill that will deprive a substantial number of people of their livelihood without compensation. If that is not a disgrace, I do nut know what is.
  The actions of the members of the governing party will be scrutinised carefully by those in the countryside when they consider, very shortly, how to cast their vote, and I think that the governing party will get a big shock. Voters will be deeply influenced by what the Minister of Agriculture said yesterday in relation to the foot and mouth outbreak, and they will certainly be influenced by the conduct of the Gorernment in this debate.
  The second question that I asked in preparation for the debate on the Burns report was to the then Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—now the Minister of State, Department of Social Security. I asked what alternative arrangements had been made for considering the disposal of fallen stock and the destruction of animal casualties if hunting were banned. The Minister replied:
  "There are already arrangements for disposing of fallen stock and the destruction of animal casualties other than via hunt kennels. Disposal can be by rendering at an approved rendering plant, incineration or burial".—[Official Report, 17 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 278W.]

  769
  Let us deal with those three possibilities. Unless the Minister can tell us otherwise, we will assume that the 200 hunts that currently deal with fallen stock handle 415,000 carcases in the course of a year. That is a considerable number of carcases, and it will require a considerable quantity of alternative disposal methods, knackers' yards and knacker men to deal with them. I am a farmer—it is in the register of members' interests—and I know that knacker men deal with animals which have, for example, a broken leg from an accident in the field. If those animals have to be loaded up into some form of transport to be hauled miles to the nearest slaughterhouse or facility that is licensed to take them, there will be a serious animal welfare problem.
  In the past few days, since the fool and mouth problem began, we have seen how easy it is for virulent diseases to be spread as animals are transported from one end of the land to the other to be slaughtered. The increased journeys that the animals have to endure constitute an animal welfare problem, but the spread of disease is a real problem as well.
  Mr. Paterson: I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend in mid-flow, but there is an important distinction to be made here. In relation to this Bill we are talking largely about animals that are completely healthy. Dairy cows that have slipped in the yard because the ground is icy or that have died giving birth are impossible to move. The whole point about the hunt service is that the hunt staff come round immediately, within half an hour, and put the animal down, on the spot, without causing distress.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend, who understands these matters better than most hon. Members, is entirely right. The hunts offer an animal welfare-friendly service that is second to none. It would be a retrograde step if that service were in any way disrupted.
  The idea, voiced by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), that hunts are somehow peddling diseased animals that should not be fed to hounds, is a despicable slur on the hunting industry, which is very reputable. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence, he should report it to the local trading standards officer, who will investigate it immediately. The fact that he has been unable to produce any evidence today shows the poverty of his case.
  Mr. Gummer: No one will take the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) seriously given that he cannot tell the difference between a forelock and a fetlock.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The hon. Member for Pendle clearly does not understand the industry and, indeed, the countryside—which he purports to represent—with any great depth of knowledge or feeling for those who work there. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) says, from a sedentary position, "Bitter and twisted." That is his description, not mine.
  Serious issues surrounding the disposal of stock have been touched on tangentially in the debate. One is how the fallen stock will be dealt with. I intervened on my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) to ask what will happen to fallen stock. There is legislation preventing the burying of stock, and I
  770
  sincerely hope that it will not be contravened. However, some of the livestock farmers on the top of the Cotswolds in my constituency are hanging on by a thread. Every day, extra costs are likely to be imposed on them by the foot and mouth crisis. The Government, insensitively, are talking about compulsory insurance costs. Disposal will be yet another cost, and it may be that, to remain in business, a livestock farmer will find it necessary to contravene a regulation and bury his livestock.
  Mention has also been made of animals being left to rot in the field. Many farmers are facing bankruptcy. That is not an exaggeration; a parliamentary answer indicates that 41,000 people have lost their jobs in the agricultural industry in the past two years. There is clear evidence that many farmers are going out of business. If they are going out of business, they may well be forced to leave animals to rot in the fields or the buildings where they have fallen. That would be very detrimental for the country. If the Minister proposes to ban hunting and, therefore, to put a stop to the disposal of fallen stock by the hunts, he has to come up with some clear answers.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend would receive great reinforcement for his argument from page 63 of the Burns report, which contemplates precisely what he suggests—namely, that fallen stock will either be burnt or buried, with potential risks to the environment.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving the House a helpful reminder of a paragraph of which I was, of course, aware. If the Minister needs further reminders, he might recall that, when the landfill tax was introduced—making it more difficult to dispose of rubbish by landfill—the incidence of illegal fly tipping greatly increased. If that argument does not persuade the Minister that my suggestion about what is likely to happen in the countryside will be borne out, he should think carefully.
  Amendment No. 40 deals with compensation. It has already been made clear that compensation has been awarded in other cases. When we discussed the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, the Government were perfectly prepared to compensate fur farmers for the loss of business—and rightly so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) pointed out, under section 5(1) of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, the Minister is required to provide compensation for fur farmers who go out of business.
  If the Government are going to put out of employment the 6,000 to 8,000 people whom Burns estimates will be directly affected if hunts are put out of business, it would be wholly immoral not to compensate them. The Government are only too keen to compensate the car industry when its workers are put out of their jobs. Why is it that, through sheer prejudice, they do not even consider compensation for people who will lose their jobs under this Bill?
  Increasingly, huge numbers of the urban population are becoming aware of the current suffering of the rural population. The Government must think carefully about compensation. To introduce a Bill with no provision for compensation will cause large waves of sympathy for people in the countryside.
  Mr. Soames: As my hon. Friend is a farmer who also represents an important fanning constituency, does he

  771
  agree that many farmers can no longer afford proper veterinary care—to their great sadness and the bad luck of their animals? Without the hunts, there is no chance that they could afford services to dispose of their fallen stock.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right. He, too, understands the agriculture industry better than most Members of the House. For example, if a farmer has calves that are worth less than the auctioneer's selling fee of £1, he cannot afford to call out a vet at a call-out fee of at least £25 before the cost of drugs. Such circumstances cause severe difficulty. Currently, hunts provide a subsidised service at a realistic cost.
  No doubt the Minister will tell us what alternative arrangements are to be set up, but those arrangements will have to be paid for at an economic cost. That is likely to increase considerably the current costs of dealing with fallen stock. The bureaucracy and inspection involved in any Government scheme are likely hugely to increase its cost. My hon. Friend makes a good point. An animal welfare problem is already brewing in the countryside. If no cheap method is available to dispose of fallen stock, the problem will increase substantially.
  7.15 pm
  The Minister and other hon. Members have talked about the moral aspects, but there is also a strong legal case. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) recognised that when he had to take extremely difficult decisions on BSE compensation. Sadly, that incident cost the taxpayers well over £3 billion. We never want it to be repeated. I hope that the present foot and mouth epidemic will not grow too much, but I suspect that it will and that the Government will find that they have to compensate a large number of people whose stock has been slaughtered. If that is right in those circumstances, surely it is right to compensate people who lose their jobs as a result of a ban on hunting.
  As I pointed out earlier, the Lithgow v. United Kingdom case in 1986–8 EHHR 329—clarified the conditions under which compensation had to be paid. The Government should follow the dictum without having to be told to do so by the European Court, even if the convention is to be incorporated in our own law: it rightly states that it is only acceptable to deprive people of their possessions or livelihood when that is strictly in the public interest. There could, of course, be a severe argument as to whether it is strictly in the public interest to ban hunting. The Lithgow judgment states that deprivation of the use or peaceful enjoyment of possessions without compensation is justified only in exceptional circumstances. I am not a lawyer but I cannot for the life of me see that the prejudice shown by the Labour Government and their Back Benchers in banning hunting could possibly be construed as being in accordance with the requirement that such things should be done only in exceptional circumstances. These are not exceptional circumstances; this is a measure that merely meets a prejudice.
  The Government must think carefully. They are about to undergo a severe test with the electorate. No doubt, the electorate will make their views known—especially in
  772
  rural areas. People in those areas will listen carefully to this debate. The Minister would do himself a great deal of justice if he reconsidered. The issue is one of conscience, not of spite or prejudice—as the hon. Member for Pendle would have us believe. It is one thing for the Government to impose a ban on hunting, even though that is wholly reprehensible; it is something wholly different—a prejudice that is without precedent—to impose such a ban without compensation. I urge the Minister to think again.
  Mr. Baker: As many Members know, I support a ban on hunting and want it to be implemented as soon as possible. Indeed, my criticism of the Government—of late—has been that they have so delayed the introduction of the Bill that it is unlikely to reach the statute book before the end of this Parliament. We are thus, to some degree, wasting our time in debates on the matter in this place and elsewhere.
  I preface my remarks with that statement of my belief because I have some support for the principles espoused today by hon. Members on both sides of the House. With respect to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) the argument is not one of Government versus Opposition. The matter is subject to a free vote. Members from all parties speak from different perspectives.
  It is not helpful to those of us who want to argue about compensation and about the impact of fallen stock on the farming industry to present the matter as a Labour-Tory argument. If it is, the Tories will lose—the number of Members demonstrates that. If we can go back to arguing about principles, there is a chance that those of us who hold the same views might make some progress.
  I have some sympathy with new clause 1. It is about farming; it is not about hunting, bingo or anything else. I do not criticise the Government for the fact that no Agriculture Ministers are in the Chamber. With due respect, they have rather a lot to do at present. I should be extremely disappointed if they had to sit in this place for hours discussing a measure on hunting instead of trying to deal with foot and mouth disease, which greatly affects the farming industry in my constituency and elsewhere in the country. I am pleased that they are not in the Chamber.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and his colleagues must, however, acknowledge that there is an impact on farming that should be discussed with their colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Whether or not we are in favour of hunting, surely we must all agree that the removal of current provisions that allow for hunt kennels to deal with fallen stock will have an adverse effect on farmers. That is the fact of the matter, and I, as someone who wants to ban hunting, recognise that.
  The farming community is up against the wall at the moment and having a torrid time as a consequence of foot and mouth disease, the legacy of BSE and the drop in farm-gate prices across a range of products, so I do not want to burden it with any more costs now. In fact, if the Minister puts no other scheme in place, the closure of hunt kennels will add to farming costs, but that is not an argument for keeping hunting. My opposition to hunting is based on moral and animal welfare grounds, but we must ensure that the farming community does not suffer as a consequence of any decision by Parliament to ban hunting.

  773
  I agree with my hon. Friend the member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that it is invidious and odd to include in new clause 1 the words
  "which would have been collected by hunts but for the enactment or coming into force of the Schedule to this Act."
  Perhaps those words were included because the new clause would not have been acceptable without them. Nevertheless, fallen stock are an issue for the whole farming industry. I am worried, frcm an environmental perspective, about fallen stock being allowed to rot in the fields or, indeed, being buried, which may affect watercourses. That is not the best way to deal with fallen stock.
  Surely, during the past few years we have learned to be a little careful about how we deal with animal health. We cannot be cavalier any more; we have caused ourselves major problems because of our treatment of animals. We must ensure that the best system is in place, and leaving fallen stock to market forces, which appears to be the solution on offer, is not a sensible way forward.
  If we were to tell a farmer—no matter how angelic he may be—that he is in a difficult position and his balance sheet is very bad, but we will give him no help at all so he must deal with fallen stock in the the cheapest way possible, it would be a recipe for disaster. That is a farming point for the Home Office Minister, but he must address it in his response, otherwise many of us will have great sympathy for new clause 1. Perhaps its wording is not quite right, but the Minister must say, "Yes, we recognise that there is a problem, and we will do something about it." He has not yet done so.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. He and I differ on whether it is moral to hunt with hounds, but that is irrelevant as the argument that he puts forward is sound. Will he help the House by telling us his views on the alternative to hunt kennels taking fallen stock? How does he believe we should deal with the matter?
  Mr. Baker: I have considerable sympathy with new clause 1, which has been tabled by four Conservative Members, but with the caveat referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury which I have just endorsed. New clause 1 seems to be an adequate way to deal with fallen stock. We must find a way to allow farmers to deal with fallen stock safely, without threatening animal health or the environment, and in a way that they are likely to endorse. That is our objective.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate on what method might be employed? After all, the hunts offer a subsidised service. If the same service is to be provided elsewhere, someone must pay for it. Will he suggest who might pay for it?
  Mr. Baker: Other methods are currently used. Although hunt kennels deal with many animals, other animals are dealt with differently. I refer the hon. Gentleman to new clause 1, tabled by his colleagues, which mentions the
  "collection and disposal of fallen stock".
  I am not particularly bothered about how it is dealt with, provided that the method is safe and that there is no disincentive to farmers to follow the recommended course of action.
  774
  I shall deal with a second point—compensation—because I am keen to give the Minister a chance to reply, at length, I hope, to the points that have been made. I ask him to give us a statement of his principle. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) made the case for not giving compensation when the House legislates. He asked why compensation should be paid when the House passed many measures that impact on various people. That is a perfectly respectable philosophical position to adopt, but it is equally respectable to say that when we take away people's livelihoods, compensation should be paid as of right. However, it is indefensible to say that we will pay compensation in certain circumstances, but not in others. That is what the Minister has suggested.
  I ask the Minister not to deal with handguns or bingo, or whatever, but to address the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000. As a Member of Parliament, I am genuinely troubled that a compensation scheme was introduced for an activity that was legal, that involved people's livelihoods and that the House rightly chose to ban because of the impact on the animals involved.
  There is a close parallel with the Bill. I genuinely fail to understand why it is right to compensate fur farmers for their loss of livelihood, but not those who are employed in hunting in any way. I do not understand how that position can be adopted. I hope that the Government did not do so because there were few mink farmers so it did not cost much to compensate them, but many people are involved in hunt kennels, so it would cost a lot to compensate them. That would be a Treasury argument, and I hope such arguments are not being deployed to deal with moral problems. I ask the Minister to make a clear statement on the Government's policy on compensation. When and why is compensation paid? How can he justify including no such proposal in the Bill, when the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 included generous provisions.
  I, too, am not a lawyer, but I ask the Minister to respond to the points made on legal advice, as that may help to illuminate the debate. What advice has he been given by Home Office lawyers on the likelihood of a successful challenge to the Bill if the Government are not prepared to include compensation?
  Mr. Paterson: Time is getting on and many of the points that I would have made have been made already, so I shall be relatively brief, but I should like to repeat some earlier comments. It is absolutely crazy in the eyes of many people who live in the country that we are debating hunting today, when we are looking at probably the worst crisis that the nation has faced since 1967, with foot and mouth disease. I was about 11 when the last crisis happened, and it was absolutely horrific.
  Farmers in my area are absolutely worried stiff. People have stopped travelling around. I cancelled meetings at the weekend. Foot and mouth is the one subject that we should be discussing, but instead we are debating hunting. That is absolutely extraordinary, and the public must think that we are simply mad. We are also mad, given the Government's extraordinary hypocrisy.
  I was rung on Saturday afternoon by a man who was desperate; he had 17 carcases in the back of his lorry but was banned from moving them under emergency regulations, so I contacted the private office of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I should be grateful to the Minister if he would listen, rather than talking to his Whip, because this is relevant and he might like to talk to his colleague at MAFF.

  775
  I am pleased to say that those in the office were very efficient; they sent a fax to my constituent and gave him a special licence to move those carcases. It is worth quoting paragraph 3 of the licence, because it states:
  "A carcase to which this licence applies may be moved from the premises on which it is to a rendering plant, a knacker's yard or a hunt kennel."
  So the private office—the inner sanctum—of the Minister at the heart of the operation, whom the Government tell us is beavering away on the national crisis, is giving out special licences with the specific instructions that 17 decomposing carcases should, if necessary, be taken to a hunt kennel. That represents the grossest hypocrisy, given that today we are debating the abolition of the free service provided by hunts.
  I should like to stress the fact that the service is free to farmers in hunting areas, and it is humane. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has temporarily left his seat, mentioned that fact. Hunt servants come out immediately as soon as a healthy cow falls down in the yard and breaks her leg. One phone call and the kennel huntsman comes around and puts the animal down humanely. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is in a complete muddle. He is bleating on about diseased animals, but the vast majority of those casualties are healthy animals that suffer from accidents.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice rose—
  Mr. Paterson: I should be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall try to improve his knowledge.
  Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman mentions that his constituents had 17 decomposing carcases in his vehicle. What were the circumstances that led to his constituent having so many decomposing carcases in his vehicle?
  Mr. Paterson: That question is extraordinary. We have a national crisis with foot and mouth, and the movement of all beasts has been stopped, except by those who have a special licence. That is why my constituent rang me.
  Mr. Prentice: But decomposing?
  Mr. Paterson: Within hours, carcases begin to decompose. That is what the hon. Gentleman does not understand. The vast majority of casualties on farms are healthy, and he has not taken that point on board. They are not diseased, and the hunt comes in if an animal has an accident. It is put down swiftly and humanely. [Interruption.] The animals have not got foot and mouth: they are healthy animals. The hon. Gentleman should listen.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should make himself clear.
  Mr. Paterson: I am making myself clear. I am talking about healthy animals that have suffered an accident on a farm and are put down in a humane manner. Someone has to dispose of the bodies. At the moment the animal is killed; it then has to be taken away and disposed of.
  776
  The hunts provide a free service so that there is no health problem for farm animals or any human beings in the area.
  This is a massive problem. Because the Government have made such a middle of the beef export regime that is being reinstated, live calf exports are not allowed. An area such as mine has a large dairy population and large numbers of bull calves have to be put down on the farm.
  Mr. Öpik: I think that I understand the confusion of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). For the sake of the record, it might help if the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) could explain that the 17 carcases were not diseased. If he knows the reason, it might help if he explained why the animals died.
  Mr. Paterson: The man who collected the carcases is totally separate from the hunt service and he had them on his premises. Because of the emergency regulations, he was not allowed to move them although he would normally have done so.
  The key issue is the volume and the disproportionate impact in rural areas. In my patch, the Wynnstay hunt has disposed of 2,500 calves, the North Shropshire hunt of 2,500 and the South Shropshire hunt of 3,000. Those are very large volumes of material.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: To set the record straight, is the hon. Gentleman now telling the House that the 17 decomposing carcases were being held in a knacker's yard and that the knee knackerman wanted to move them to the hunt kennels? Is that what he is saying?
  Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman is trying to be clever, and trying to make a muddle out of a desperately serious problem in an area such as mine. He is laughing about it. The man is separate from the hunt service and he collects animals. Those animals were destined for another destination, but they were temporarily frozen in his yard.
  As other hon. Members have said, there are parallels to the hunt service, but the key point is that it handles large volumes of material However, it cannot take it all, because of the muddle that the Government have made of the calf scheme. Therefore, the physical problem that the Government are landing themselves with is enormous. The Minister is looking confused, but who is going to dispose of the 2,500 calves that each of those three hunts in my area deals with? Who will do that when the ban goes through?
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make a serious point and we are trying to understand it. I am listening carefully, but I am looking a little bemused because I still do not understand the relevance of the carcases to the point that he wishes to make. I encourage hi n to calm down the rhetoric, if he makes his point, I shall try to answer it.
  Mr. Paterson: I shall try in very simple terms to explain that there is a free hunt service and that, in my patch, three separate hunts have taken 2,500 calves each. Because there is such a volume of material, other people also provide a service. In this case, a knackerman had 17 carcases that he had taken from different farms. Because of the emergency regulations, which he was

  777
  obeying, they were temporarily frozen, on his van, and he was concerned that they were begin ling to heat up and decompose. He telephoned me and I obtained the licence from the Minister's colleague in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There are two separate services, but the point I am making is that the hunt service has reached its capacity now.
  Mr. Garnier: Is not the short point that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave an emergency licence to the knackerman to move these dead animals to the hunt?
  Mr. Paterson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Garnier: Oh, haven't I been helpful? I was under the impression that the MAFF licence enabled the knackerman to move the animals directly to the hunt in breach of the banning order. If my hon. Friend has confused me, perhaps he could explain the matter again.
  Mr. Paterson: I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend is in a muddle as well. The simple fact is that such a volume of material has to be disposed of that it is not just the hunts that take it away. The hunts are at capacity, and there are other methods. In this case, the knackerman had collected the carcases and was going to take them to a renderer, but he was temporarily stopped. The key point is that, if the Bill is enacted, there will be no service, and the hunts provide an extremely humane, free and efficient service. It will require an enormous state effort to replace it.
  I am amazed that the Minister still looks bewildered, but it is a huge physical problem. In areas such as mine with a large livestock population, many animals, sadly, have accidents and have to be disposed of. I am absolutely staggered that the Minister is still in a muddle. He really must talk to his colleagues in MAFF.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am familiar with the role of the hunt. Certainly, my hunt takes fallen stock and often deals with it very efficiently; it provides a service to local farmers. I am very familiar with that process, and I am also reasonably familiar with the restrictions that are being applied. I think that I have grasped the hon. Gentleman's point. Is he saying that if the hunt service disappears, that will remove a proportion of the capacity to deal with fallen stock?
  I was trying to figure out the point about the carcases, but I am not sure that they are entirely relevant. The hon. Gentleman is making a separate point with which I shall try to deal. I was perplexed—everyone, including those on the Opposition Front Bench, was perplexed—because we could not figure out the role 0f the carcases. I think that they are a separate matter, and I hope that I have been helpful in trying to clarify the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Paterson: My point is the hypocrisy of a Government who from their inner sanctum recommend that people use the services of the hunt kennels and two days later push through a Bill that will ban that service. I hope that the Minister has taken that point on board,
  778
  but I shall write to him with the figures for Shropshire. They are enormous and it is the volume of material that we should consider.
  Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a serious point of detail on this issue, I shall happily engage in correspondence with him. I will be as helpful as I can.
  Mr. Paterson: I am grateful for that offer.
  I shall quickly deal with the issue of compensation. Again, there will be a disproportionate effect in rural areas. The Burns report talked about several thousand job losses. That may not sound very many to Labour Members representing urban constituencies, but a small saddler whom I know employs seven people and 75 per cent. of his turnover is devoted to hunting. That firm will close. I know a small family feed merchant that supplies the hunting community. It employs only three people, but it will close completely. That is 100 per cent. devastating for those businesses and those people. The disproportionate effect of the ban has not been considered by Labour Members.
  Even employers of significant numbers of people will be affected. A feed merchant who shifts 25,000 to 30,000 tonnes of hay and straw a year employs 12 people, and half those jobs will be lost. That is appalling for the people involved. Labour Members have not taken into account the fact that there will be no public gain from a ban; they merely feel that the toffs may have taken a hit. Such ludicrous prejudice will damage hard-working, sensible and law-abiding people, whom the Minister earlier called burglars. That was outrageous.
  Mrs. Golding: The Minister did not.
  Mr. Paterson: If the Minister would like to withdraw the comment about burglars, I would be very grateful.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that he has completely traduced what I said. I was intervening on the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) who stated the general principle that people should always be compensated if the law were to remove their livelihood. I gave the very bad example of burglars, which I withdrew during the course of the debate. I in no way wish to compare hunters with burglars. That was never my intention. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I sought to do that, he is traducing me. People who hunt in my constituency—many of whom I know well—are good and decent, and I would not put them in that category. My point was entirely different.
  Mr. Paterson: The Minister makes a fulsome apology, which I accept wholeheartedly, and I am sorry if I upset him.
  Mr. Michael: It is the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) who should apologise.
  Mr. Paterson: No; Labour Members are being churlish.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has got the Minister to agree to consider fallen stock. Will he ask for

  779
  an assurance that the loss of livelihood will be taken into account by the Government before the Bill is enacted—if it ever is?
  Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is not acceptable in a pluralist society to penalise a minority—in this case, by removing the livelihood of law-abiding people without providing compensation—to satisfy the prejudice of a majority.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: New clause 1 and amendment No. 40 relate to the disposal of fallen stock, and to compensation, which is also addressed in amendment No. 36. I take those important matters seriously. However, before I address the specifics, I shall deal with foot and mouth disease. I sympathise fully with the farming community—as I am sure every hon. Member does—following the recent outbreak. No doubt the whole House hopes that it will be contained quickly.
  I represent a largely rural constituency and I am well aware of the anxieties felt by the farming community. Thankfully, there have been no reports of foot and mouth disease in my constituency today, but there is much fear and concern among farmers and other constituents.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am glad that the Minister can report that, but it is not the case in my constituency. Many people cannot understand why their Parliament has to discuss this measure today when there is a crisis in the countryside.
  Mr. O'Brien: One or two other hon. Members made that point more aggressively, and I shall deal with it in a moment.
  Foot and mouth disease poses a serious threat to livestock farmers throughout the country. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informed the House yesterday of the steps that he and his officials have taken to control the disease so that we minimise the disruption and damage that it is capable of causing to the agricultural industry and to rural communities in general.
  Some quarters have suggested that we should not enact the Bill when our farmers are facing what could be a grave crisis. Let me repeat that I have every sympathy for our livestock farmers and fully understand their anxieties. I completely support the measures that my right hon. Friend has put in place, which will be debated at greater length tomorrow. However, that does not mean that we should not proceed with the Bill. The issue of hunting with dogs needs to be resolved. The number of private Members' Bills and the amount of parliamentary time that has been devoted to it in the past 20 years bear witness to that fact. The Bill finally gives us the opportunity to deal with the issue. The question of what Parliament will do has been hanging over rural communities for a long time and people want it resolved.
  7.45 pm
  Foot and mouth disease is taken enormously seriously by hon. Members on both sides of the House, whether they are for hunting or in favour of a ban. It is wrong to suggest, as some hon. Members have got close to doing—
  780
  although no one transgressed the line—that the only people who are concerned about the farming community, or foot and mouth disease and its impact, are those who support hunting. People who support a ban are also seriously worried about the problem. The issues are, to some extent, separate However, I appreciate that there is some overlap when it comes to fallen stock.
  The Bill will not come into effect until a year after Royal Assent. I am sure we all fervently hope that by that time the problems of foot and mouth disease will be a distant memory. It would be wrong to abandon the Bill now.
  New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to make a scheme for the collection and disposal of infirm, diseased or dead animals, which it refers to as fallen stock. The disposal of fallen stock is controlled by the Animal By-Products Order 1999. That specifies a number of permitted disposal routes for fallen stock, including rendering, incineration, disposal via a knacker's yard or hunt kennel and, in restricted circumstances, burial or—appropriately at the moment—burning on-farm.
  If the hunts' collection service is withdrawn, farmers will need to use an alternative method of disposal. There are 288 hunt kennels and 73 knackers' yards in Great Britain that can handle fallen stock. The Burns report estimates that 200 hunts disposed of 336,000 carcases in one 12-month period. A small and limited survey by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last year suggested that, of the animals that die or are killed on farm, about 40 per cent. of calves, 33 per cent. of adult bovines and 11 per cent. of sheep are disposed of to hunt kennels.
  Mr. Soames: We all endorse what the Minister said about foot and mouth disease. We know that he represents an agricultural constituency and that many of his farmers will be as worried as those in my constituency and elsewhere. However, foot and mouth disease has nothing to do with the fallen stock that is covered by the new clause. Livestock that are at risk from the disease are handled by the state veterinary service in a completely different way. My hon. Friends have made it clear that the hunt service is fully stretched and has been tested to the limit in the past two years. Given what the Minister said about the one-year gap, it would be impossible for any organisation to step in and fill that role.
  Mr. O'Brien: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. Animals that are affected by foot and mouth disease are dealt with separately. However, as several hon. Members said, many animals that are not diseased might have to be disposed of on the land. It will not be possible to remove or sell some animals. They may be ordinary fallen stock that have been injured or have died without being diseased. In such circumstances, hon. Members have asked what we should do about fallen stock. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is over-demand for the disposal services that the hunt and others provide to get rid of undiseased fallen stock.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have an important point to make. It has been insinuated that hunt kennels take meat that is unfit to feed to hounds. Will the Minister confirm that all hunt kennels that receive fallen stock are licensed by the Animal By-Products Order 1999 and are rigorously inspected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and

  781
  Food and trading standard officers? If any offences are committed, those bodies will come down with the full force of the law on hunt kennels.
  Mr. O'Brien: I have no problem in confirming that.
  While the clause—[Interruption.] I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and I see the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) pointing at him. My hon. Friend was asking questions because he was confused by some of the arguments of Opposition Members. I do not want to rehearse those arguments. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) even succeeded in confusing those on the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps the best thing to do is move on.
  The new clause seeks to provide a collection and disposal service for fallen stock that otherwise would be collected by hunt kennels. In pra ctice, it would be impossible to identify which animals went to a hunt kennel and which to a knacker's yard or other disposal facility. The new clause would establish a collection service for what would appear to be all fallen stock.
  A difficulty with the new clause is that it seeks to provide a collection and disposal service also for infirm, diseased and dead agricultural animal which are referred to as fallen stock. I am concerned that that would inadvertently open up the possibility for the killing of animals that are not 100 per cent. fit, or animals suffering from a minor ailment where veterinary treatment would be a more appropriate disposal.
  The new clause would mean that instead of fallen stock being disposed of by one of the routes that I have mentioned, the Minister would regulate the collection and disposal of fallen stock. It would require the Minister to put in place a collection scheme for dead stock, to set up communication lines for the prompt notification of fallen stock to the body responsible for collection, to arrange for the transport and disposal of fallen stock and to regulate the cost of the scheme.
  The Government would need to establish centres for farmers to give notification of fallen stock, to acquire sufficient vehicles to collect the stock promptly, and to ensure that disposal outlets were prepared and capable of receiving stock at that time. Such a collection scheme would require the Government, in effect, to set themselves up as a nationalised industry; otherwise, they would have to contract out. The service would have to be run almost entirely by the Government. It appears that the Opposition are proposing the setting up of a nationalised industry.
  I was a little surprised by that. It appears that the clause would transfer the current responsibility in the private sector for waste disposal in the livestock industry to the Government. The Government are keen to see a proper collection service for fallen stock, but we remain of the view that waste disposal should be carried out by the private sector, not by a nationalised industry. It is strange that the Conservative party is proposing nationalisation while we are proposing to keep the service within the private sector. Perhaps that is new Labour.
  Mr. David Lidington: Surely the Minister will acknowledge that the alternative methods of disposal, which are burial, subject to strict regulations, and incineration, which is subject both to licensing and the requirement of planning permission, already involve a significant amount of Government intervention and
  782
  regulation, and rightly so. The hon. Gentleman will know that clause 2 provides for the schedule to come into force 12 months after Royal Assent. Is he confident that it would be possible within 12 months to set up alternative methods of disposal which would deal with all the carcases that are currently being disposed of by hunts?
  Mr. O'Brien: We cannot consider only hunt kennels and their role in the agriculture sector, but I appreciate the fact that many farmers find the free disposal of fallen stock a substantial advantage. We cannot consider in isolation the possible implications of a ban on hunting in relation to the collection of fallen stock. Disposal goes far wider than hunt kennels. As a result of BSE controls, farmers have been facing increased costs in disposing of their fallen stock. As we have heard, there has been a decline in the number of disposal outlets.
  Furthermore, the European Commission has proposed a new animal by-products regulation, which is expected to come into force in 2003. As drafted, the regulation would control the disposal of ruminant animals that die on farm. It would introduce environment standards for small incinerators. It would require all premises that collect fallen stock to meet certain standards.
  As a consequence, some hunts may be unable or unwilling to continue to provide a fallen stock service to farmers, even if hunting were not banned as a consequence of the proposed legislation. Accordingly, the Government are keen to address the wider issue of fallen stock as a whole, and not only in terms of the impact that the Bill might or might not have.
  Mr. Baker: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I will make some progress and then I will give way.
  The Government want to facilitate the setting up of a collection and disposal service for fallen stock, but we do not want it to be run as a nationalised industry. I understand that officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have had meetings with representatives of the livestock industry and are seeking to discuss and formulate future arrangements for a wider disposal of fallen stock.
  I can assure the House that the Ministry takes the issue extremely seriously, as do the House and the Government. We want to work with those affected to ensure that we can provide the most practical and efficient solution to the problem. I cannot predict what form the MAFF solution will take, but I do not believe that matters would be helped by agreeing to a prescriptive clause such as new clause 1.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: With that reassurance, the Government are alive to concerns about the disposal of fallen stock, which go much wider than the possible consequences of the Bill. I invite the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) to consider withdrawing the new clause.
  Mr. Baker rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: I promised to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Baker: I welcome the assurance that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is addressing the issue,

  783
  and that needs to be done. Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that whatever scheme is produced by the Minister will, first, not increase costs to farmers and, secondly, will not increase the dangers of animal health problems or dangers to the environment?
  Mr. O'Brien: I wish that, off the top of my head. I could give those categoric assurances. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to do so. These matters must be discussed between the industry and the Ministry. In the past, we have normally taken the view that where an industry produces—I am not sure whether this is the right word—a by-product, which is in this instance fallen stock, it is the responsibility of those who produce the by-product to ensure that it is properly and environmentally sensitively disposed of. I am sure that the Liberal Democrat party would support the "polluter pays" principle. We would apply that sort of approach.
  We are aware of and sensitive to the serious problems that are facing agriculture, not just over the past few weeks but over a much longer period. The Government will be much more sympathetic to the problems of the industry and will not merely apply a broad-based principle. I have talked to the farmers in my constituency, and they are concerned about what would happen if the hunt were to go. It is a real issue for them, and one that the Government need to consider in a wider context.
  The Bill forms part of the wider issue. If people think that by keeping hunting they will somehow deal with the issues involving fallen stock, they are much mistaken. In considering the European regulations and the wider interest, we can see that the matter needs to be dealt with as a whole.
  Sir Robert Smith: Can the Minister clarify a point for me? In the debate two weeks ago on the BSE crisis, there was much talk of joined-up Government and Departments working together. Have his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food co-ordinated effort with regard to the impact of the Bill? Will solutions be in place before the problems are created?
  8 pm
  Mr. O'Brien: MAFF has been very much involved in the Bill. The Bill was presented in such a way as to ensure that the House had an opportunity to debate three options. MAFF has considered the options and their implications. If—still an "if—the House were to pass the Bill, it would still have to go to the other place, and we are all aware of other issues that might affect it. It may be that we shall have to consider it within the broader context of what we shall do generally about fallen stock. The Bill and other issues will affect farmers with respect to fallen stock. Considering the Bill in isolation would not resolve the problem. The suggestion from some Opposition Members that the Bill represents the whole fallen stock issue is simply nonsense. The issue goes wider, and the farming community deserves a better answer.
  I shall give way once more, but I want to make some progress after that.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the Minister give us one good reason why he cannot answer the basic
  784
  question of what he will do about fallen stock after the Bill has been passed" Who will pay for it? Will he assure us that the farming idustry, which he has admitted is on its knees, cannot pay?
  Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would realise that I have dealt with that issue. [Interruption.] Even if he does not accept that, I am going to move on. This matter of fallen stock and farming goes far wider than the Bill. The problems of the farming industry face my constituents every day. The Government seek serious answers to serious problems, but the hon. Gentleman seeks flip solutions. If that is his approach, he is not doing justice to his own constituents.
  Amendments Nos 36 and 40 raise another important issue: compensation. The Government take seriously the job losses that may arise in the event of a ban on hunting. The details of such losses were set out in the Burns report, and I need not cite them. No hon. Member wants anyone to lose a job. All those who voted for a ban on hunting will have taken account of the employment implications before they decided how to vote. I certainly weighed that factor before deciding how to cast my vote. I concluded that the House needs to make judgments, as we did on handguns and other issues.
  We must consider the wider good of the whole of society. Enactment of a ban must be seen in that context. Whatever passions have been aroused by legislation that has resulted in lost jobs in years gone by, the House has, by and large, sought to do the right thing. The House has considered job losses seriously; that issue was a key factor on Second Reading.
  Both amendments would offer compensation at a level set by the Secretary of State, which would be paid to those whose paid employment depended on hunting with dogs. Who are those people? Apart from those directly employed by hunts—even Burns was unable to set an exact number of those people, which suggests some ambiguity—many others might claim to be in that position, particularly if generous compensation were on offer.
  What about a farrier who depended on a hunt for 30 per cent. of his business? The business would probably continue, though perhaps with a reduced turnover. Would the owner, or the employees of the business, qualify for compensation? What would happen if a hunt decided, once the ban had come into force, to convert itself into a drag hunt? Why should an employee of that hunt, whose job description and conditions of service might change only slightly, be eligible for compensation?
  Amendment No. 36 was tabled by the Middle Way Group and suggests that compensation should be paid in respect of damage caused by species of animals that had previously been hunted by dogs. I do not want to be too unkind about that well-intentioned suggestion, but it is not close to common sense. Foxes and other predators damage crops and livestock. From Burns, we know that in the event of a ban on hunting, other methods of fox control would be used. How it would be possible to say that damage had been caused by a fox that would have been controlled if hunting had still been legal I simply do not know.
  Amendment No. 40 was tabled by Opposition Members and seeks to provide compensation for anyone deprived of any service previously provided by hunts. Leaving

  785
  aside the possibility of a claim on the public purse for any service unrelated to hunting that a huntsman may once have provided to the population as a whole, where on earth would the line be drawn? As Burns made clear, hunts provide a wide range of services, including voluntary assistance. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to assess every claim.
  On grounds of practicality alone, I would not recommend that the House make either of the amendments. The Government, as guardians of the public purse—the taxpayer's money—could not, as a matter of principle, support them. The commitments in them would be completely open and would not allow the kind of controls on the public purse that I expect.
  In the past, compensation has been paid to those who, as a consequence of legislation, have been deprived of their property. The most notable recent example was firearms compensation, following the tragedy at Dunblane. However, as I have already pointed out, certain dealers in firearms were not compensated for the loss of their profit. We generally have no paid compensation from public funds to those who may have lost their livelihoods as a result of legislation. To go down that route would set a precedent that might have unpredictable consequences if it were done in the way that the amendments propose.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) mentioned the compensation scheme for the fur farming industry, which was shut down as a result of the prohibition on fur farming. That case is hardly analogous. The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 closed down an entire industry. The Bill, by contrast, simply restricts certain activities. Those who own hounds will still be able to use them for drag hunts, while those who own horses will be able to ride as part of an organised hunt or otherwise. Those who serve such people, such as the blacksmiths who shoe horses or the grooms, will still be required.
  Hunt employees are precisely that—employees of individual hunts. It is open to those hunts, if they decide not to go in for drag hunting or some similar activity, to offer their staff appropriate payment Before anyone tells me that hunts do not have resources, I can say that the hon. Member for Gainsborough said in Committee that hunting
  "is an expensive sport requiring a great deal of commitment and involving large businesses."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 January 2001; c. 45.]
  I shall make one further point, having been on my feet for long enough. It has been suggested that the absence of provision for compensation renders the Bill incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Our legal advice is that that is not the case. We are not dealing with deprivation of property, but with control of the use of property. There is a requirement in all but exceptional cases to pay compensation for deprivation of property, but there is no such requirement in relation to measures constituting the control of the use of property. We are satisfied that the Bill, without any provision for compensation, is fully in accordance with article 1, protocol 1 of the convention.
  Mr. Öpik: The Middle Way Group accepts that the amendment may not be perfectly formulated. We are not hung up on its precise wording. Will the Minister clarify
  786
  whether he is saying that, on principle, he and the Government oppose providing compensation for those who lose their livelihoods—indeed, their way of life—and that he does not believe that the circumstances are the same as those surrounding fur farming? If he is saying that, will he make clear why he sees a distinction between fur farming, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), and foxhunting?
  Mr. O'Brien: I may not have satisfied the hon. Gentleman, but I have set out the argument. The Government do not believe that it would be right to set the precedent that would be created by accepting the amendments, quite apart from the drafting problems inherent in them. I do not invite the House to accept either amendment, and I hope that hon. Members will see fit to withdraw them.
  Mr. Garnier: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to some of the points that were made during the debate, particularly those made by my hon. Friends and the Minister.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not need the leave of the House to make those comments.
  Mr. Garnier: Perhaps I acted with an abundance of caution. One never knows where one is nowadays with the new procedures in this place.
  The Minister's answer, which was no doubt sincerely meant, demonstrated more than anything the need for a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to be present this evening. The hon. Gentleman seemed to get a little lost when he dealt with some of the points that needed to be covered, not least the Government's proposals for the removal of fallen stock under any scheme that they may be preparing. It may well be that the Ministry is having discussions with relevant parties. In the context of new clause 1, it would have been more helpful if we had been told what stage those discussions had reached, and their detail. However, we shall have to do the best we can with the answers that the Minister gave.
  In the three and a half hours or so that we have spent discussing two important subjects—the collection of fallen stock and compensation—there were a number of extremely useful contributions, not least that from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who spoke of the leather workers of his west midlands urban constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) spoke of the clearing up of fallen ponies rather than farm animals from the New Forest.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) also contributed. Towards the end of the debate, there were particularly trenchant contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who speaks with all the authority not only of someone who is a farmer, but who, I believe, has an interest in the slaughterhouse industry.
  We heard a particularly worthwhile contribution from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) who, if I may summarise, said that to advance the Bill without

  787
  compensation is just not fair. No reasonable hon. Member could disagree with him. Without either amendment No. 36 or amendment No. 40, the Bill is not fair. No one outside the House would disagree.
  Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Garnier: Had the right hon. Gentleman been present for any part of the debate, I might have taken the time to hear what he had to say, but as he has been absent—no doubt for very good reasons—I shall refer to his hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), with whom I always enjoy debating the issue, because he engages in the issues. Whether I agree with him or not does not matter. What is important is that the hon. Gentleman exposed us to his views and allowed us to deal with them in a way that he may not have found helpful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), as always, contributed his special knowledge as a former Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and as someone who has represented farming constituencies for many years. I was also grateful to hear the views of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who, sadly, has announced that she will not put herself forward for re-election. Even though she may soon no longer be a Member of the House, I hope that she will continue to campaign on behalf of those in her constituency and all who support the views that she and I hold about the need for the preservation of mink hounds and mink hunting.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), as always, applied his acute legal mind to a number of issues, including the European convention, and the fact that unless the Bill is amended in the way that we suggest, it will fall outside the convention.
  The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) made what I would loosely describe as a confusing contribution. He began by giving some sort of support to new clause 1 and the need for something to be done about fallen stock; then he got into rather an intellectual muddle about compensation. No doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, that will give him much sport when he comes to draft his press release.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), as usual, gave a superb performance and demonstrated in a short space of time that this was a grotesque day for the farming world, and that the Bill was a grotesque Bill which did nothing to protect farmers or to advance the interests of the rural economy.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) spoke, and was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who spoke from knowledge of his constituency about the need for compensation for the economic hinterland that exists behind hunting, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who gave a particularly powerful speech, based on his knowledge as a farmer and as one who represents a rural and hunting constituency.
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) made an interesting contribution. As someone who wants hunting banned quickly and who complains that the Government
  788
  did not introduce a Bill earlier, he said none the less that the issue under discussion this evening was not hunting, but farming. However, even his friends on the Labour Benches were unable to see that.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). Because I was being obtuse, I did not fully understand his point, which was that the Government seem to extol the fallen stock service, through MAFF, but are prepared to introduce through the Home Office a Bill that damages the farming economy. He gave us direct evidence of the valuable work done by the hunt in his constituency and by neighbouring hunts.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garnier: I should love to give way, but the hon. Gentleman must be patient. The debate has been going on for three and a half hours—
  Hon. Members: Give way!
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Garnier: I apologise to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I will not give way, as it is time we brought the debate to a conclusion.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Garnier: No, I will not give way; I have explained why.
  Following my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, we had the contribution from the Minister, for whose contribution; we are always grateful. His understanding of new clause 1 seemed to boil down to this: "Something needs to be done. I think MAFF is doing something, but I'm not terribly sure what it is." When the Government find out, no doubt they will be the first to tell us. We know that the Minister for Agriculture does not like coming to the House. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman's boss, the Home Secretary, will be able to elucidate further—or even the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), when she winds up some other debate.
  When the Minister dealt with compensation, he seemed to be completely at sea. He said that we must make judgments. Indeed we must. We will make a judgment both at the general a lection, and in the Division Lobbies shortly. He seemed to say that if we banned hunting, we would cause economic loss, but he was not prepared to do anything about it.
  The economic loss that will be caused by the Bill and by the banning of hunting is both foreseeable and devastating. We already know that the rural economy is on a knife edge. If the Bill is not amended as we propose, it will drive a nail into the coffin of farming. A Government who fear precedent—the Minister said that he feared creating a precedent—are a Government who fear their own shadow. The shadow of that Government sits on the Conservative Benches, and we are itching to replace the Government. I can assure the House that the Under-Secretary's performance, which was no doubt given with the best will in the world, has done his party

  789
  no favours. I trust that when the Division bell sounds, all hon. Members who believe in justice and fairness will follow us through the Lobby tonight.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 280.

  Division No. 131]

  [8.20 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hayes, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Baker, Norman

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hoey, Kate

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bercow, John

  Horam, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Johnson, Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brady, Graham

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brake, Tom

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Letwin, Oliver

  Breed, Colin

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lidington, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Livsey, Richard

  Burnett, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Burstow, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cash, William

  Loughton, Tim

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Luff, Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Chope, Christopher

  McCrea, Dr William

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cotter, Brian

  Madel, Sir David

  Cran, James

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maples, John

  Day, Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Edwards, Huw

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Evans, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Faber, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mitchell, Austin

  Fallon, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Flight, Howard

  Norman, Archie

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Paice, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Paterson, Owen

  Gidley, Sandra

  Pickles, Eric

  Gill, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Green, Damian

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Greenway, John

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Ruffley, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hammond, Philip

  Sanders Adrian

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Harvey, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  790

  Shepherd, Richard

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Tredinnick, David

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

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Webb, Steve

  Spring, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Steen, Anthony

  Whittingdale, John

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilkinson, John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mr. Nicholas Soames and

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mr. Edward Leigh.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clelland, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Colman, Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cooper, Yvette

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corbett, Robin

  Austin, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bailey, Adrian

  Corston, Jean

  Banks, Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Cox, Tom

  Barron, Kevin

  Cranston, Ross

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davidson, Ian

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Berry, Roger

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

  Best, Harold

  Blackman, Liz

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blizzard, Bob

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Borrow, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Doran, Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Dowd, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drew, David

  Burden, Richard

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Flint, Caroline

  Cann, Jamie

  Flynn, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Follett, Barbara

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Chaytor, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chidgey, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clapham, Michael

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Gunnell, John

  791

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hancock, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hanson, David

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Healey, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hendrick, Mark

  Morley, Elliot

  Hepburn, Stephen

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

  Heppell, John

  Hill, Keith

  Mountford, Kali

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hope, Phil

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Illsley, Eric

  Pond, Chris

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pope, Greg

  Jamieson, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Jenkins, Brian

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Joyce, Eric

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rendel, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Rogers, Allan

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Rooney, Terry

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Khabra, Piara S

  Roy, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lammy, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lepper, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Levitt, Tom

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Love, Andrew

  Singh, Marsha

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Spellar, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McNulty, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  MacShane, Denis

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McWalter, Tony

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mallaber, Judy

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Timms, Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Todd, Mark

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Trickett, Jon

  Martlew, Eric

  Truswell, Paul

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  792

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wills, Michael

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wilson, Brian

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfieid)

  Winnick, David

  Tynan, Bill

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Vaz, Keith

  Wood, Mike

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wareing, Robert N

  wyatt, Derek

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Mr. Colin Pickthall and

  Mr. Stephen Hesford.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule

  HUNTING WITH DOGS: PROHIBITION
  Mr. Lidington: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
  'Hunting which begins in Scotland
  .—A person does not commit an offence under paragraph I if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog and his hunting of that mammal began in Scotland.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 77, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
  'Hunting which begins and ends in Scotland
  .—(1) Subject to sub -paragraph (3), a person does not commit an offence under paragraph 1 if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog in England only incidentally in the course of a hunt which begins and ends in Scotland.
  (2) A hunt begins in Scotland if the pursuit of the wild mammal begins in Scotland.
  (3) A hunt ends—

  (a) when the wild mammal is killed, or

  (b) by a decision, to stop hunting

  and no offence is committed under paragraph 1 if the hunt begins in Scotland and the wild mammal is killed in England.
  (4) A wild mammal Hay not be dug out or bolted in England in the course of a hunt which begins and ends in Scotland.
  (5) Where sub—paragraph (1) applies, no offence shall be committed under paragraph 2, 3 or 4.'.
  Mr. Lidington: This couple of amendments deal with hunts that begin in Scotland. They seek to address the problem that would arise were we to have different laws governing hunting with hounds on the two sides of the Anglo-Scottish border.
  Under amendment No. 76, an offence would not be committed if somebody hunted a wild mammal with a dog and that hunt began in Scotland. Under amendment No. 77, we try to approach the problem slightly differently. It is a more restrictive attempt to tackle the problem, and provides that no offence would be committed where a hunt both began and ended in Scotland, but where the pursuit of the fox, which is the mammal that we are talking about in these circumstances, continued over the English border during the course of the chase.

  793
  The Scottish Parliament has responsibility for the law on hunting north of the border. Recent reports of its deliberations show that if a new law is introduced in Edinburgh it is likely to differ significantly from the complete ban proposed in the Bill now before the House of Commons, which raises some practical difficulties.
  Currently, eight packs of foxhounds hunt in areas either adjacent to or over the border between England and Scotland. The remote upland terrain in those areas is precisely the type of land over which, as Lord Burns concluded, lamping would be an impractical method of fox control. That region contains Hadrian's wall, which is a major tourist attraction popular with walkers, so the safety of humans would be at issue if farmers and landowners had to resort to lampin or other forms of shooting as an alternative method of fox control to hunting.
  The border is not fenced and it is not marked out along fields and moorlands. If people in Scotland lawfully take part in a hunt after a ban has come into force in England and Wales, how are they to know when they are moving from one jurisdiction to another? A number of detailed, practical questions are raised as one explores the difficulties that would be faced were different laws on hunting to be in operation in England and in Scotland.
  If a hunt started in Scotland but the dogs crossed the border into England, would an offence be committed? It has been made clear to us during our deliberations in Standing Committee that the act of hunting that is to form the criminal offence under paragraph 1 of the schedule does not have to involve the killing of a mammal. The pursuit of a mammal by hounds would be sufficient to bring that activity within the ambit of the Bill and make it a criminal offence as defined in paragraph 1. What would happen if a hunt started legally on one side of the border and moved into England? Would a criminal ffence be committed or not?
  Would an offence be committed if the people carrying out the hunting remained in Scotland but at any time during the chase the dogs crossed the border into England? That could be particularly complicated if a group of people were out hunting lawfully in Scotland and some of them followed the dogs across the border into England while others stayed behind in Scotland. All would be taking part in the same hunt, but would some of them be subject to criminal penalties under the Bill and others not?
  The purpose of the amendments is to allow us to debate these issues, which will be of great importance to, admittedly, a small number of people in border areas. They suggest a way in which the House and the Government could deal with some of the problems that may arise.
  Mr. Hogg: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that if the House does not accept the amendment, we will be derogating the authority of the Scottish Parliament? In reality, unless we accept the amendment, those who support the Scottish hounds will not be able to hunt close to the border. That will diminish the freedoms of Scots, which should, under devolution, be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Lidington: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. Without the amendments,
  794
  the potential for conflict will be inherent in the Bill, because there will be different criminal regimes on either side of the border.
  How will the offences relating to the use of land for hunting be affected by the border situation? Some properties span the border. If the Bill becomes law, a landowner who gives permission for hunting on his property in England will be committing a criminal offence.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: The matter goes further than that. Along the Tweed, in so far as hounds might go into the river, the border is not fixed. The stream of the Tweed fluctuates, so one might find oneself on an island in that river. One might also discover that the boundary has shifted from one side of that island to the other. I encountered that fact as a barrister while litigating in respect of fishing rights on the Tweed. Although the boundary was fixed by a joint commission in the 1840s, changes in the course of the Tweed meant that an island that had previously been assumed to lie wholly in Scotland was found to lie partly in Scotland and partly in England.
  Mr. Lidington: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend because his intervention shows that we are not discussing some abstract possibility. He refers to a legal case that arose from a dispute over where the border lay in respect of islands in the River Tweed. Given the experience that he relates, and given the fact that Members on both sides of the argument in the Standing Committee accepted that, should the Bill become law, there would be a risk of malicious information being laid against people in an attempt to convict them of criminal offences, we are right to devote time to debating the matter, not least because we had fewer than 15 minutes in Committee to discuss the question of the Anglo-Scottish border before the guillotine fell, cutting off further debate.
  On the question of the border between England and Scotland, a landowner in Northumberland who gave permission to hunt across his property would be subject to the criminal offence in paragraph 2, but let us consider the position of a landowner with land spanning the border who acceded to the request of a hunt lawful in Scotland to hunt foxes with hounds across his land, only to discover that, during the lawful hunt on his Scottish property, those taking part or the hounds had strayed, either deliberately or by accident, on to his English property.
  Would that landowner have committed an offence in such circumstances? What evidence would he have to present to the prosecuting authorities in England to show that he had made it clear to those taking part in the hunt that they were allowed to cross only his land in Scotland, not that south of the border? Would any duty fall on him to mark out the border across his property so that he could be assured that he was fulfilling his duty under the law and could therefore show that he had not committed a criminal offence?
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point that is worth listening to, but what would happen if a stag hunted from England crossed the border into Scotland, where it is unlawful to hunt deer? That is a real situation that could arise now.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Lidington: I think the hon. Gentleman is grabbing at a red herring. I understand that there is no organised stag hunting in Northumberland or Cumberland, which means that the question he raises would not arise. In any event, it is a question for Ministers to answer on behalf of the Government, because it flows from devolution. In the new constitutional circumstances, the House must be careful about addressing issues that will be affected by the existence of what are clearly different jurisdictions.
  Mr. Russell Brown: The hon. Gentleman bases his argument on foxhunting, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) implies, the Bill is about hunting wild mammals, and deer fall into that category. As the hunting of deer with hounds in Scotland has been banned since 1959, it is widely assumed that the law in Scotland may be different from that in England.
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that organised hunting of deer with hounds takes place anywhere in the border regions.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I can confirm that no hunting of deer with hounds takes place in any of the border counties. It does not take place in Northumberland or Cumberland; it happens only in the south-west of England.
  Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  I have based my remarks on foxhunting because it presents us, as a legislature, with a real issue. Foxhunting with hounds takes place in the border regions of both Scotland and England, and across the border. The practical issue that the House and the Government must address is, I submit, different from the theoretical speculations of the hon. Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and for Dumfries (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. Atkinson: I should point out that one pack in my constituency, the Border Foxhounds, has hunting country on both sides of the border. Other packs hunt on one side but may cross; this pack crosses the border regularly, as a matter of course.
  Mr. Lidington: That reinforces my point.
  How would the ban be enforced in practice, in terms of the border between England and Scotland? If that border is not clearly marked along its length, people travelling in upland country will not be sure when they have moved from England into Scotland or vice versa. One can conjure up odd visions of police constables being deputed to stomp around farmland and moorland in galoshes and plastic macs, spreading out from path to path to make sure that the boundary was policed. I am prepared to accept that that is not the Government's intention, and I am sure that it is not the intention of any chief constable on either side of the border; but if there is one criminal law in England and another in Scotland, people will go to the police and allege that this or that group of individuals intends to hunt illegally in England from a starting point in Scotland. What are the police supposed to do in such circumstances?
  My amendment would introduce clarity into an area of the law that would otherwise be confused and ambiguous. Moreover, it has the great merit of enabling people on
  796
  both sides of the border between England and Scotland to know exactly where they stand and what the law requires them to do, or to desist from doing.
  Mr. Beith: Mine is one of three constituencies directly affected by the subject matter of the amendment, the other two being Hexham and Penrith and The Border. Those constituencies are in England, are therefore affected by the Bill and border Scotland. In each case, there are substantial hunting activities on both sides of the border.
  Appreciation of where the border lies is not widespread. This evening, talking to one of my hon. Friends, I was shocked to discover that he used the expression, "north of Hadrian's wall" in the mistaken belief that all that lay north of the wall was in Scotland. Admittedly, he was from the south coast, but it showed a distinct lack of appreciation. I do not think that many people appreciate that, for example, in parts of the area that we are discussing, it is possible to travel due north from Scotland to England, or due south from England to Scotland. The border follows a complicated line, which in most areas is not marked.
  In some of the Cheviot areas, along the border, there is a two-strand wire fence that any small animal would have no difficulty in getting through. In much of the border country, there is no marking at all. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has pointed out from his legal experience, there have been cases about islands in the Tweed. The border in the Tweed is a shifting border, or at least the land shifts. The border may stay in the same place, but the land shifts and that makes it difficult to define it, so we have a practical problem.
  Eight packs of foxhounds hunt adjacent to and across the border: the Bewcastle, the North Tyne, the Border, the North Northumberland and College Valley, the Berwickshire, the Jed Forest, the Buccleuch and the Liddesdale. The West Percy in my constituency comes very close to the border and, I suspect, will face the same problem.
  Many of those hunts regularly cross the border. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said that Border Foxhounds hunts in country that crosses the border and therefore, as a matter of course, operates on both sides of the border. The same is true of the North Northumberland and College Valley hunt, which is kennelled in my constituency, but has country on both sides of the border, which is not clearly marked.
  There is, therefore, a practical problem. Although the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) was right to point out that, for many years, there have been differences in the law between England and Scotland, the one that he cited has no practical effect because there is no stag hunting in the border areas of England. For that matter, I do not think that there was much in the border areas of Scotland before it was banned; it was mainly a highland activity. The deer legislation is drafted in such a way that, unlike this legislation, it does not ban deer stalking. There is deer stalking in forest areas in the borders. Dogs may be used to assist in the locating of deer prior to their being shot. That matter is intended to be dealt with by a later amendment.
  I was slightly concerned when the Minister indicated two things that I had not realised. The first was that it had been his intention all along to ban deer stalking, but that he had now changed his mind. The second was that that

  797
  was only his view, that it was entirely a matter for the House and that there was no Government view on whether the Bill should ban deer stalking, but we will come to that later.
  There is a practical problem in relation to foxhunting. There is a practical problem for a further reason, which is emphasised in the Burns report: the nature of the country in the Cheviot and other areas. Few areas in England are more wild than the Cheviot summits or the area north of Spadeadam Waste in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hexham. Fox control in those areas is very difficult and lamping is unsuitable. That is made clear in the Burns report. There was a pretty heavy steer in the report towards tolerating some sort of hunting of foxes with hounds in those upland areas. We have passed the point where the Government would have accepted that, but what they must recognise is that, in country on both sides of the border, dogs have to be used to locate foxes and, indeed, to deal with other pests.
  That brings me to wider issues of pest control. Although we have looked at the matter primarily in relation to foxhunting itself and the difficulty faced by the hunts, gamekeepers, countryside wardens and others involved in pest control who operate on the border will face the problem of the difference in the law. It seems inconceivable that legislation will be passed by the Scottish Parliament that does what the Hunting Bill does—which is to insist that if a rabbit is flushed out, it is immediately shot with a gun. I cannot imagine that the Scottish Parliament will pass such legislation. I also think that it is now unlikely that there will be a total ban on hunting in Scotland. It is a matter of speculation, and hon. Members cannot assume that there will be comparable legislation in Scotland.
  Therefore, if a gamekeeper with a dog is dealing with rabbits and reaches the border, although there was not necessarily a requirement for him to carry a gun or to use it on his side of the border, the moment the dog chases the rabbit into England the gamekeeper will have to shoot at the rabbit. It is not sensible to put that gamekeeper in such a situation.
  The legislation would have a similar effect in relation to the celebrated topic of rats in cellars, on which we shall vote later. If a dog goes underground in pursuit of a rat and crosses the border—which is perfectly easy to do along the banks of the Tweed, for example, or in any other rough country—the situation would immediately change. The dog would have to be called off, or the gamekeeper would have to prove that he did not have any intent that the dog should cross the border.
  Much will turn on the defence that can be used in court. In many cases, it could be difficult if the prosecution insists that, as the gamekeeper was so near the border, he must have known that there was a risk of the dog crossing it. Unfortunately, however, once a gamekeeper is employed in a particular place, he has to deal with the rodents and rabbits in that place. Consequently, his work may be along the border. In such circumstances, there is no way in which he can simply exclude the possibility of his dog crossing the border.
  Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore agree that, in reality, unless we accept the amendment, the Bill's effect would be to prevent the gamekeeper or anyone else engaged in country sports from practicing
  798
  them close to the border, for fear that they would contravene the criminal law in England? Is that not to derogate from the rights of Scots?
  Mr. Beith: A solicitor might advise the gamekeeper's employer that it was unsafe to allow his gamekeeper to work in the usual way, close to the border area. I put it no stronger than that. It is similar to the situation in relation to many issues. Nowadays, employers have to take legal advice or they take risks. A solicitor might advise that it is unwise to allow such work as one might be unable to sustain a defence in court. That in itself is a limitation of British democracy.
  I do not, however, entirely follow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in making a constitutional issue of that, as it seems that there will inevitably be some differences on either side of the border. The job of this place when passing legislation is to consider the practical implications and decide whether the law goes too far in creating practical difficulties with far-reaching consequences for people on the other side of the border. Therefore, although the point is a genuine one, I do not believe that it is constitutionally improper for the Government to legislate differently for our side of the border. We just have to consider the practical consequences.
  I contend that, if we do not have some provision along the lines of that suggested by amendment No. 76, the practical consequences could be difficult. If the Bill is passed without the amendment, it would extend across the border difficulties that gamekeepers will have in England. The Bill would affect gamekeepers on the other side of the border who could otherwise perform their work in their traditional way, and might expose them to legal challenge.
  I therefore agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contention, but with a slight modification. I say that we would be creating an unfair and unreasonable practical difficulty if we did not adjust the legislation to meet that particular case. Although that is not the biggest issue raised for those categories of people by the legislation, it is a real practical issue.
  If I were a member of the North Northumberland and College Valley hunt, I would want to retain if I possibly could the hunt's rights in its own country, on the Scottish side of the border, to continue hunting. However, the kennels are in England. As there is now so little country to hunt, the hunt can hunt only one day a fortnight rather than a couple of days a week. Nevertheless, each time we hunt, we take the pack and the horses over on to the Scottish side—south into Scotland. Does that show an intent to hunt in England? I am not a hunting person, but I am putting myself in the mind of people who are. Proving one's innocence in court will be difficult, and so genuine rights are put at risk. Any cautious solicitor will tell people not to risk any such action, as a successful prosecution could ensue. It is therefore worth pursuing a proposal along the lines of the amendment, and I hope that Ministers will be sympathetic, as they have been to some of my other suggestions.
  9 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I rise to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said in moving the amendment, and I also agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

  799
  I speak tonight not as the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, but as the son of a borderer, and the grandson of a Scottish border farmer. My family was one of those that did so much to create that beautiful border countryside that lies just north of the Carter bar and runs up to Edinburgh. They will clearly be affected if the ban were to be implemented by the Scottish Parliament, and the problems will be worse if the amendment, or one like it, is not accepted by the Government.
  I spoke tonight to my uncle, Charlie Douglas, a former master of the Jed Forest hunt. He tells me that the hunt often crosses the border. However, it is not always possible to delineate where that lies, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made clear and as I may have told the House before.
  When the Ministry of Defence was seeking to establish precisely where the border ran over the Cheviot hills, officials had to call on another of my uncles. The Otterburn range extends right to that point, and my uncle, Garry Douglas, a tenant farmer on the Roxburgh estates, was responsible for farming the land right up on the border. That was sometime in the 1950s. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to a two-stranded wire fence, and that it is probably the only delineation of the location of the border.
  There is therefore a real problem in defining the point at which people who are legitimately engaged in the lawful pursuit of hunting in Scotland become criminals in England. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, there are eight hunts in the area. Four are on the Scottish side. They meet regularly, very close to the border.
  Why should people who hunt there have to change tens or hundreds of years of practice and move away from their traditional hunting grounds to go and hunt where they can be sure that they will not run the risk of becoming criminals in England? That could happen if their hounds chase after a fox which, not being clear of the geography and not having global positioning system equipment to guide it, runs off into England.
  Unless the amendment is accepted, the Bill will restrict the rights of people in Scotland to pursue their lawful activity without incurring the risk of prosecution. The Bill will require them to rearrange their hunting so that there is no conceivable risk of straying anywhere over the border. That is an important consideration. Hunting is a very popular sport in that part of the world, which fits Lord Burns' description of those remote areas where hunting is so much part of the glue and fabric of rural and agricultural society. The Bill threatens that activity.
  Hunting provides support for the local economy. It not only provides support for those who supply saddlery and farrier services but attracts foreign tourists who bring their foreign currency into the border area. That is also a help.
  There is a real risk that we are in danger of legislating to make criminals of people who are perfectly entitled to pursue their lawful activity north of the border. I am astonished that the Government have not already addressed the issue. As I recall, on previous Bills brought before the House, such points have been specifically addressed.
  Mr. Hogg: May I remind my hon. Friend that when we considered the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member
  800
  for Worcester (Mr. Foster), we dealt with the position in Northern Ireland and the problem that arose with regard to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?
  Mr. Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. The Government owe us an explanation as to why they have no, recognised this difficulty, given that it has already been drawn to their attention on previous occasions. As with so much else that the Government do, they really do not care. They certainly do not care about the countryside. They will simply ram the legislation through. I expect that they will vote against the amendment, quite oblivious to the very real risks that would be run by those engaged in lawful hunting in Scotland if their hounds or the fox strayed across the border.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, will not tell us that we are talking about something theoretical that is unlikely to happen. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady indicates that she will not say that. That is encouraging.
  Lest anyone believes that the police officers will not be interested in pursuing these matters to ensure that no criminal activity takes place, I have to say that plenty of hunt saboteurs will congregate in that part of the world. All the hunt saboteurs who will be out of a job in England and Wales if this illiberal and obscene measure goes through will gravitate up to Scotland to disrupt the lawful hunting that takes place there.
  We all know how these people work. They will go out in droves to watch the hunting. They will presumably mark out the border or have extraordinarily detailed maps of where they think the border is. They will monitor the hunting that takes place, report to the police anybody who strays across the border and demand that the police prosecute. So the police will have that pressure placed on them. We know that they are unhappy with the measure in its totality in any case.
  People in Scotland will find it extremely disturbing to have imported all these ghastly hunt saboteurs. I have never understood how people who call themselves hunt saboteurs could do other than fall foul of the law, for sabotage, I thought, was an unlawful activity in this country.
  If I were the chief constable of the Lothian and Borders police force, I would be extremely concerned about all those people coming across the border if the Bill goes through. They would cause mayhem for the police, seeking, in particular, to find those who were hunting while straying across the border.
  I feel very strongly about the personal dimension. I do not see why members of my family who fought for the freedom of these islands should be subjected to this outrageous attempt to criminalise them. If they pursue their perfectly legitimate activity in Scotland, they run the risk of being criminalised because of straying inadvertently across the border. My uncles did not fight in the second world war so that such a gross intrusion into their freedom could take place—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes her head. I can tell her that some of us do not just recite the briefings; some of us feel strongly about the matter—[interruption.] It is not the Minister's position to tell me sit down. We feel strongly about this important issue. The Minister has had time to address

  801
  it, but she and her Government have constantly failed to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friends on tabling the amendment, which I shall support.
  Mr. Hogg: I shall be brief. I support the amendments proposed by my hon. Friends. Of the two, amendment No. 77 is to be preferred but I shall accept amendment No. 76 if the Question is put on it.
  The points are simple. Foxes do not respect frontiers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has demonstrated from his family experience, foxes cross the boundary between England and Scotland—a fact that comes as no surprise to anyone who knows about foxhunting or any country activity.
  Whatever the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) says, the plain truth is that we are diminishing the freedoms of Scots. No Scots hunt could sensibly hunt close to the border where it might cross the boundary. That is also true of gamekeepers—the example cited by the right hon. Gentleman—or of people who are using hounds or dogs for rabbiting. Such people will cross the border. Having done so in the course of hunting, people who started a lawful activity at 10 o'clock in the morning will suddenly find that they are engaged in unlawful activity at 11 o'clock. The only sensible conclusion that they could come to would be that they must withdraw from the frontier, so that there is no risk of crossing it. At that point, we are derogating from the freedoms of people in the United Kingdom—for no good reason.
  For that reason, the Government ought to accept the amendment. They are in no position to say that they did not know about the matter or have had no opportunity to think about it. As I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, that prec ise difficulty was identified during proceedings on the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), when we drew attention to such problems in relation to the border between the Province of Ulster and the Republic of Ireland.
  Difficult definitional questions will arise if we do not accept the amendment. Let us assume that the gamekeeper, referred to by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, or my Scots hunt cross the border and that the person in charge of eithr the gamekeeper's dog or the hounds wants to recover the straying animals. At what point in that process of recovery does the huntsman or the gamekeeper cease to be a person hunting and become a person recovering the dog or the hound? Presumably, one has to address that principal motive. That person began by hunting and then crossed the border. Was he still hunting or was he trying to recover his hounds? That is a difficult question.
  We do not want to encourage prosecution. We do not want to diminish the freedoms of Scotsmen. The only sensible course is to accept a provision such as amendment No. 76 or amendment No. 77. If the Government say that those provisions are not well formulated and that we should reconsider them, my response is that they have access to parliamentary counsel so that is the course they should adopt.
  Mr. Beith: There is not much difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and me on this issue. We are talking of the freedom not only of Scotsmen,
  802
  but that of any person—Scots or English—who chooses to exercise his right to behave lawfully on the Scottish side of the border. It would be lawful for an Englishman living in England to offer to do some rabbit clearance for someone on the Scottish side of the border.
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is right. We are creating a trap for our fellow citizens, but it is not one without cure. We could remedy the matter by accepting an amendment along the lines of those proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington).
  Mr. Grieve: I am aware that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will know more about such matters than me, but my recollection—from staying with friends who live close to the border—is that several farms straddle the border. The gamekeeper would thus be both a Scottish and an English gamekeeper.
  Mr. Hogg: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is quite right.
  I should like to make a final point about fox sanctuaries. If foxes can be lawfully hunted one side of the border, but not on the other, they will congregate in England. That will not be terribly popular with English farmers close to the border, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) will tell us. In fact, the farmers will then shoot foxes with a will, and there will be a butchery of foxes, which is not manifestly in the interests of the fox population.
  The Minister has got herself into a pickle, but she has no possible excuse for that. She should accept the amendment; if she does not, she should table another one, and if she does not say that she will do so, we will vote against her.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: This is a wonderfully esoteric issue. Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 address a problem that has existed for many hundreds of years, although the dispute over the border between England and Scotland has entailed a lot bloody history and loss of life over many years and I do not think that even the amendments could end that tide of history.
  If I had known that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was related to the Douglases, I would not have been so kind to him during my time in Parliament. My mother's side of the family is descended from another border family with whom the Douglases were in something of a state of enmity. They were an interesting family because they lived on both sides of the border and made a steady living during the middle ages by joining the Scots when they raided and pillaged England, and joining the English when they raided Scotland. They did very well until the forebears of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) hanged them all at a place called Kershopefoot just after 1620.
  The serious matter is that, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said, the border is simply not defined. It is extremely difficult to know where the border lies amid the moorlands and forests that cross it. Indeed, the borderline has never been fixed. There is an approximate line on a map, but that is it. A fence, which still more or less exists, was put up before the war to define landowning interests, but in practice the border is not defined. In fact, a large chunk of the border was

  803
  historically known as the debatable land, because it was never agreed. It was only after the union of the Crowns that an attempt was made to define the border exactly.
  The old border law of hot trod allows people on one side of the border to pursue a criminal on the other side. It is only, I think, in the past five years that the problem of Scottish police officers operating in England and English police officers operating in Scotland has been solved. I understand that a Scottish police officer called to help the Northumbrian police in Berwick-upon-Tweed had no right as a constable until only a few years ago, when that legal anomaly was put right. There is a vast amount of historical confusion about the location of the border.
  There are predominantly two hunts in my constituency. The Border Foxhounds, which I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), has defined country on both sides of the border, so it regularly hunts across it. Other hunts will cross the border during their daily activities. It would be absolutely nonsensical if it were only legal to take a fox on the Scottish side when a pack of hounds hunting near the border split, as sometimes happens: if another fox appears, one half of the pack may go after that fox while the other half goes after the original fox. No huntsman wants his or her pack to split, but it happens from time to time. In such cases, it is not the intention but the inevitable consequence to hunt on both sides of the border.
  As I understand it, the proposals of the Scottish Parliament represent a move to a compromise and the licensing of hunts. The Border Foxhounds and other hunts would no doubt be licensed to perform their duties on the Scottish side of the border, but not on the English side. Where landholdings cross the border, that would make fox control extremely difficult.
  Incidentally, the Border Foxhounds hunts over the Otterburn military training range, which runs up to the border. The tenant farmers on the range have allowed the hunt to be their method of fox control. All the tenant farmers have a duty to control the foxes on their land and, as they have far better things to do than spend their time trying to hunt foxes, they leave the job to the Border Foxhounds, which is thoroughly efficient at controlling foxes in that area. We have debated the tamping of foxes, but one could not do that on the Otterburn training range. The Army runs night exercises there and people crawling round with high-powered lamps and rifles would not be conducive to the safety of the soldiers taking part in those exercises. The current proposals will create difficulties for the hunts that operate on the border.
  Although I am not a lawyer, I am surrounded by lawyers and that gives me some comfort. The Bill does not appear to resolve the question of intent. One may start to hunt on the Scottish side of the border and have no intention of hunting on the English side, but it is quite easy to cross the border without intending to do so.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also asked what would happen if the hounds were kennelled on the English side of the border, but were allowed to hunt only on the Scottish side. If they crossed the border during a hunt, would the fact that the kennels were on the English side where hunting was outlawed have an effect on the issue of intent? That is an interesting point.
  804
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot mentioned the importance of hunting as a social activity in the borders. It is an extremely remote part of the United Kingdom and people in the borders often live many miles from the nearest supermarket or entertainment facilities that are normally found in cities. The hunts play a key role in the social lift of the countryside. They run dances and their social activities are well patronised by many people even if they do not hunt themselves. Any attack on hunting will constitute an attack on an important part of social life in those areas.
  The whole Bill is illiberal and disgraceful. If we are to make some sense of the nonsense in the Bill, I urge the Government to accept amendments Nos. 76 and 77.
  Mr. Grieve: I am familiar with the area in question from my cousins who live in those parts. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has touched on the issue that I wish to discuss, which relates to our responsibility for the Scots and their activities. I think that the issue goes a little further than has been suggested so far, and merits some consideration.
  In the proceeding; on the Scotland Act 1998, the point was frequently made that, although that measure altered the Act of Union by introducing a devolved Parliament in Edinburgh, the Act of Union and the intentions that underlay it survived in respect of those issues that were not touched by the 1998 Act. I clearly recollect from my study of history that one of the primary benefits that sold the Act of Union was the removal of the border as an impediment to movement. It may not have impeded reivers such as my ancestors in Roxburghshire—and we have heard something about those activities—because they were unlawful visitors. However, the miracle of the union of the two Crowns in the early 17th century was that an area that had been lawless was rendered lawful in a short time, and started to prosper agriculturally. The point has often been made that, although two different legal systems operate on either side of the border, the border has become one area for the purposes of inter-marriage and the movement of people across it. Indeed, the border is unmarked in most places and is, in practical terms, completely irrelevant.
  It is right that we have a Scottish Parliament that passes laws for its part of the United Kingdom, but it has not passed any laws to ban foxhunting, which remains a lawful activity there. From my visits to Edinburgh as Conservative spokesman for Scotland, it is clear to me that Lord Watson's Bill may never reach the statute book, so hunting may never be banned in Scotland.
  Although we respect—as the Government say they do—the intent behind the creation of the United Kingdom through the conjunction of the two realms, it is astonishing that we should decide in legislation involving England, which we are entitled to make, that no exception will be made for people in Scotland who unintentionally and inevitably cross the border while going about their lawful business. The Minister will probably say that nothing can be done about that, but it is a matter that is simple to address. In the context of the Government's stated policy on devolution and the preservation of the Union, it is bizarre that they cannot create an exception that enables traditional pursuits to take place in Scotland, even if they lap over the border. That would not cause frightful difficulties.

  805
  I hope that the Minister will surprise us all and announce that the Government are pre pared to think about this issue. Their approach illustrates the petty-mindedness that has underlain everything to do with the Bill's passage through Parliament. The bigotry that has been exhibited has been woeful. I hope that we can achieve some common sense. It is possible to get this wretched Bill on the statute book and, at the same time, to provide a reasonable and common-sense exemption for traditional activities north of the border that respects the fact that the border is no more than a line on a map. That would not take us closer to putting up barbed-wire fences.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The amendments presuppose that hunting is banned in England but remains legal in Scotland. Amendment No. 76 would allow a hunt that began in Scotland to continue in England without an offence being committed. Amendment No. 77 defines when hunting would begin and end.
  I am aware that the Scottish Parliament is considering a Bill on hunting with dogs. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) ana for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) speculated on what it might permit and on its fate. I do not want to predict the outcome of the Scottish Parliament's deliberations. The future of hunting with dogs in Scotland should be left to the Scottish Parliament to decide.
  The amendments would allow a hunt that began in Scotland to continue into England without breaching the law that bans hunting with dogs in England and Wales. That cannot be right. The Bill's provisions extend to all of England and all of Wales. There is no reason why a person, because he commenced an activity in another country—in this case, Scotland—should be exempted from the intention of the House to ban hunting in England and Wales.
  9.30 pm
  If we took such a course, we should be creating a tremendous loophole which hunts in the border areas would be quick to exploit. They would ensure that they began their hunting on the Scottish side of the border, and would be able to hunt in England with impunity. Hunts that have hunt kennels located near to the border, such as those in the constituencies of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), will be required to carry out their activities in Scotland, if Scottish legislation permits, in such a way to ensure that they do not inadvertently cross the border and hunt in England.
  I am sorry to disappoint Opposition Members, but I cannot accept their arguments. The situation is far from unprecedented. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said—the hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to the matter in his opening comments—that already there is a different legal regime operating in respect of animals on different sides of the border. There is legislation prohibiting the use of dogs to take and kill deer in any circumstances in Scotland, but we know that the activity is still legal in England and Wales.
  Opposition Members argue that that is not a relevant example. However, that is a matter of opinion. I believe that it is a pertinent example. The right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed talked about gamekeepers chasing
  806
  rabbits and rodents and argued that they would have particular problems in border areas. Several hon. Members asked where the border is drawn. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, we would shortly, if time permitted, be coming to amendments which would have the effect of allowing both unrestricted rodent hunting and unrestricted rabbit hunting. If the House decides to agree to those amendments, as I hope it will, the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raised about gamekeepers will not arise.
  It has been suggested that if hunting were legal on one side of the England-Scotland border but illegal on the other, there would be problems for the police as they tried to enforce the law. The members of the Committee and Members who have read the Official Report of our proceedings—I am sure that many have done so, but those who have not should read especially the proceedings of the final day, which I think they will find entertaining—will know that cross-border policing was referred to in Committee, under what is now clause 4, which relates to the extent of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department explained in a letter that he sent to members of the Committee that cross-border policing is dealt with in part X of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That Act provides that the English police may execute warrants issued in England in Scotland, and vice versa. The Act also gives English police powers of arrest in Scotland in respect of offences committed in England provided that certain conditions are met—and, again, vice versa.
  These powers apply to all relevant offences, and hunting with dogs will not be treated any differently. The police will be able to use the powers across the border irrespective of whether the conduct in question would constitute an offence had it occurred on that side of the border. There will be no problems for the police if different regimes apply on the two sides of the English-Scottish border.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Jane Kennedy: I know that I shall regret doing so, but I give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Hogg: Let us take a Scots hunt that is hunting foxes. It crosses the border and the huntsman is aware that he has crossed the border. The hounds are chasing foxes in England. However, the huntsman wants to recall the hounds and take them back to Scotland. At what point does the huntsman cease to be a person hunting?
  Jane Kennedy: I have already said that it is the responsibility of those undertaking hunting to ensure that their conduct does not become an offence. I do not think that that is difficult for the House to understand. I reiterate that there will be no problem for the police if different regimes apply on the two sides of the English-Scottish border.
  The amendments have no basis in logic and would simply create a large loophole. If it is the will of the Westminster Parliament that an activity should not be permissible in England and Wales, that must be so. The fact that the activity began in another jurisdiction should not cut across this Parliament's wishes.
  Mr. Grieve: I do not understand the Minister's final piece of reasoning. It can be the will of this Parliament to

  807
  do what it likes. If this Parliament willed that hunting should be banned in England and Wales, but that, because of the problem of hunting on the border, there should be an exemption for Scottish hunts that crossed the border, there would be nothing abnormal or odd about it. Will the Minister reconcile those two concepts? I do not follow her argument.
  Jane Kennedy: The amendments were tabled by Members who oppose the decision that the House took to support the third option. In my opinion, they are intended simply to provide a loophole that would allow individuals to continue foxhunting with hounds by beginning in Scotland and bringing the hunt into England. We should not accept an amendment that would cut across the wishes of this Parliament and 1 invite the hon. Member for Aylesbury to withdraw it.
  Mr. Lidington: I am disappointed by the Minister's response. I should have understood it if she had said that amendment No. 76 gave too wide an exemption to the general prohibition defined in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the schedule. I do not understand, however, why she is not prepared to accept amendment No. 77, which provides a more limited and tightly defined exception, or willing to offer an alternative Government amendment if she believes ours to be technically defective.
  I find it depressing that the Minister did not even pretend to address the range of detailed and practical issues raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We received no answer to the issue of how people were expected to take decisions that the Minister expects them to take in order to keep within the law if they had no idea where the border lay. We received no answer to the intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about the point at which someone would cease to be a participant in the hunt and became in law a person who was seeking to recall the hunt in order to comply with the law.
  There were no answers to questions about the position of a landowner who gives permission to a Scottish hunt to hunt across his Scottish territories or about what he would have to do to ensure that he was protected if, deliberately or inadvertently, the hunt crossed to his properties on the English side of the border.
  I had hoped to be able to seek leave to withdraw the amendments. I remain prepared to withdraw amendment No. 76, if I may press for a Division on the more tightly defined amendment No. 77, which would defeat the Minister's argument that passing the amendment would blow a massive hole in the principle of the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order for the hon. Gentleman to do so. With the leave of the House, he can seek to withdraw amendment No. 76, and he can then move amendment No. 77 formally.
  Mr. Lidington: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: No. 77, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
  'Hunting which begins and ends in Scotland
  —(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), a person does not commit an offence under paragraph 1 if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog in England only incidentally in the course of a hunt which begins and ends in Scotland.
  (2) A hunt begins in Scotland if the pursuit of the wild mammal begins in Scotland.
  (3) A hunt ends—

  (a) when the will mammal is killed, or

  (b) by a decision to stop hunting

  and no offence is committed under paragraph 1 if the hunt begins in Scotland and the wild mammal is killed in England.
  (4) A wild mammal may not be dug out or bolted in England in the course of a hunt which begins and ends in Scotland.
  (5) Where sub—paragraph (1) applies, no offence shall be committed under paragraph 2, 3 or 4;—[Mr. Lidington.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 312.

  Division No. 132]

  [9.40 pm

  AYES

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hammond, Philip

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Bercow, John

  Harvey, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hawkins, Nick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hayes, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hoey, Kate

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Horam, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Kin g, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burnett, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cash, William

  Leigh, Edward

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chope, Christopher

  Lidington, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Collins, Tim

  LIwyd, Elfyn

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Loughton, Tim

  Cotter, Brian

  Luff, Peter

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  McCrea, Dr William

  Duncan, Alan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Nigel

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Madel, Sir David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Maples, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Gill, Christopher

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moore, Michael

  Gray, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Green, Damian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Greenway, John

  Oaten, Mark

  809

  Öpik, Lembit

  Steen, Anthony

  Ottaway, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Paice, James

  Swayne, Desmond

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Prior, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Viggers, Peter

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Wells, Bowen

  Ruffley, David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Whrttingdale, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

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

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Dominic Grieve and

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Gerald Howarth.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caton, Martin

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ainger, Nick

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Chaytor, David

  Allan, Richard

  Chidgey, David

  Allen, Graham

  Clapham, Michael

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Baker, Norman

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Clelland, David

  Banks, Tony

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barren, Kevin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Connarty, Michael

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Benton, Joe

  Corbett, Fobin

  Berry, Roger

  Corston, Jean

  Best, Harold

  Cousins, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Cox, Tom

  Blackman, Liz

  Cranston, Ross

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Borrow, David

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brake, Tom

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davidson Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Browne, Desmond

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

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Burden. Richard

  Dean, Mrs. Janet

  Burgon, Colin

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Burstow, Paul

  Dismore, Andrew

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dobbin, Jim

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Drew, David

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Caplin, Ivor

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Casale, Roger

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  810

  Edwards, Huw

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Efford, Clive

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Lammy, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Flynn, Paul

  Lepper, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lock, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Love, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  McCabe, Steve

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Goggins, Paul

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hancock, Mike

  McWalter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  McWilliam, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Healey, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hood, Jimmy

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hope, Phil

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hutton, John

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

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jamieson, David

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Joyce, Eric

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Purchase, Ken

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rapson, Syd

  Kidney, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  811

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rendel, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rogers, Allan

  Todd, Mark

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Rooney, Terry

  Trickett, Jon

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Truswell, Paul

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tynan, Bill

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Vaz, Keith

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wareing, Robert N

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Webb, Steve

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wilson, Brian

  Spellar, John

  Winnick, David

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wood, Mike

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Woolas, Phil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stunell, Andrew

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Dr. Nick Palmer.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 3, line 6, after "a" insert "deer, boar, mountjack,".
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 63, in page 3, line 6, leave out "fox, hare or rabbit" and insert "wild mammal".
  Amendment No. 64, in page 3, line 11, after "a" insert "deer, boar, mountjack,".
  Amendment No. 65, in page 3, line 11, leave out "fox, hare or rabbit" and insert "wild mammal".
  Amendment No. 66, in page 3, line 20, at end insert—
  ', or
  (d) for the purpose of shooting dead the mammal after it was found or flushed out.'.
  Amendment No. 67, in page 3, line 25, after "the" insert "deer, boar, mountjack,".
  Amendment No. 68, in page 3, line 25, leave out "fox, hare or rabbit" and insert "wild mammal".
  Amendment No. 69, in page 3, line 31, after "(3)(c)" insert "or (d)".
  Government amendments Nos. 46 and 47.
  Mr. Hogg: Amendments Nos. 62 to 69 are my amendments, and amendment No. 66 is perhaps the most important of them. It is my intention to sit down before 10 o'clock, because I am anxious that we should have a Division on the amendment.
  812
  The amendments are designed to ensure that the use of dogs for the purposes of shooting remains lawful. I am sure that the House does not appreciate that, by introducing the Bill, the Government are striking a blow against shooting. Under clause 1, it is an offence for a person to hunt a wild mammal with a dog. The defences are set out in clause 7. Under that clause, the defence operates only if the first condition in clause 7(3) is satisfied.
  In the context of hare shooting and/or rabbiting, the first condition may not be satisfied. Under the first condition, in order to use dogs to flush out rabbits or hares the purpose must be to protect crops, for example. Those who go rabbiting or hare shooting may do so simply for the sport of it, which is different from protecting crops. The first condition is satisfied if it is
  "for the purpose of obtaining meat to be used for human or animal consumption."
  That may not be the purpose of the person who goes rabbiting or hare shooting for sport. On page 100 of his report, Lord Burns fully recognised that people go hare shooting for sport, and not for the purposes set out in clause 7(3).
  The Government have frequently and loudly said that they have no intention of outlawing shooting. The Bill as originally drafted had that effect in respect of rabbiting. It is true that the Government have tabled amendment No. 49, which does not appear in this group but is in the next group, so the position of rabbiters is safeguarded. They would also be safeguarded by my amendment No. 66.
  However, the position of those who want to use dogs for the purpose of shooting hares for sport is left open. They cannot lawfully use dogs to flush out hares if their purpose is to shoot them for sport, because that does not satisfy the narrow first condition in clause 7(3). The House—and, more particularly, the shooting fraternity—needs to know that the Bill as originally and as presently drafted is a direct blow against shooters. That is the significance of my amendments.
  The Government are by stealth—like they do so much else—diminishing the right of people to go shooting, which is a lawful sport. It is just possible that the Government have made that error by inadvertence, but I have no reason to be charitable to them. I believe that, on the whole, they do things deliberately, and this is part and parcel of an overall policy of taking away rights by stealth.
  It is extremely important that the House asserts the rights of shooters The best way of asserting and defending the rights of shooters is by pressing the amendment to a Division and voting on it. By that means, shooters will know that the Conservative party stands by their rights. That is what I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will do.
  Mr. Banks rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman finished?
  Mr. Hogg: I have.
  Mr. Banks: I know that there is only a minute to go, but one can say an awful lot in a minute.

  813
  I tell the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that, yet again, he has repeated the slur, which those on his side have used consistently, that the Bill is the thin and of the wedge and that in the end it will lead to a ban on shooting and fishing. That has never been our intention or that of those in the campaign. Yet again, he has tried to confuse the House, but we are not confused.
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPENKER, pursuant to Orders [7 November and this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 324.

  Division No. 133]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hoey, Kate

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bercow, John

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Blunt, Crispin

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Lidington, David

  Brazier, Julian

  LJIley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Llwyd, Efyn

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Loughton, Tim

  Burnett, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cash, William

  McCrea, Dr William

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Mclntosr, Miss Anne

  Chope, Christopher

  Maclean Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Madel, Sir David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Collins, Tim

  Maples, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mates, Michael

  Cran, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan, Alan

  Moore, Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Moss, Malcolm

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  Oaten, Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  Ouml;pik, Lembit

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paterson, Owen

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Pickles, Eric

  Garnier, Edward

  Prior, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robathan, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gray, James

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Green, Damian

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Greenway, John

  Ruffley, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hammond, Philip

  Shepherd, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hayes, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heald, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Spring, Richard

  814

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Steen, Anthony

  Webb, Steve

  Streeter, Gary

  Wells, Bowen

  Swayne, Desmond

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Syms, Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Tapsell Sir Peter

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Wilkinson, John

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Winterton Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Townend, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mr. Douglas Hogg and

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Gerald Howarth.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Conrtry NE)

  Clelland, David

  Allan, Richard

  Clwyd, Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Coaker, Vernon

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Colman, Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Connarty, Michael

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Austin, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bailey, Adrian

  Corbett, Robin

  Baker, Norman

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ballard, Jackie

  Corston, Jean

  Banks, Tony

  Cotter, Brian

  Barnes, Harry

  Cousins, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Cox, Tom

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cranston, Ross

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Benton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Best, Harold

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Betts, Clive

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davidson, Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Borrow, David

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

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brake, Tom

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doran, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Drew, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Feam, Ronnie

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Casale, Roger

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Caton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Cawsey, Ian

  Rynn, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Chayfor, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chidgey, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gidley, Sandra

  815

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCabe, Steve

  Goggins, Paul

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Grocott, Bruce

  McDonnell, John

  Grogan, John

  McFall, John

  Gunnell, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hanson, David

  McNulty, Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  MacShane, Denis

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Healey, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heppell, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Meale, Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Merron, Gillian

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hurst, Alan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hutton, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Illsley, Eric

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

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

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Joyce, Eric

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pond, Chris

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rapson, Syd

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lammy, David

  Rendel, David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lepper, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rogers, Allan

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roy, Frank

  Lock, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  816

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Touhig, Don

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Sanders, Adrian

  Truswell, Paul

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tynan, Bill

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Vaz, Keith

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Willis, Phil

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wills, Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winnick, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wood, Mike

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Timms, Stephen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Dr. Nick Palmer.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 36, in page 6, line 37, at end insert—
  —(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make a scheme for the making of payments to persons in respect of losses incurred by them as a result of—

  (a) ceasing, by reason of the enactment or coming into force of this Act—

  (i) to carry on their businesses so far as they consist of activities prohibited by this Act, or

  (ii) to continue in paid employment so far as that employment was dependent on activities prohibited by this Act;

  (b) damage by wild mammals which were previously controlled by activities prohibited by this Act.

  (2) A scheme may, in particular—

  (a) specify the descriptions of losses and businesses in respect of which payments are, or are not, to be made and the basis of valuation for determining losses,

  (b) specify the amounts of the payments to be made or the basis on whit h such amounts are to be calculated,

  (c) provide for the procedure to be followed (including any time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims,

  (d) include provision for arbitration of any dispute as to a person's entitlement to payments under the scheme or the amounts of any such payments.

  (3) Before making a scheme under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as appear to him to represent persons likely to be entitled to payments under such a scheme.
  (4) An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in, pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Öpik.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 156,Noes 281;

  Division No.134]

  [10:14pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Allan, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hoey, Kate

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Baker, Norman

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Hurst, Alan

  Bercow, John

  Johnson Smith,

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Blunt, Crispin

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Brake, Tom

  Lidington, David

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Livsey, Richard

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Loughton, Tim

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Burnett, John

  McCrea, Dr William

  Cash, William

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  McLoughin, Patrick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Madel, Sir David

  (Rushcliffe)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maples, John

  Collins, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cotter, Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cran, James

  Mitchell, Austin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Moore, Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Oaten, Mark

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paice, James

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Evans, Nigel

  Paterson, Owen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Fallen, Michael

  Prior, David

  Feam, Ronnie

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Robathan Andrew

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ruffley, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gidley, Sandra

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gill, Christopher

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gray, James

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

  Green, Damian

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Greenway, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hammond, Philip

  Steen, Anthony

  Hancock, Mike

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hayes, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heald, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  818

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wilkinson, John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Willis, Phil

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Townend, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Webb, Steve

  Mr. Lembit Öpik and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Gerald Howarth.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coaker, Vernon

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Colman, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  (Swansea E)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Corbett, Robin

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corston, Jean

  Austin, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cox, Tom

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cranston, Ross

  Banks, Tony

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Bayley, Hugh

  (Copeland)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benton, Joe

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Berry, Roger

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Best, Harold

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Betts, Clive

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Blackman, Liz

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Borrow, David

  Doran, Frank

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Drew, David

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Browne, Desmond

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Edwards, Huw

  Burden, Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Burgon, Colin

  Etherington, Bill

  Burstow, Paul

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Galloway, George

  Casale, Roger

  Gapes, Mike

  Caton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Chaytor, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chidgey, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hanson, David

  819

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Martlew, Eric

  Healey, John

  Meale, Alan

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hendrick, Mark

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hesford, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moriey, Elliot

  Hope, Phil

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

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hutton, John

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jamieson, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Joyce, Eric

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rendel, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kidney, David

  Roy, Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ruane, Chris

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lammy, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Sawford, Phil

  Lepper, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Levitt, Tom

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Lock, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spellar, John

  McCabe, Steve

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McDonnell, John

  McFall, John

  Taylor, David (NW Letes)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Timms, Stephen

  McIsaac, Shona

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Touhig, Don

  McNamara, Kevin

  Trickett, Jon

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Truswell, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  820

  Tynan, Bill

  Wills, Michael

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wood, Mike

  Wareing, Robert N

  Worthington, Tony

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  (Swansea W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Mr. Bridget Prentice and

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Dr. Nick Palmer.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 43, in page 3, line 6, leave out ", hare or rabbit" and insert "or hare".
  No. 44, in page 3, line 11, leave out ", hare or rabbit" and insert "or hare"
  No. 45, in page 3, line 25, leave out ", hare or rabbit" and insert "or hare"
  No. 49, in page 3, line 49, at end insert—
  'Rabbits
  . It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph 1 to prove that the conduct to which the charge relates consisted of hunting a rabbit.'.
  No. 51, in page 4, line 3, leave out "rabbit or".
  No. 46, in page 3, line 37, at end insert—
  '7A.—(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph 1 to prove that—

  (a) the conduct to which the charge relates consisted of stalking a deer or flushing it out of cover, and

  (b) the conditions in this paragraph were met.

  (2) The first condition is—

  (a) that reasonable steps were taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the deer would be shot dead, and

  (b) in particular that any dog used in the stalking or flushing out was kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it did not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective mentioned in paragraph (a).

  (3) The second condition is that the stalking or flushing out took place entirely on land—

  (a) which belonged (within the meaning of paragraph 22) to the person doing the stalking or flushing out, or

  (b) which he had been permitted to use for that purpose by someone to whom the land belonged (within the meaning of that paragraph).'.

  No. 48, in page 3 leave out lines 39 to 49 and insert—
  '. It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph 1 to prove that the conduct to which the charge relates consisted of hunting a rodent.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 50, in page 3, line 49, at end insert—
  'Mink
  . It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph 1 to prove that the conduct to which the charge relates consisted of hunting a mink.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made—
  The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 295

  Division No. 135]

  [10.28 pm

  AYES

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Llwyd, Efyn

  Beggs, Roy

  Luff, Peter

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bercow, John

  McCrea, Dr William

  Blunt, Crispin

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Boswell, Tim

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Brazier, Julian

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Breed, Colin

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Maples, John

  Burnett, John

  Mates, Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cash, William

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mitchell, Austin

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Collins, Tim

  Moore, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Oaten, Mark

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Paice, James

  Duncan, Alan

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paterson, Owen

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Evans, Nigel

  Prior, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Garnier, Edward

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Gill, Christopher

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ruffley, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gray, James

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Green, Dominic

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

  Greenway, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spring, Richard

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Harvey, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Hayes, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heald, Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hoey, Kate

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tredinnick, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Webb, Steve

  Wells, Bowen

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Whittingdale, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Leigh, Edward

  Wilshire, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Livsey, Richard

  Mr. A. J. Beith and

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Allen, Graham

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Allan, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  822

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Austin, John

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dismore, Andrew

  Baker, Norman

  Dobbin, Jim

  Ballard, Jackie

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Banks, Tony

  Doran, Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Dowd, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Drew, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Edwards, Huw

  Benton, Joe

  Efford, Clive

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Best, Harold

  Feam, Ronnie

  Betts, Clive

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Flint, Caroline

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flynn, Paul

  Borrow, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brake, Tom

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gapes, Mike

  Browne, Desmond

  Gerrard, Neil

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burgon, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Goggins, Paul

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caton, Martin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hancock, Mike

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Chidgey, David

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hope, Phil

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Colman, Tony

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Connarty, Michael

  Hurst, Alan

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hutton, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Cox, Tom

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Joyce, Eric

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

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  823

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Miller, Andrew

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Moffatt, Laura

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Khabra, Piara S

  Morley, Elliot

  Kidney, David

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

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Mountford, Kali

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Mudie, George

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Lammy, David

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Lepper, David

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pearson, Ian

  Levitt, Tom

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Plaskitt, James

  Linton, Martin

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Pond, Chris

  Lock, David

  Pope, Greg

  Love, Andrew

  Pound, Stephen

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  McCabe, Steve

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Primarolo, Dawn

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Macdonald, Calum

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McDonnell, John

  Rapson, Syd

  McFall, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rendel, David

  McIsaac, Shona

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rogers, Allan

  McNulty, Tony

  Rooney, Terry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Roy, Frank

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ruane, Chris

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  Martlew, Eric

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Meale, Alan

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Merron, Gillian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  824

  Sawford, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Spellar, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Willis, Phil

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wills, Michael

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wyatt, Derek

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Touhig, Don

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Trickett, Jon

  Dr. Nick Palmer.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Remaining Government amendments agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Deferred Divisions and Mr. Stephen Timms relating to Vote on Account 2001–02 may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Question agreed to.

Hunting Bill
Order for Third Reading read.
10.39 pm
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know, 11 groups of amendments were before the House and it debated only two of them, which means that nine groups were either largely undiscussed or not discussed at all. Under the programme motion, I know that you, Mr. Speaker, must proceed to Third Reading, but it is within your discretion formally to inform the Lord Chancellor that this House has not properly or fully debated the Bill. I respectfully ask you to do that.
Mr. Speaker: I have no responsibility to do that, and I will not be doing so.
Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It should be pointed out for the record and for the benefit of their lordships that, in the debates in Committee and in the House today, those who are opposed to the Bill in principle have sought to talk at great length and with minimal content rather than debate the Bill properly. The Bill's opponents are entirely responsible for ensuring that the debates have not been as full as they might have been.
Mr. Speaker: We have Hansard as a record of our proceedings, and the other place can draw its own conclusions.
Mr. O'Brien: In commending the Bill to the House for its Third Reading, I am pleased to say that the Government have achieved their objective in promoting it. By that, I do not mean that we, as a Government, are necessarily pleased that the House has decided to adopt the option that would ban most hunting. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might have his own views on that. However, as he explained when he opened the Second Reading debate just before Christmas, our aim was to enable the issue of hunting with dogs to be resolved. The House has now taken a clear view on how it wants to proceed, and I expect that view to be strongly endorsed once more if anyone decides to divide the House at the end of this debate. We have moved closer to a resolution of this long drawn out and contentious matter.
It has always been clear to us as a Government that it would be difficult to resolve the issue of hunting through the private Member's route. Private Members' Bills work best when there is general agreement that the policy to which they give effect is broadly supported and desirable. The only way the issue of hunting could be resolved was by making Government time available, and that is what we have done. We introduced a multi-option Bill and left it to hon. Members to decide which of the options they wished to adopt.
Overall, I think that our deliberations have been very productive and surprisingly good natured. It comes as no surprise to anyone that there have been strong and at times diametrically opposed views on this issue—there have even been middle-way views on them. Nevertheless, the debates have been broadly constructive.
826
The fact that earlier today we made a number of changes to the option that the House had earlier endorsed bears witness to the fact that those on both sides of the House felt that it was possible to engage in a genuine attempt to ensure that we passed the best possible law.
I would like to thank those who helped to draft the Bill. In particular, I thank the Countryside Alliance. It did not want the Bill, but it engaged in the process of policy making in a way that deserves great praise. I extend to it my personal appreciation of the courteous and commonsense approach that it adopted in the discussions that have been undertaken. I wish, in particular, to thank John Jackson for the way in which he has managed to guide the policy development of the Countryside Alliance.
I also want to compliment the Middle Way Group. Without resources or large numbers, it fought a sterling battle for its views to be heard, whether or not we agreed with them. The hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) did the House a great service by promoting such views. They are a credit to us and I thank them for their contributions.
I extend my thanks to Deadline 2000, which prefers to be called the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals. In particular, I thank John Rolls of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Douglas Bachelor of the League Against Cruel Sports, Mike Baker of the International Fund for Animal Welfare and Bill Swan, the veterinary consultant who, with supporters throughout the country, provided a great deal of information on the option that was supported.
Those people and organisations engaged in a sensible parliamentary approach and showed that they could get results. They faced up to the policy issues and demonstrated leadership. People on the extreme wing of the animal rights movement—some of whom have engaged in the most appalling thuggery and violence—have said that the parliamentary system cannot work. I must tell them that the recent attack on the managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences was appalling and should be condemned by all hon. Members. I know that most people who support animal welfare condemn it.
The way the Bill has been handled and the constructive debate on it have shown that the parliamentary system can indeed work. Whether we agree or disagree with the outcome, hon. Members can be proud that they have demonstrated that the system allows them to listen to the debate that is taking place in the country. They have proved that Parliament is a forum for the discussion of strongly felt issues, where issues are properly debated, and that a resolution can be achieved.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister help those people who believe in democracy by saying whether the Government would proceed with the Bill, in the likelihood that it does not become law, if they are re-elected? Although I accept that their re-election is a possibility, it is not something that I would want.
Mr. O'Brien: I have made it clear that it is for the House to determine the way in which the Bill is handled. I am not going to jump ahead, which the hon. Gentleman—no doubt for good reasons—invites me to

827
do. We will listen to the debates as they proceed in another place. We have set out our neutral position, which is to facilitate debate. When the Bill goes to another place, we will take the earliest opportunity to table amendments to restore the ability to debate the three options that were placed before this House. Members of another place will be able to discuss those and form a view. The Government will facilitate that, as was done in relation to legislation on Sunday trading. We said from the start that we intended to proceed on that basis. We have tried to play as straight a bat as possible by ensuring that people know about our approach.
Mr. Soames: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps in a moment; I want to make some progress.
Today's changes have improved the Bill. They bear witness to the fact that hon. Members have listened. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who led for the Opposition. Like most—although certainly not all—members of his party, he is opposed to restrictions on hunting with dogs. He has advanced the view of people who favour the retention of hunting. I accept that he is at odds with the central purpose of the option on which the House decided, but he approached consideration of the Bill in Committee with a positive attitude and sought to improve it during its passage. I commend him for that. Some Opposition Members' speeches could have been much shorter, and there were suspicions that there was an attempt to delay progress, but I do not want to go into that. It is important that we recognise that the issue was debated sensibly and constructively.
Mr. Soames: The Minister says that he is proud of the way in which the House has handled the issue. Does he mean that he is proud that the majority in this place has been used to crush the rights of an entirely legal minority which has enjoyed its sport and way of life for thousands of years? Does he believe that that is something to be proud of?
Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, has voted consistently for a ban on hunting. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expressed his views in relation to these matters. Members have been able to put forward their views as constituency representatives. The outcome may not suit the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), but that is democracy.
The debate throughout the country has been reflected in many ways in the outcome in the House. It is good that we have been able to have a sensible debate about these matters. I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex is angry about the outcome, but he has contributed in a sensible and reasoned way on many occasions and added to our knowledge of the issues. The improvements that we have seen to the Bill, and the way in which the House has contributed to making it better law, are thanks also to him. I am sure that making good law is important to the hon. Gentleman.
828
I pay tribute to the Middle Way Group, to other organisations, to the Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats—we have heard four different views from them, and three in Committee. I thank all concerned.
I should pay a final and important tribute. The House will join me in thanking Lord Burns and the members of his team. The fact that the committee's report was cited so often by all sides who participated in the debate demonstrates what an invaluable and objective document it is. I am grateful to those who were responsible for it.

We have had private Members' Bills on this issue almost year upon year. I am delighted that on this occasion the House has been given the opportunity to consider it again collectively and reach a collective view. The vote in Committee of the whole House was decisive. Even those who do not agree with the outcome must accept that. The Bill is before the House for Third Reading, and I commend it to the House. The House should be able to endorse the Bill because it reflects its will on a free vote on a matter of conscience. It has been a good debate. It is a good Bill, and I commend it to the House.
10.54 pm
Mr. Lidington: I thank the Minister for his kind words, but I for one will not be tempted to set up house in the Government's big tent. The courtesy and humour that characterised the debate in Committee and most of the exchanges at all stages of our proceedings have been welcome. That proved possible, despite strong feelings being expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the argument. To some extent, that atmosphere has been helped by the fact that there are honourably held differences of opinion within the three main political parties. In addition, some of the heat went out of the debate when it became apparent that the Government were engaged in a charade. Trying to ram the Bill through the Commons when a spring or early summer election was more than likely meant that it stood no chance of becoming law in this Parliament.
I welcome the limited concessions made by the Government as a result of the Standing Committee's discussions. However, they do not make a fundamentally bad and misguided Bill acceptable. The Bill creates serious new criminal offences that will apply to the activities of a large number of our fellow citizens and to activities that are lawful now, and that have been for many generations past.
The Minister and other champions of the Bill have always argued that restrictions on individual liberty are justified in order to end cruelty to animals and improve animal welfare. I have gained growing confidence as our debates have proceeded and we have argued our case, examined the detail of the Bill and explored the principles behind it. It has become clear that the weight of the argument has been with those of us who opposed the Bill in principle from the start. There is welcome evidence that our arguments are being increasingly understood in the country as a whole.
Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend accept that what has been so shaming about the Government's behaviour is their complete ignorance, as revealed today, of the consequences of a ban on foxhunting? For example,

829
on the removal of fallen stock, the Minister was all at sea. The Government clearly have not thought through the consequences of the Bill, which therefore stands at risk.
Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My concern about the practical consequences of the Bill is one of three reasons why the House should deny it a Third Reading.
First, intellectual confusion lies at the heart of the Bill. Its supporters have consistently male their case on the grounds of animal welfare and seeking to end cruelty. Those are laudable aspirations, but the Bill says that hunting rodents, and, after this evening, rabbits, with dogs, is somehow okay. One need not be an expert zoologist to think that a rat must surely feel fear, exhaustion and pain every bit as much as a fox.
If one presses that point, the ground shifts. We are told that exceptions should be made for rodents or rabbits because they are vermin and becausr of the damage that they do. The moral argument h is been abandoned wholesale, and the very same utilitarian argument about vermin control can, and should, be applied to mink and foxes as much as to rats or rabbits. There is no consistent moral argument from the proponents of the Bill, and they can make no logical difference on the grounds of cruelty or animal welfare between the different species that the Bill treats entirely differently.
My second objection concerns the impact of the Bill and relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). Earlier today we debated the economic impact, the impact on the disposal of fallen stock and the fact that the Bill would render jobless and homeless significant numbers of decent, law-abiding people in some of our most remote rural areas. We know, too, from the debates that we have had on the detail of the Bill that there is still a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity about what the measure would mean in practice.
We know that the Bill is intended to lead to the demise of organised hunting with packs of hounds, but exploration of its detail makes it clear that it would have a serious impact on the work of people such as gamekeepers and farmers in their task of controlling vermin. To cite just one example, the National Gamekeepers Organisation has pleaded with hon. Members to allow its members to continue to use dogs to flush out and sometimes to catch stoats. The organisation's argument is that the control of mustelids through the use of dogs is an essential part of practical, everyday gamekeeping work, which has been ignored by the authors of the Bill.
Mr. John Greenway: Will not another major practical effect of the Bill be to ban hunting with dogs in the national parks, whereas the Burns report made it clear that that could not be done without the use of dogs? How can the Minister ask us to accept a Bill on the basis that the Government have won the argument, when they have ignored the conclusion of their own Burns report?
Mr. Lidington: The evidence of the Burns report and the arguments about the Bill have started to highlight exactly the sort of practical problem described by my hon. Friend. Many people who might previously have said that
830
they favoured ending animal cruelty and that that probably meant banning hunting will pause and reconsider whether that point of view is right, and whether a ban on hunting might have serious consequences for people trying to control pests, especially in areas of the country where the alternative methods of control investigated by Lord Burns and his team are clearly impractical.
My third objection relates to the way in which it is proposed to enforce the criminal offences provided for in the Bill. As we have not had time to consider the relevant part of the Bill in Committee or on Report, I hope that it will be debated in particular detail when the Bill passes to the other House.
Not only does the Bill create new criminal offences carrying a penalty of a fine of up to £5.000, but it provides for a specific power to arrest someone who has committed or is believed to have committed an offence. It therefore brings hunting with hounds into the category of arrestable offences that, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, is generally restricted to extremely serious criminal offences. Even those who argue for a ban on hunting cannot reasonably classify hunting with dogs in that category.
The Bill gives a constable the power to arrest not only someone whom he reasonably suspects may have committed an offence, but someone whom he reasonably suspects may be about to commit an offence. On 25 January I received a letter from the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who stated in answer to a question of mine that he had investigated what other offences were arrestable. He had found that there were a number of powers of arrest without warrant, such as those contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which stand outside the definition in PACE. However, he continued:
"None of them allow for arrest on the grounds that a person is about to commit an offence."
For the purpose of trying to stop hunting with hounds, we are giving the police draconian powers, including a power of arrest that appears to be unique and unprecedented in existing criminal legislation.
I could describe many similar examples if I had time to do so. The Bill grants power to seize a dog, but contains no provision on what is to happen during the weeks or months between the seizure and the outcome of any court proceedings. On that point, the Kennel Club told me in a letter that the Bill follows arrangements previously provided for in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. I would hardly regard that as an encouraging precedent. There are also powers to impose a life ban on owning a dog, which is a wholly disproportionate penalty for the offences that are being created.
I am conscious that many hon. Members on both sides of the House want to contribute. I believe that the Bill is hostile to individual freedom and that it will produce no gain in terms of animal welfare. It will damage the livelihoods of thousands of our fellow citizens and harm the liberty of many thousands more. I believe that it is a thoroughly bad Bill and that the House should reject it. If the majority of hon. Members insist on carrying it forward, those of us who have opposed it from its inception will carry on the struggle with growing confidence in our arguments, both in another place and in the country.
11.7 pm
Mr. Banks: For many years I have been involved in various campaigns in this place to ban hare coursing, deer hunting, foxhunting and mink hunting. In fact, a ban was one of the first things that I tried to achieve when I was elected in 1983. The House will therefore understand that I am delighted with the progress that has been made on the Bill.
I suppose that I can understand the strong feelings that have been generated on all sides of the argument. I am glad to say that friendships have remained intact despite all that, even though there have been some strong disagreements, which have occurred not only across the arguments, but within the different parties. This not a single-party issue. Splendid support has been given by a number of Conservative Members, although it has clearly not been easy for them to give so much support to the cause of banning the hunting of wild animals with dogs.
I said that I understood the deep feelings about the issue, but I must say that after all these years of listening to the views that have been expressed—I have studied as much as anyone the various arguments—I cannot understand how anyone can take pleasure in killing animals. That is non-negotiable for me. I cannot understand or comprehend how anyone can take pleasure from that activity.
I say to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that there are some loose ends in the Bill, which is untidy in certain respects. Concessions have been made, and he was right to point them out. Some of them may have been made because of the strength of the argument. Of course, one does not want to make the law unenforceable. The fact is, however, that one cannot be absolute in any legislation. I have been unhappy even about some of the concessions, but I understand why we had to make them. We have to be political about the matter, as other dimensions must be taken into account—not least what happens to the Bill when it goes into another place. I do not think that we should be berated or criticised for not being absolute in our approach. If I had my way, I would say that no one should be able to kill anything other than the odd flea, wasp or insect that gives us problems. I know that I can be categorised as an extremist in that respect, but I know how we must make this place work and I am more than happy to ensure that it does so. Even if the legislation is not all that I would want, it has certainly gone much of the way to making me feel that we have achieved something significant.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury hinted, as no doubt others will, that the argument is by no means finished. I know that the opponents of this legislation will not give up in this place, although they might have to for the moment, and that they will certainly not give up in another place. We expect much opposition in the House of Lords.
I am fully aware of the fact that the Bill will fall before the election: it will not reach the statute book. That is a perfectly reasonable statement on which we could all agree. I say to my colleagues on the Front Bench, however, that I hope that re-introducing the Bill will be a manifesto commitment—[Interruption.] This issue will never go away in this House.
I am wise enough to know that although we might be winning tonight, there are many more battles to come. I am merely saying to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench
832
that they cannot walk away from the issue. I do not want anyone in government to feel that they have discharged their responsibilities and that they can forget about the matter. It cannot be ignored, it must not be forgotten, and if it is defeated in an other place, it must be brought back. There will be people like me in this place who will make sure of that until we succeed.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the statesmanlike remarks of the Minister on this subject about the power of democracy to achieve change will only finally convince people out in the country if, at the end, a final decision is made rather than leaving the issue dangling for years to come?
Mr. Banks: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Although I have given up my ambition to be a world statesperson—
Mr. Soames: You are.
Mr. Banks: That is very decent of you, old chap. I am afraid that that view is not necessarily shared by all of us.

This is the place where we decide. There has been a majority in this House and in the country on this issue for some years. There is not a division between rural and urban people. There has always been a majority—and there is a clear majority for this legislation in rural areas as there is in urban areas. That should never be forgotten. Those who say that the Labour party does not understand the countryside or the rural vote should wait and see—as they did at the previous election—what happens at the next election. We are quite happy to sit back and rest on our record in that respect.
As my hon. Fnend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and the Minister said, this is where we decide issues of animal welfare. We have always decided issues of animal welfare in this place. Looking back over the decades, one thinks of bull baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting, otter hunting—the list goes on, and we have decided on it. Many of the arguments used when such legislation was going through the House are precisely the same as those used against the Hunting Bill. We will look back in years to come on the legislation that we have passed and wonder what all the fuss was about from those who opposed it.
I am delighted, therefore, that we have reached this far, although I accept that there is some way to go. Like others, I should like to offer a few thanks. I should like first to thank the Minister. With my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, he has had to put up with a great deal, but he has always been cool, reasonable and honest with the House, which we can all respect. Like him, I pay tribute to the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports, the International Fund tor Animal Welfare and all their professional workers and helpers for their compassion in conducting the campaign. They deserve a great deal of thanks from us and all animal lovers in this country and around the world. I am delighted with this Bill, and I am looking forward to voting in favour of its Third Reading.
11.14 pm
Mr. Öpik: It is funny to recognise that all three organisations claim that the Burns report proves that they are right. The Middle Way Group is of course the one that really is right about the Burns report, and we hope to make that case in another place.
I thank the Minister—and the Parliamentary Secretary—for his very kind words bout the Middle Way Group and my colleagues. Although the debate has sometimes been heated, everyone involved genuinely believes in doing the right thing and finding the best outcome. There is a shared belief that animal welfare is important, but the difference between us is on the degree to which animal welfare should be balanced with civil liberties, and on the best practical way of balancing those two considerations.
From the beginning, the Middle Way Group has tried to put a rational and well-argued case for balancing animal welfare with civil liberties. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and I have formed a gang of three—the three musketeers of justice—to bring reason and sense to the debate. Given our enormous secretariat, consisting of Jim Barrington, who is both our chief executive and our typist, I am surprised by and delighted with the amount of support that we have been given. I should like to thank right hon. and hon. Members who have listened to our arguments. Some of them have been persuaded, including the Home Secretary and three other Cabinet Ministers. Others may not have been persuaded to vote for the Middle Way Group' s proposals, but I am satisfied that these are now treated with respect. People understand that we are genuinely trying to provide a third option between an outright ban and self-regulation.
Dr. Palmer: What has always puzzled me about the position of members of the Middle Way Group is that they seem to oppose their own legislation. On Second Reading, they voted against a Bill that would, in principle, have given them the chance to implement their proposals. Tonight they have consistently voted against the Bill, and I would be surprised if they voted in favour of it on Third Reading.
Mr. Öpik: Hansard will answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. We have tried to make consistent judgments as best we can. He may differ with us, but that is a matter for him. I like to think that most hon. Members do not question our motives.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Öpik: I shall not give way, because time is short.
It is interesting to note that a Deadline 2000 advertisement in a national newspaper cost twice the entire budget of the Middle Way Group for three years. People should judge us on the resonance of our idea, rather than question our motives. We have battled against incredible odds, given the huge resources that other organisations have had. I am glad to say that the Middle Way Group has been on to something important, and has had a new way of looking at the issue. If it had been in existence five or 10 years ago, perhaps regulation would have been introduced, and we would not have ended up where we are now.
834
There are problems with the Bill. The way in which it has been constructed has produced enormous logical contradictions. Members of the public could be criminalised if their dogs persistently chased mammals in the prohibited list even if the owners meant no harm in their actions, but were merely not 100 per cent. in control of their animals. The Minister reassured us that, through an act of faith, we should trust that a solution will come to replace the important role played by kennels in dealing with fallen stock. The public do not share his optimism. Such an act of faith does not sit comfortably on the shoulders of a nervous rural population, who have felt hard done by for a long time as a result of Government policy.
No regard has been paid to compensation. For me at least, the Minister did not effectively explain any logical difference between a ban on fur farming, which attracted compensation from the Government, and a ban on hunting with dogs, which in his judgment does not warrant compensation from the Government. That will be an important consideration for the public.

There are other examples of moral randomness. Why is falconry all right? Why is angling okay? Why is hunting fox with dogs not acceptable? The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) again said that he was opposed to hunting any animal for fun, yet not once has he said that he wants a ban on angling, but perhaps he will intervene to correct that. It is very clear that those contradictions undermine the Bill's philosophical consistency.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones rose—
Mr. Öpik: For the sake of clarity, I ask the House to accept that I shall not give way. I think that I have a fairly good record of giving way under normal circumstances, but time is short.
What is the difference between a rodent and a mink? Mink are one of the most persistent and pernicious pests in our countryside. They are environment destroyers and they are not a natural part of our countryside and yet, for some reason that I just do not understand, the House chose not to allow the hunting of mink with dogs.
Mrs. Golding rose—
Mr. Öpik: I give way to my hon. Friend, for obvious reasons.
Mrs. Golding: So my hon. Friend should, and I thank him for it. Can he see the logic in producing publicity about protecting the water vole, whose main predator is the mink, while passing a Bill prohibiting the extermination of the mink?
Mr. Öpik: I cannot add to what my hon. Friend says. She has been assiduous and consistent in her position. Hon. Members who voted to ban mink hunting may choose to think hard about the consequences of what they have done.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones rose—
Mr. Öpik: I shall not give way, and I cannot make that any clearer. [Interruption.] It is perfectly obvious why I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and I do not need to explain why I did so.

835
My conclusion on the dynamic is that there is some emotional attachment to the fox, which may have been caused by television images. Perhaps we grew up loving foxes just as future generations will love other animals. Sometimes, cynically perhaps, I ask myself whether Roland Rat will have the same impact on a future generation of parliamentarians as Basil Brush appears to have had on the present one. If we allow emotion to determine legislation, the result will be bad legislation.
There is another contradiction about which we should be clear: the debate is about not banning the killing of foxes, but banning one method of killing foxes. The Bill will not save the life of a single fox and might serve to increase suffering through the process of fox control.
Deadline 2000, even at this late hour, can think again. It can win, but win in a fairer way. The Middle Way Group's proposals are still available. We think that they are good, and they are free. We offer them to Deadline 2000.
Again and again, the Middle Way Group's tenets have come to the fore and our claims have been reaffirmed. We still believe that stopping cruelty would be best achieved by inspection, regulation, fines and licensing and that all that could be paid for by a licensing fee. Do hon. Members who support the Deadline 2000 proposals realise that 13 of the 23 paragraphs of their Bill are in ours and that 70 of the 102 sub-paragraphs of the Middle Way Group's proposals are the same as theirs?
I did not enter the debate to beat Deadline 2000 and I did not participate to win. The Middle Way Group is not seeking victory. We are looking for solutions, so here is the deal. The Middle Way Group is still promoting its ideas and will do so until the game is completely up. We shall carry on trying to balance animal welfare considerations with civil liberties. We shall debate the issue and take feedback, as I have done tonight on the group's behalf on compensation.
If Deadline 2000 came round and began to think that perhaps regulation would achieve its goals, that would be a victory not for the Middle Way Group, but for Deadline 2000 and for the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who put the issue on the agenda. If we achieved such a result, that would be a triumph not for any individual, but for the House because it would show that, once in a while, and even on extremely emotive issues of conscience, hon. Members have the courage, maturity and humility to think again when they consider a proposal that would improve on the position from which we started.
11.24 pm
Mr. Michael: May I respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who made some good points and, with respect, some weak ones? The fact that there is a good deal of respect in the House for the way in which the Middle Way Group has put its argument, been constructive and tried to produce a workable proposal was reflected in the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister, but we must make it clear that the respect for those individuals and the effort that they have put in—in particular, I offer my respect to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for the way in which he
836
has conducted hin self—should not be taken for acceptance of the strength of their argument, which I do not think has stood up to scrutiny.
It is entirely wrong to think that a licensing system, giving rise to all sorts of bureaucracy and complications, would resolve the problems relating to animal welfare and caused by animal cruelty. That does not reduce my respect for the attempt by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to explore the possibilities, but I do not think we should go too far in demonstrating respect for individuals. We should not let it be thought that arguments have stood the test of debate when they have not.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for having the grace to give way. Will he comment on the Middle Way Group's position on the regulation of hare coursing? In what sense will the public perceive that as a genuine compromise on animal cruelty—a compromise of the kind that the words "middle way" seem to suggest?
Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The objections to hare coursing are strong. Doing away with it, rather than regulation, is the answer: that is where the Middle Way Group's proposals have fallen down.
I want to say a little about the authority with which the Bill will move from here to another place. Doubt has been cast by Opposition Members who have sought to confuse the situation rather than clarifying it. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) suggested that there had not been enough time for proper debate of the issues, but there was a massive amount of time in Committee. We heard the same argur cents repeatedly, some of them not about issues related to the Bill but intended to delay the proceedings. That is t perfectly legitimate way in which to seek to oppose a Bill, but let us not pretend that this was quality debate: sometimes it was like watching paint dry, and on some occasions it was like watching paint dry three times, and the same coat at that.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that he was worried about the fact that the Bill created new crimes, but we do that frequently in the House. Gone are the simple days of the short Bill which—as many of us point out to our constituents when we take them around this place—in a couple of lines dealt with the control of crossbows. Some of us might like the use of similar items to be controlled on our estates, but many pages would now be needed to produce such legislation. The legislation that we handle nowadays is often complex, and it is clear that legislation on hunting will involve complex issues.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of complexity. Does he know the difference between a rabbit and a hare, and can he tell me which feels pain the most?
Mr. Michael: It would have been an extremely good thing had the hon. Gentleman spent some time in the Committee, where he would have heard such points raised ad nauseam—philosophical points, which are part of the diversion that the Bill's opponents seek to introduce.
The weight of the argument has not favoured those who have tried to introduce philosophical complexities into a simple Bill. Its opponents have not been willing to engage in the detail that must be followed through until the point of principle has been dealt with once and for all. That is

837
why we need the Bill to be passed, and to put beyond doubt the principles it establishes I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Aylesbury will withdraw some of his remarks about battling on for ever. I hope he will recognise that we have had adequate debate, and that clear decisions have been made by a parliamentary majority.
That majority has great authority The decision was taken by a large majority of hon. Members on a free vote. It is that weight of individual decisions, that choice made by hon. Members in accordance with their own consciences, that gives the decision such authority. There were those who suggested that the Bill would have greater authority had it been treated entirely as a Government Bill. It has greater authority for having been decided on on the basis of the individual choices of hon. Members. The free vote gives it that authority.
The House has a responsibility to take decisions in such matters. I know that there are hon. Members who do not like this decision: we heard from them at great length in Committee. There have been occasions on which I have been one of the minority in the House and have seen something go through that I have not liked—when we were in opposition, we saw that frequently—but this is not a matter on which the parties should have been polarised. Indeed, hon. Members such as the shadow Home Secretary have demonstrated that it is possible to do other than simply go with the flow.
The authority of a decision taken on a free vote by such a large majority in this House should be respected in another place. There is a constitutional issue here, since the decision has been taken by those elected to this place to take such decisions.
I regret that the hon. Member for Aylesbury has again sought to confuse some of the issues. Any Bill has to draw lines. Sometimes those lines involve things that are untidy on one side or the other. That is what we explored in Committee. We heard about the problems of taking decisions if someone is taking a walk in the countryside. I think that many of us were satisfied that the legislation was clear and dealt with those issues satisfactorily, but the House has had the opportunity tonight, and has taken that opportunity, to clarify the lines and to ensure that there is no confusion: rabbits are out of the Bill, while it is clear that the stalking of deer is not forbidden by the Bill.
On the difficulties of demarcation with regard to rodents and vermin, the hon. Member for Aylesbury cannot argue that we need clarification and then complain about the situation when an amendment is tabled and hon. Members unanimously choose to make that clarification. The issues that were shown to be unclear in Committee have been made clear by the House's choices tonight. The Bill before us is a clear Bill. It bans the hunting of foxes with hounds. It bans the hunting of deer with hounds, but does not ban stalking. It bans hare coursing. It bans the hunting of mink on the grounds that the parallel with foxhunting with hounds for pleasure is clear. On the question of nuisance from mink, the maximum damage is caused by hunting mink with hounds.
We therefore have a clear Bill which carries the authority of a large majority in the House, not least since individual decisions were made on the basis of hon. Members' individual consciences That should be respected by the other place, which should pass the Bill with speed into law.
11.33 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I have always argued that one should have a debate in the House, but when I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Right hon."] I apologise. Having heard the speech of the very right hon. Gentleman, I am not surprised that he lost his position of leadership of the Assembly in Wales.
I was not able to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair on Second Reading. I was not on the Committee and this is the first time I have spoken on this particular Bill. I have three packs in my constituency. If Labour Members really think that they represent the view of the countryside in bringing the Bill forward, they are so out of touch as to be living in wonderland.
Ever since I began representing Honiton, and then East Devon, I made it absolutely clear that I would take no action whatever to limit activities that have been countryside pursuits for centuries, or join in any attempt by this place to alter the wishes of those who form a minority in the United Kingdom but a majority in my constituency. It is quite wrong that a vast city and town element should be able to force on people in the countryside something that is unacceptable to them.
I believed that this place should be willing to support and look after the minority interests of this country. There is no way in which this Bill does that. There is no way in which this Bill takes into account what is necessary to support activities that have been countryside pursuits for centuries, and that is entirely unacceptable. I am a parliamentarian who believes that all aspects of the nation's pursuits should be considered and dealt with fairly. The Bill does not do that at all.
An analysis of the Bill reveals that aspects of those pursuits have simply not been considered. In my constituency, a farmer had to have a cow put down because of a broken hip. However, because of the problems with foot and mouth disease, he was unable to move the dead animal without a special licence. A special licence was issued. Believe it or not, that licence allowed the animal to be moved either to a certain knacker's yard or to hunt kennels.
It is tragic that such kennels will no longer exist if the Bill's provisions are implemented. You know and I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Bill's opponents are trying to defend those kennels, with which the Government wish to do away. It is a terrifying prospect that the Bill will seek to turn quite ordinary, everyday people living in my constituency into criminals—[Interruption.]
I suggest that those who laugh at that come down and tell my farmers and constituents that they think it is funny. If they came down and did that, they would be laughing on the other side of their faces. But they do not come down to consider the issue with local hunters and farmers and with other local people. It is laughable to say that the three packs in my constituency are other than supported by farmers and the ordinary, everyday people who follow the hunt. Many of those people are Labour supporters, and they find it very strange that their particular activity is being set upon by a Labour Government.
If people believe that it is wise or intelligent to turn those people into criminals, they are so out of touch that they cannot understand. The right hon. Member for

839
Cardiff, South and Penarth shakes his head. Why does he not come down and talk to the people whose jobs will be thrown away by the Bill?
Mr. Michael; The right hon. Gentleman assumes that people who support the Bill have not discussed the matter with those whose lives will be affected by it, or listened to what they have had to say. We have done that: over time, many of us have listened, and understood.
Sir Peter Emery: If that is correct, you paid little attention to what those people had to say. You paid no attention to the way in which they will be affected or to their belief that they will be made criminals. [Interruption.] I am sorry to say that I do not believe that many ordinary, normal, law-abiding people will wish to implement the Bill. Many will take positive action against what they consider to be wrong, and they will end up in the courts. I hope that you have enough prisons to put them in, but I do not think that you will, because—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and he must not keep using the word "you".
Sir Peter Emery: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you are on my side—[Interruption.] I withdraw that remark immediately. I understand your stricture only too well.
What I am really trying to say—
Mr. Stephen Pound: Keep going. You are winning over the waverers. [Laughter.]
Sir Peter Emery: The strange thing is that Labour Members think that this is funny, and that people in my constituency do not consider it very important. If I began laughing at the views that Labour Members might express about the miners, for example, they would say that that was terrifying. This issue is as important to my constituents as are the problems faced by miners in constituencies that have mines.
What I want to hammer home is that the Government will come to regret this Bill. They have not heard the last of the matter. They do not really understand what the Bill's effect on the country generally will be. Labour Members smile about that, but they are out of touch. They believe that the Bill will be passed tonight and then get through the Lords and become law automatically. I only hope that they are proved wrong, because the proposals in the Bill would be a tragedy for the majority of people in the countryside.
11.43 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Who speaks for the countryside—the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), with his three packs, or me, the hon. Member for Pendle, with my one pack? I represent a rural constituency. Every week of my life, I meet people who work on the land. I do not represent an urban constituency; it has towns, of course, but it has a large rural element. Many Labour Members represent rural
840
constituencies. What has always stuck in my throat is that Conservative Members, with all their prejudices, proclaim in Parliament that it is they who speak for countryside. They do not.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has left the Chamber, but he talked about the majority crushing the minority. The majority view has the right to prevail. That is the reality. John Stuart Mill made that point in his classic essay on liberty—the majority view has the right to prevail but it must exercise that right defensively and not offensively. So we said, in the Chamber and in Committee, "Let's hear the arguments." However, Conservative Members have not persuaded us of their views and, more important, they have not persuaded people outside.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred dismissively to Deadbeat 2000 rather than Deadline 2000. That upset me. Deadline 2000 has the support not only of the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare—organisations which Conservative Members may consider rather tangential—but of the RSPCA, whose patron is Her Majesty the Queen. The Queen is on our side. The RSPCA has millions of members. Conservative Members paint a picture of millions of people disagreeing with what we are doing, whereas the reality is that those people support us and want the Bill on the statute book.
We hear about country sports and field sports. Why do we not hear about blood sports? Hunting is a blood sport—it is killing for fun. I think that hunting with dogs brutalises people. Conservative Members will say that I have got this wrong, but I believe that hunting brutalises people because it is cruel. For that reason, it should no longer be tolerated.
Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kehnedy), on piloting the Bill through the Committee stage with great skill. We owe them a great debt of gratitude.
11.47 pm
Mr. Tom King: I could not believe that the Government would proceed with the Bill today, given the state of agriculture and the countryside. I make no secret of the fact that I am opposed to the Bill.
There has been despair about farming for some months now—perhaps for a couple of years; now there is real fear. Vets on farms are examining animals to see whether foot and mouth will be identified on those farms. Farming is not what it was the last time there was a foot and mouth outbreak, when farm had a setback and then recovered. For most farmers today, if their animals get foot and mouth, it will be the end of their livelihood and of a family occupation which may have gone on for generations. However, the implications are much wider than that.
On the hunting 0f stags, there are 10,000 magnificent red deer in the west country and the south-west of England. There are 4,000 to 6,000 in the area covered by the three packs of stag hounds. I think that many Labour Members still do not understand the point, although I have spoken about it before, that the hunts are, in a very real

841
sense, the guardians of the deer. Hunts inhibit poaching, protect the deer and deal with the casualties. Without the hunts, nobody knows what will happen to injured deer hit by cars. Traffic has been a threat to the deer, but now a more deadly threat exists.
Deer can catch foot and mouth disease. If that happens, the Government will be faced with a ghastly decision: not on the niceties of whether or not there should be hunting or culling by shooting, but on whether to authorise the complete extermination of deer—[Interruption.] Hon. Members know that what I am saying is true. Despite the magnitude of such issues, the House has spent the day debating this measure.
I have been a Member of the House for a long time—too long, some hon. Members might say. The House has not done itself great credit by engaging in an exercise about which there is deep cynicism. No one in the Chamber actually thinks that the Bill will go through, although we know that we have no chance of preventing Third Reading. The Government will have their victory tonight. Many decent people who are in the depths of despair will be desperately distressed by these events. Although the Government will win, their insensitivity today will not be forgotten in the countryside. The time will come when they will pay the penalty for it.
11.51 pm
Mr. Garnier: I pay tribute to the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who spoke on Second Reading, have given signal service to the House and have spoken up for the issue that we seek so valiantly to defend. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), not only on his 75th birthday but on all that he has done during his many years as a Member of the House.
I join the Minister in that I am happy to congratulate the Countryside Alliance and thank it for all that it has done to bring some sanity to the debate. I found the Minister's thanks to Lord Burns rather extraordinary; they were more like a gin trap than true thanks. The Government and the Bill's supporters have wholly ignored the Burns report.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater pointed out, the Bill is a complete waste of parliamentary time and public money. Nobody who has given the matter any thought believes that the Bill will become law. The rural economy is in crisis and the country suffers from a host of problems, yet the Government decided that we should discuss the Bill today.
The Bill is more like a colander than an iron-clad. Although we plugged one or two holes in Committee and on Report, it is still more holes than metal. It will sink—and good riddance. The Bill is disastrous—drafted by Deadline 2000. It is inimical to the interests of the countryside and to the country as a whole.
A law that we frequently pass in this place is the law of the unforeseen consequence. Nothing demonstrates that more easily than the Bill. The measure was published last autumn. One did not need to be a rocket scientist to anticipate its likely consequences. Its deficiencies have been apparent to all, yet its proponents have done nothing to cure them. In the Standing Committee, it was
842
interesting to see how the jaws of the Bill's supporters dropped as they discovered that it was incompetently drafted and infelicitous.

The Bill is intellectually confused and illogical. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has ably demonstrated that, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). The Bill is also politically inept. It is economically illiterate and it tries to legislate against nature. It is a recipe for social division and is draconian in its criminal penalties. It brings with it none of the countervailing benefits for animal welfare claimed for it by its proponents. The Bill is morally flawed. It will seriously compromise the welfare of the fox, the deer, the mink, the water vole and the hare. It is illiberal. It is unfair.
According to recent polls, a majority opposes a ban, yet the thoughtless majority in the House continues to press the measure right to the wire. Not only is the Bill unfair but it will not even serve the purpose that its proponents claim for it. The only thing to do with it is to throw it out—let us do so now.
11.54 pm
Mr. Mike O'Brien: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I thank those whom I need to thank? First, I thank the Home Office officials and parliamentary counsel for the work that they have done. Secondly, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), for her solid support and for weathering the slings, arrows and outrageous compliments of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who is not now in his place but was certainly very evident in Committee.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who has been present for most of the debates and whose contribution to a ban, if it is enacted, will have been historic. As someone who originates from Worcester, I can say that Worcester ought to be very proud of him because he is one of the few new Members who have made a great impact on the House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his wise advice; my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) for his help in dealing with some complex policy issues; my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for his solid support; and my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) for his sterling job of not whipping the Bill. 1 also thank my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) who have served as Parliamentary Private Secretaries.
This short Bill was debated at length on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. There was a second full day's debate on the Floor of the House on the options and there were 15 Committee sittings, so there was ample time for debate, if only some of the speeches made by Opposition Members had been just a bit shorter.
I thought that the comments made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) were ill judged. He suggested that the only people who care about foot and mouth disease in the farming community somehow support hunting. His comments were cheap and opportunist in attempting to use the issue of foot and mouth disease to support hunters' views. Views in rural

843
communities are strong on foot and mouth disease, and he should not seek to use the issue in that way. The House is united in supporting the farming community in its battle against foot and mouth disease, so he is wrong to suggest that the House is somehow divided on the issue. I think that that was cheap.
The Bill will give effect to the wishes of the House: it will ban the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, except in specific circumstances. As a result of the changes made earlier today, it will remain legal to hunt rabbits and rats with dogs and to use dogs for deer stalking. The Bill is now more clearly focused on foxhunting, deer hunting, mink hunting and hare hunting and coursing. It is probably fair to say that those activities cause the greatest concern in this country, and the Bill reflects that.
The Bill finally puts paid to the suggestion that there is somehow a slippery slope to a ban on fishing and shooting. That is complete nonsense. After debate, rodents and rabbits were removed from the Bill, and Members showed that they would have no truck with slippery slopes. The Government support fishing and shooting. Let me unequivocally repeat the guarantee that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave: there will be no ban on fishing and shooting while he is in No. 10 Downing street.
As I have said, the Government have been neutral throughout the Bill's proceedings. Our sole aim has been to facilitate debate and to ensure that this most contentious subject can be dealt with once and for all. Let me say on a personal note that I support the Bill, even though it deals with civil liberty issues, because I do not believe that there should be a civil liberty to be cruel for entertainment. Killing for fun is wrong. I personally commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 140.

Division No. 136]

[11.59pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Betts, Clive

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Blackman, Liz

Ainger, Nick

Blears, Ms Hazel

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Borrow, David

Allan, Richard

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Allen, Graham

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Amess, David

Brand, Dr Peter

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Browne, Desmond

Ashton, Joe

Buck, Ms Karen

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burden, Richard

Austin, John

Burgon, Colin

Bailey, Adrian

Butler, Mrs Christine

Baker, Norman

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Ballard, Jackie

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Barnes, Harry

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Barron, Kevin

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Battle, John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Bayley, Hugh

Cann, Jamie

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Caplin, Ivor

Begg, Miss Anne

Casale, Roger

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Caton, Martin

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Cawsey, Ian

Benton, Joe

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Berry, Roger

Chaytor, David

Best, Harold

Chidgey, David

844

Clapham, Michael

Grogan, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hancock, Mike

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Herman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Healey, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clelland, David

Hendrick, Mark

Clwyd, Ann

Hepburn, Stephen

Coaker, Vernon

Heppell, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hesford, Stephen

Cohen, Harry

Hill, Keith

Coleman, Iain

Hinchliffe, David

Colman, Tony

Hood, Jimmy

Connarty, Michael

Hope, Phil

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Corbett, Robin

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Corston, Jean

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cotter, Brian

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cousins, Jim

Hurst, Alan

Cox, Tom

Hutton, John

Cranston, Ross

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Illsley, Eric

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Cummings, John

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Jamieson, David

Jenkins, Brian

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

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

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Day, Stephen

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Denham, Rt Hon John

Joyce, Eric

Dismore, Andrew

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dobbin, Jim

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Doran, Frank

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Dowd, Jim

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Drew, David

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Drown, Ms Julia

Kidney, David

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Edwards, Huw

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Efford, Clive

Kingham, Ms Tess

Etherington, Bill

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Feam, Ronnie

Lammy, David

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Lepper, David

Flint, Caroline

Leslie, Christopher

Flynn, Paul

Levitt, Tom

Follett, Barbara

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Linton, Martin

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Lock, David

Gale, Roger

Love, Andrew

Gapes, Mike

McAvoy, Thomas

George, Andrew (St Ives)

McCabe, Steve

Gerrard, Neil

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Gibson, Dr Ian

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Gidley, Sandra

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McDonagh, Siobhain

Godsiff, Roger

Macdonald, Calum

Goggins, Paul

McDonnell, John

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

McFall, John

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McIsaac, Shona

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Grocott, Bruce

McNamara, Kevin

845

McNulty, Tony

Sedgemore, Brian

MacShane, Denis

Shaw, Jonathan

Mactaggart, Fiona

Short, Rt Hon Clare

McWalter, Tony

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Skinner, Dennis

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, Jaequi (Redditch)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Meale, Alan

Soley, Clive

Merron, Gillian

Spellar, John

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Steinberg, Gerry

Miller, Andrew

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mitchell, Austin

Stinchcombe, Paul

Moftatt, Laura

Stoate, Dr Howard

Moran, Ms Margaret

Stringer, Graham

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Stunell, Andrew

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Suteliffe, Gerry

Moriey, Elliot

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

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

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mountford, Kali

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mudie, George

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Timms, Stephen

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Tipping, Paddy

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Todd' Mark

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Palmer, Dr Nick

Touhig, Don

Pearson, Ian

Ticket, Jon

Perham, Ms Linda

Truswell, Paul

Pickthall Colin

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Plaskitt, James

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Pollard, Kerry

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Pond Chris

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Pope Greg

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pound, Stephen

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Primarolo Dawn

Walley, Ms Joan

Prosser, Gwyn

Ward, Ms Claire

Purchase, Ken

Wareing, Robert N

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Webb, Steve

Quinn,Lawrie

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Rapson, Syd

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Raynsford, Nick

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Rendel, David

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Willis, Phil

Rogers, Allan

Wills, Michael

Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

Winnick, David

Rowlands, Ted

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Roy, Frank

Wood, Mike

Ruane, Chris

Woolas, Phil

Ruddock, Joan

Worthington, Tony

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Wyatt, Derek

Sanders, Adrian

Sarwar, Mohammad

Tellers for the Ayes:

Savidge, Malcolm

Mr. Tony Banks and

Sawford, Phil

Ms Bridget Prentice.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Bercow, John

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Blunt, Crspin

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Boswell, Tim

Baldry, Tony

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Beggs, Roy

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Brady, Graham

846

Brazier, Julian

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

McCrea, Dr William

Browning, Mrs Angela

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Mclntosh, Miss Anne

Bumett, John

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Burns, Simon

McLoughlin, Patrick

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Madel, Sir David

Malins, Humfrey

Cash, William

Maples, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Banet)

Mates, Michael

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Chope, Christopher

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

May, Mrs Theresa

Moore, Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Moss, Malcolm

Collins, Tim

Nicholls, Patrick

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Norman, Archie

Cran, James

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Curry, Rt Hon David

Öpik, Lembit

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Ottaway, Richard

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Page, Richard

Duncan, Alan

Paice, James

Duncan Smith, Iain

Paisley, Rev Ian

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Paterson, Owen

Evans, Nigel

Pickles, Eric

Fallen, Michael

Prior, David

Flight, Howard

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Robathan, Andrew

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Fox, Dr Liam

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Fraser, Christopher

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Garnier, Edward

Ruffley, David

Gibb, Nick

St Aubyn, Nick

Gill, Christopher

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Golding, Mrs Llin

Shepherd, Richard

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gray, James

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

Green, Damian

Soames, Nicholas

Greenway, John

Spteer, Sir Michael

Grieve, Dominic

Spring, Richard

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Steen, Anthony

Hammond, Philip

Streeter, Gary

Harvey, Nick

Syms, Robert

Hayes, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Heald, Oliver

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Hoey, Kate

Townend, John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Tredinnick, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Tyler, Paul

Hunter, Andrew

Tyrie, Andrew

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Viggers, Peter

Walter, Robert

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Waterson, Nigel

Kirkwood, Archy

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Lansley, Andrew

Whittingdale, John

Leigh, Edward

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Letwin, Oliver

Wilkinson, John

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Lidington, David

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Yeo, Tim

Llvsey, Richard

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tellers for the Noes:

Loughton, Tim

Mr. Desmond Swayne and

Luff, Peter

Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Deferred Divisions
12.11 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 7th March, notwithstanding the provisions of the Sessional Order of 7th November 2000 (Deferred Divisions) votes on divisions which have been deferred until half past Three o'clock on that day shall be recorded for one and a half hours after half past Five o'clock, no account being taken of any period during which the House or committee proceeds to a division.
I think that it would be helpful and appropriate, even at this late hour, to explain the effect of the motion. I shall be brief because it is straightforward. It simply shifts the time for taking deferred Divisions on Budget day, Wednesday 7 March, from 3.30 pm to 5 pm to 5.30 pm to 7 pm. I believe that this will be for the convenience of the House, as it will enable Members to listen to the Budget statement in its entirety, provided that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks with the brevity that is traditional on such occasions. I have no knowledge either of the length of the speech or its content. I hope that the House will agree to making this minor and convenient change.
12.12 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: I was sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office did not include in his remarks the time that will be allocated to the Opposition to respond to the Budget statement. We would wish to hear that speech in its entirety too. That appears not to have come into the Government's consideration.
I understand why the Minister has brought the matter to the House—
Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is not only the Conservative Opposition who are involved. I suppose that some people might want to hear what the Liberal Democrats have to say.
Mrs. Browning: It is not often that I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend, but I think that his supposition is questionable.
When the House debated deferred Divisions on 7 November, it was a rather hurried affair. It was the night of the American presidential elections; Labour Members had other matters to consider. However, the Opposition flagged up our discontent with the length of time that the House had to consider the matter that night, and our principled opposition to deferred Divisions per se. That opposition, having seen such Divisions in practice, is no less now than it was then. Deferred Divisions are an abomination and we shall scrap them when we come to office later this year, or possibly next year, depending on events.
The fact that the Minister has had to come to the House to vary the Sessional Orders for one date only shows the lack of consideration and preparation that was given to and made for them when they were put before the House and debated on 7 November.
Can the Minister indicate what other parliamentary occasions might take place on a Wednesday that would require him to come before the House with such a motion again? Clearly, he will not be able to tell us the day of
848
the Queen's Speech but in the time that remains to this Parliament it is unsatisfactory to have deferred Divisions that have not been properly thought through in practice—quite apart from the fact that we oppose them in principle.
I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful, but the motion simply shows the weakness of the system. We are all busy, and Wednesday afternoon is a busy time even when there is no Budget statement. Hon. Members have just about got used to the time allotted for the papers to be handed in, but row it is to be varied. If that keeps happening, the chances are that people will miss Divisions. Nor will Members focus on the important matters debated in the previous week. That can only diminish Members' understanding and appreciation of the work done in the previous week on matters that they themselves may not have considered, but which other Members have dealt with.
I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful, but deferred Divisions are an abomination. The sooner they are finished with, the better.
12.16 am
Mr. Michael Fallon: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). The point of deferred Divisions, which, like her, I opposed, was that we should hold them when everyone was here. Yet the motion asks us to defer them further because everyone might be here. I do not understand.
Originally, we were meant to have Divisions on Wednesdays because everyone turned up that day and it would be convenient for them to vote. Now we are to have them at another time because everyone has turned up. Somehow, it seems, people cannot stagger round to the No Lobby to vote. That seems to negate the purpose of deferred Divisions. If everyone will be here on Budget day, it will presumably be possible during the two hours allocated by the Minister for the Budget for hon. Members to walk from the Chamber to the No Lobby.
Given that the votes take place in the No Lobby, let me assure the Minister that we Conservatives will be in our places in the Chamber, listening as the shadow Chancellor makes his reply. There will be no inconvenience for Ministers or Labour Members who want to walk past us to vote at that time. We shall be rivetted to the shadow Chancellor's speech because we shall want to know what tax rates and spending decisions will apply from April, May or whenever it There will be no question of Conservative Members getting in the way while the Government's Back Benchers seek to troop from their side of the House to vote in the Lobby behind us.
Mr. Edward Davey: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has lost faith in his leader, who, I believe, usually replies to the Budget. My substantive point is that I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, does not support a motion that will allow the whole House to listen to the Budget statement. Is he against that idea?
Mr. Fallon: We have had no indication from the Minister that the Budget statement will last the full two hours that he has allocated, if it is anything like the previous Budget statements to which we have all had to

849
listen, I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity, while the Chancellor drones on about the latest research and development tax credit, or whatever wheeze he may have dreamt up to appease some lobby group, to slip out to vote.
Mr. Hogg: In all probability, the Budget will be leaked in advance anyway.
Mr. Fallon: That possibility had occurred to all of us, and may afford us more time to vote.
My third reservation about the Procedure is that the Minister assumes that the Budget will consume a full two hours. The previous Budgets introduced by the Chancellor have not consumed two hours, so I am a little puzzled about why the Minister is allowing us from 5.30 until 7 pm to vote. He may want to detain or divert his troops into voting in the Lobby so that they do not have time to plough through the press releases attached to the Budget. Who knows? He may not want them to focus entirely on the Budget message.
The fourth and final reason why I am suspicious about the motion is that yet again we are changing the Standing Orders of the House to please the Prime Minister. It is he who has not been turning up to vote in Divisions. We have arranged Divisions specially on a Wednesday so that he can be present and vote on all the various matters on which he has missed voting at 10 pm. The Minister now wants to change the Orders of the House yet again.
The Budget has had to be moved from the Tuesday to the Wednesday because the Prime Minister cannot come to the House on the Tuesday. Notwithstanding his duty to the House, he will be making some speech on the environment on the Tuesday. The changes are all because the Prime Minister cannot be here o i the Tuesday and he must be here on the Wednesday. Once again, we must change the hour of voting to accommodate him.
We have been messed about enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, deferred Divisions are an abomination. If Divisions are to be deferred, they should be deferred to the day after the debate has taken place. If there is a problem with hon. Members attending at 1, 2 or 3 am, why cannot they turn up the next day?
To move the entire procedure to a Wednesday—as one of my hon. Friends once said, just to allow hon. Members to turn up to sign the visitors book—is an abomination. Now, because there is some special event on the Wednesday—there will be other special events and speeches on Wednesdays—we are told that voting will have to be shifted yet again. To time the voting for the entire previous week to a particular hour and a half to suit the Government of the day is an abomination piled on an abomination. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose it.
12.22 am
Mr. Eric Forth: I echo the remarks of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). Let us be clear about what has caused the proposed change. We have seen many examples recently of the Government's casual and arrogant attitude to the House and its traditions and procedures.
850
It is bad enough that we have the ghastly deferred Division nonsense on a Wednesday—I hope that when the Library starts to produce the Division lists, that will be shown as the sham and the mockery that it is—but it is compounded by the fact that the Government have decided that the Budget will be on a Wednesday this year, for reasons that are not clear to any of us. That has caused the Government to get themselves into what they perceive as a difficulty. There is a conflict between the nonsense of the deferred Divisions and the Budget statement. Why does that conflict arise?
I question the assumption that underlies the motion. The assumption is that at 3.30 on Wednesday 7 March the Chancellor will start to deliver his Budget speech, and of course, 3.30 is the time specified in Sessional Orders for the deferred Divisions. But how do we know that that will be the case? Is it not possible that a private notice question could be granted on that day by the Speaker? We live in times of crisis. Crises surround us daily—almost hourly. I saw on my television this evening that there was a crisis Cabinet meeting this very day. How do we know that there will not be further crises? Regrettably, the existing one may still be with us on 7 March, which is not so far distant. It is entirely procedurally possible that Mr. Speaker may see fit to grant a private notice question for that day.
Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of the House. If he reflects on them, he will remember that private notice questions always come after statements.
Mr. Forth: Yes, but the issue that arises has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Sevenoaks: the casual assumption about whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will be squeezed out by some combination of events that we cannot foresee. With their usual arrogance, Government Front Benchers are saying that they want to arrange the business of the House to protect the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, but they do not give a damn about the contributions of my right hon. Friend and—let us be charitable just for a moment—of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
One way or another, the House is being asked to change its own arrangements, including even the Sessional Orders that were thrust upon us only a few months ago, because the Government cannot get their act together or organise their business properly. For that reason, they are asking us to sweep aside for their convenience not only longstanding Standing Orders, but the Sessional Orders that they imposed to deliver this ghastly sham of deferred Divisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said that the proposed arrangement was designed to protect the Prime Minister. I wonder whether that is the case. On the face of it, it is designed to enhance the Chancellor's glory, but whether that is to the benefit of the Prime Minister is another matter altogether. Some people—admittedly they would be uncharitable—might argue that the glorification of the Chancellor would not benefit the Prime Minister. However, the question of whose benefit the arrangements are designed to serve is significant and deserves exploration. Are they for the benefit of the Prime Minister or the Chancellor? I shall not dwell on that question; I leave it hanging in the air, as it is relevant to the motion.

851
All in all, the new arrangements now appear to be a complete shambles. There are conflicts of Standing Orders and Sessional Orders, and the Government want simply to move things around to suit themselves and the Chancellor. They are arrogant enough to ignore one of the great longstanding traditions of the House: the guaranteed opportunity of the Leader of the Opposition to respond immediately to the Chancellor's Budget statement. That task is always acknowledged as one of the most difficult to be faced by a Leader of the Opposition. It was regularly mangled by Commissioner Kinnock, but has been carried out with some brilliance by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), so I can see why the Government might want to conspire on this little plot. They are afraid of him and they might want to squeeze him out.
We are not afraid of that, but, in the context of granting the Government ever more frequent opportunities to play fast and loose with the traditions of the House and its Standing and Sessional Orders, we are afraid that the motion is merely yet another example of how they regard the House of Commons and way in which it works. That is deplorable. The Parliamentary Secretary tried, as Ministers now routinely do, to say that this was a small technical matter of little consequence. He seemed to suggest that it could be dealt with late at night and nodded through, and that nobody need be concerned or interested. We are concerned and interested, however, and I hope that we will hear from him some more substantial and persuasive reasons for the Government's actions than he has so far been prepared to provide.
12.29 am
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to support my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
I have particular and general reasons for opposing the motion. My particular reasons are those identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. The motion makes provision to protect the Chancellor, but Government Front Benchers entirely overlooked the need to provide time for my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). They also overlooked the need, if that is the proper word in this context, to provide time for the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Three possible conclusions can be drawn, and they probably overlap. One is that Government Front Benchers are plain selfish; another is that they are plain discourteous; and another is that they are wholly incompetent. Indeed, there is another—that they are all three together, which I suspect is the truth.
The Government's decision was probably taken this way: "Oh, we must protect the Chancellor." They did not initially think of the Opposition's response, because they never think about the Opposition. They do not want to hear a response; they simply want to ram their business through. Someone probably then said, "But what about the Opposition?" to which they said, "Damn the Opposition", as they usually do in one way or another, and "Wouldn't it be funny to see their Members going out to vote while the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks
852
was speaking?" Plain selfishness, plain discourtesy and plain incompetence are bound up together, which is rather typical of this Labour Government. That takes me to the second point.
We should not be conferring respectability on deferred Divisions. The Parliamentary Secretary is doubtless worried that none of his right hon. and hon. Friends will vote in a deferred Division. If that happens, I say jolly good show. We should not be having deferred Divisions. It is profoundly humiliating to see right hon. and hon. Members with their little pink forms in their hands, scurrying around to see a little Whip to say, "Oh do tell me how I should vote", when they had not attended the debate, know nothing about the subject, care not about it all—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are not discussing the principle of deferred Divisions but the particular deferred Division that is to take place next week.
Mr. Hogg: Indeed I am talking about the particular as well. I was theorising that the Parliamentary Secretary was concerned that Members would not vote in the deferred Division on 7 March. I was saying that it would be a jolly good thing if they did not, and was explaining why, not in general but in particular terms—the particular term being that the process is a disgrace. Therefore, on 7 March, if Labour Members choose not to vote or are unable to vote, that will be a jolly good thing.
I shall be careful not to vote on Wednesday 7 March because I do not wish to confer respectability on the process. I was very cheered by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton saying that we would bury the practice. If she had not said it, I would have done so. When we are in government, let me make it plain that I shall never, ever vote in a deferred Division because I think that the practice is a disgrace.
Mrs. Browning: I reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that he will never be asked to do so.
Mr. Hogg: That is a good thing because if I were asked, I would not do so. Little pink forms and little Whips, running around asking how I propose to vote on 7 March or, indeed, at any other time are an absurdity.
There is the final Point, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst drew attention: this Government's fast and loose practices. Not so long ago, we laid down the Standing Orders that provided for this nonsense. In order to placate or accommodate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Prime Minister of the day—here today, gone tomorrow—we are being asked to change our rules again. Why on earth should we? Here we are in this old, established legislature, and we are being made a monkey of by monkeys.
12.34 am
Mr. Tipping: This has been a lively debate. It has become more lively and enthusiastic as the evening has progressed. I do not wish to curtail the debate, but hon. Members who have opposed the motion opposed in principle the issue of deferred Divisions. They have made their position very clear. The position of the House is very

853
clear: deferred Divisions are an experiment and the time will come when Members will have the opportunity to reconsider the experiment.
A number of points have been made about the time available for deferred Divisions. The No Lobby will be open until 7 o'clock, which will give Members ample opportunity, if they wish, to listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Leader of the Opposition's reply. The shadow Chancellor may reply to my right hon. Friend after the next general election when a new leader of the Conservative party is in place.
The point has been made by Members who are well versed in the traditions of the House that it is traditional for a Budget statement to be made on a Tuesday. If they looked back at the record they would see that Budget days are not always on a Tuesday. In 1997, it was on 2 July, which was a Wednesday. In 1980 and 1963, it was on a Wednesday. In the 1960s, it was always on a Monday. There is nothing in particular about this year's statement being on a Wednesday.
I am disappointed but not surprised to be called selfish and discourteous.
Mr. Hogg: And incompetent.
Mr. Tipping: I am happy to live with that last insult, but not selfish and discourteous.
Mr. Hogg: And incompetent.
Mr. Tipping: I shall not engage in that debate. It was a lively debate, and it gets livelier as we proceed. I believe that the motion is for the benefit of all Members. I do not believe that it is selfish or discourteous. It is right that all Members should have the opportunity to listen to the Chancellor and to the response, and to vote in deferred Divisions if they wish.
Question put:—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Tipping: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that this would be a deferred Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker: My apologies to the House. It must have been the liveliness of the debate.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once a Division has been called, I think that it has to be proceeded with.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not the case. The Division will be deferred.
Division deferred till Wednesday 28 February.

Vote on Account 2001–02
12.38 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move,
That paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply on a day not later than 18th March as if the words '(aa) votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.
I have no doubt that we shall have an equally lively debate on this motion. Standing Order No. 55(2)(a) covers votes on account with questions to be put not later than 6 February. The purpose of the motion is to amend the Standing Order so that a vote on account resolution can be taken with the spring rather than the winter supplementary estimates.
The procedure is to meet the requirements of the House when it is necessary to take estimates at a different time than is normally allowed for in Standing Orders. This procedural change is part of the process of introducing resource accounting and budgeting to allow Parliament an additional three months to scrutinise 1999–2000 resource accounts before voting Supply for the first time, and to produce a more accurate reflection of Departments' needs for the early months of 2001–02 by basing the proportion on account for resources and cash on the anticipated provision for 2001–02 main estimates. I commend the motion to the House.
12.39 am
Mr. Oliver Letwin: We have no objection in principle to the change of date.
Mr. Eric Forth: Oh really!
Mr. Letwin: I speak for the official Opposition. I may represent forces unseen rather than those visible in the House.
We have no objection in principle to the alteration of the date, which was prefigured in either 1997 or 1998 and is a necessary consequence of resource budgeting. As the Financial Secretary is well aware, resource budgeting commands the support of and was originated by the Conservative party. While we are at it, resource budgeting is a matter of consensus between all parties, which is not something that recommends itself to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend says that the alteration was prefigured in 1997 or 1998. Can he guess, imagine or speculate as to why such an important change to Standing Orders is being considered by the House now?
Mr. Letwin: No, I cannot. My right hon. Friend makes the good point that it would undoubtedly have been better had the House had time to consider the issue. Indeed, we could have had upwards of two years to do so. Although it is remarkable that we have been given only a few days, I would not wish to oppose the substance of the change of date.
I reiterate two points that emerged during proceedings on the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and which, alas, do not seem to be reflected in the documents that underlie the debate. First, the Supply estimates for

855
2000–01 remain wholly obscure to any ordinary intellect and it is impossible for any ordinary Member of the House to discern from them what on earth is going on. It was presumably Gladstone's intention when he devised the system that it should illuminate rather than obscure the nature of Government accounts. It has remained the case, however, that the presentation of those accounts obscures rather than illuminates. To put it mildly, that is regrettable.
It will take time to change the system under which we have all laboured for some years. Although I do not accuse the Government of having invented it, no Member of the House has the slightest idea of what is voted for what and why or the size of any increase, and the Select Committees that inspect those matters do so in a manner that unfortunately leaves much to be desired.
Mr. Edward Davey: Shameful.
Mr. Letwin: This is not a party matter and, as the hon. Gentleman says from the Liberal Benches, it is ultimately shameful that we all sit here, year after year, voting on account and, ultimately, voting on the estimates themselves without having the slightest idea of what we are collectively doing.
Mr. Michael Fallon: As an extraordinary intellect, perhaps my hon. Friend can explain why he supports changing 6 February to 18 March in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 55? Why is such a change suddenly wholly defensible? Can he explain the significance of the extra 40 days?
Mr. Letwin: Yes, I think I can, although I cannot explain the substance of the Supply estimates, which is a more serious problem. My hon. Friend is a member of the Treasury Committee and I suspect that he cannot explain that to me, either. The 40 days, the Financial Secretary will agree, are occasioned by the fact that the timetable set for resource accounting some years ago envisaged a termination date approximately 40 days later than that used in cash accounting. I believe that that will occur only in the first year of resource accounting, although I am subject to correction.
As we began the practice of resource accounting and have supported it throughout, and as it is material to implementing certain of our most important policies—for example, restructuring the approach to pensions—we want to give a fair wind to whatever needs to be done to make resource accounting work.
Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend said that most Members do not have the slightest idea of what Ministers intend. Does he think that the Minister whom he faces this evening is acting knowingly or from a position of nescience?
Mr. Letwin: If I may, I shall correct my hon. Friend, who is normally punctilious in his accuracy. I did not say that I thought that very few Members knew what was going on. I said that no Member did, and I meant that. I do not believe that there is any living Member of the
856
House of Commons—indeed, there has probably been no living Member for a long while—who has, or had, the slightest idea of what is really going on in the supplementary estimates.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is probably one of the most intelligent members of the Government, and I do not mean that ironically.
Mr. Forth: It wo uld not be difficult.
Mr. Letwin: I shall let my right hon. Friend's comment pass in silence.
I suspect that, despite having the advantage of—if I remember correctly—some 2,000 of the most intelligent officials in Whitehall behind him, the Financial Secretary also has not the slightest idea of what is in the estimates, because no living human being could understand them. They were not invented to be understood; they were invented as an art form. There is a serious administrative problem here, which is not being faced.
Before I end what I had intended to be a rather briefer speech, let me mention another problem, which I think could be cured much more quickly.
Mr. Fallon: Before my hon. Friend deals with that problem, may I point out that some Back Benchers try to keep up with policy that is made on the Front Bench? Obviously, it involves us from time to time.
My hon. Friend seemed to say that he supported this change because it was a one-off. I see no reference to that in any of the four estimates already presented for the next year in the Vote Off ice. Is my hon. Friend saying that he supports this change resource accounting just for the coming financial year, as a one-off change, and does not support a permanent, change in the Standing Order?
Let us be clear. We are not being asked to change a Sessional Order; we are being asked to change a Standing Order, which is a serious matter.
Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I understand—although I am subject to correction by the Financial Secretary—that in either 1997 or 1998, when the matter was first raised, it was intended that the change of date should apply to the first year's preparation because of the delay entailed in the original programme for resource accounting I believe it is intended that thereafter resource accounts should be produced according to the timetable that previously applied to cash accounts, which would permit—and I suppose, therefore necessitate—a reversion of the Standing Orders to their original form after the event.
Mr. Edward Davey: I think I can elucidate. The Financial Secretary may wish to intervene, but the Order Paper specifically refers to a "Vote on Account 2001–02". I understood that to mean that the change in the Standing Order would apply only to that vote.
Mr. Letwin: That is what I, too, understand the effect to be—the Standing Orders will subsequently revert to their original form.
Mr. Fallon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful if the Chair clarified one point. The phrase to which both my hon. Friend and the

857
hon. Member for Kingston and Subbiton (Mr. Davey) have referred—the title of the motion, "Vote on Account 2001–02"—does not feature in the motion. The motion simply translates the words "votes on account for the coming financial year"—and, once we have changed the Standing Orders, that will apply to any financial year—from Standing Order No. 55(2) to Standing Order No. 55(3), thus allowing for the extra 40 days.
As far as I can see, nothing in the motion specifically relates it to the year 2001–02. I should be grateful if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could clarify whether we are changing the Standing Orders simply for the accounts in the coming year, or whether we are doing it for every financial year, as the current Standing Orders suggest.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): We are merely changing the Standing Orders
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your understanding—which is also mine, from my reading of the Order Paper—seems to contradict what the Minister indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), from a sedentary position. The Minister indicated that, as far as he was concerned, this was a change to the Standing Order only in respect of the accounts for the financial year 2001–02. It might assist the House if the Minister told us whether your understanding and mine, Madam Deputy Speaker, is incorrect.
Mr. Timms: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I help the House by making the position a little clearer? The intention is that the change will apply to this year only. The vote on account, which would normally be based on a proportion—45 per cent.—of the current year's figures, cannot be so based this year because there is no set of resource accounts to use. Therefore, exceptionally, the 45 pet cent. proportion is based on the projection of spending next year. Therefore, the measure needs to be used only once. When we get to the winter accounts next year, we will be—
Mr. Fallon: Further to that poir t of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order The Minister was replying to a point of order. I would prefer him to conclude his remarks before taking a further point of order from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Timms: Next year, it will be possible to construct the vote on account in the normal way. It will then be taken with the winter estimates, as has always been the practice.
Mr. Fallon: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister's explanation is absolutely correct and assists the House. However, the motion cannot be right because it amends our Standing Orders, not a Sessional Order. The changes apply permanently. Standing Orders are not changed from Session to Session and will incorporate the words
"votes on account for the coming financial year".
That will apply for every coming fin mcial year. If it is a one-off motion—I think that the Minister has made it clear that it is—the title of the motion should have been
858
incorporated in the motion. I therefore ask you whether it would be possible to defer the matter until the Financial Secretary has reworded the motion and cleared the matter up.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The matter cannot be deferred. Those are matters for debate.
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely if the Minister's intention were to be reflected in the motion, it should have said, at the very least, "on a day not later than 18 March 2001", to put it beyond doubt that it was a one-off and time limited. What the Minister has stated as his and the Government's intention is not reflected in the motion. That obviously causes the House some confusion. Are we to believe the Minister' s explanation, or the words on which we will be asked to vote? That is what we need your guidance on.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised are not points of order, but matters for debate.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems that you understood, and I and my hon. Friends understand, that the motion is to change Standing Orders.
Mr. Fallon: For any year.
Mr. Howarth: For any year. If the Minister's intention is that the motion should apply only to the accounts relating to the coming year, it will be necessary, once those are disposed of at some later date, for the House to be invited again to change the Standing Orders. Therefore, it seems to us that the motion, in the terms in which the Government have moved it, is defective.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The motion that we are discussing is as on the Order Paper. Whatever the interpretations or implications of that are, they are a matter for debate.
Mr. Bercow: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but the position is now gloriously unclear and hon. Members will, I think, require clarification. If the practice that is proposed this year to embody the Government's intention is to be discontinued in a future year, will a motion of revocation be required—yes or no?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with the point of order.
Mr. Bercow: No, you have not.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have given a ruling on the point of order. The motion that we are debating is as stated on the Order Paper. The other points that have been made are matters for debate
Mr. Letwin: I come back to the Dispatch Box a humbler and a wiser man. I think that it is clear that the debate—which was not a debate but rather a series of

859
points of order—has brought out an important point that is a point of debate: that although the intent of the change is entirely innocuous, it is so drafted that it will necessitate, as I first speculated, a further change at a later date to achieve the intent. I take it that, later in the debate, we shall receive an assurance from the Minister that the change in relation to the following year will be forthcoming on a subsequent occasion. If so, I can return, but wiser, to the proposition that, in principle, we have no objection to what the Government are seeking to achieve.
Mr. Fallon: Madam Deputy Speaker has surely ruled absolutely correctly. The Minister is trying to change the Standing Orders and has tabled a motion so to change them. However, as a consequence of Madam Deputy Speaker's ruling, he has made it clear that he will have to change the Standing Orders again. I submit to my hon. Friend that that is an abuse of Standing Orders. The purpose of Standing Orders is to be standing—they should govern our conduct Session after Session. The Minister has said that he is changing a Standing Order but will have to have to change it again for the next financial year. Therefore, he should not be pursuing this particular procedure today.
Mr. Letwin: I agree with my hon. Friend that, now that the debate which was not a debate has revealed that the motion is less well worded than it should have been, it would have been better if the Minister had arranged for it to be properly worded initially.
Mr. Timms: The procedure that we are following is an entirely normal one. As I understand it, a subsequent change will be needed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the intent of the motion. However, to achieve that intent, we have had to proceed as we have. There is no other way of achieving that intention.
Mr. Letwin: I am learning more and more, but, unfortunately, I am learning conflictingly from my hon. Friends and from the Minister. I know not whether this is the ordinary way of proceeding. Regardless, as we are agreed that the intent is reasonable, I shall rest there for a moment.
860
I should like, however, to draw attention to what is not in the right order at all—the matter of how we are to reconcile the colum, ns in the vote on account that are to be the subject of the vote to which the change in Standing Orders refers. In our consideration of the Government Resources and Accounts Act, we very carefully and—I am sure that the Financial Secretary would agree—at inordinate length spelled out the dangers and difficulties of operating simultaneously a cash and resource accounting system. We made it completely clear, and abundantly clear to the Financial Secretary, that, to enable any sensible discussion of those votes on account to occur, it would be necessary for the House to be able to reconcile the cash figures with the resource accounting figures.
Even a cursory inspection of the figures in the columns will show that, as is not unexpected, the cash requirement is in many cases si gnificantly in excess of the resource accounting figure. The difference between those figures will lie, presumably, in that part of expenditure that is investment and which is not therefore a loss, in profit and loss terms, and so does not enter into the resource accounting figures. That is understood.
However, there is an oddity. In principle, in a steady state, the cash expended in one year as investment should replace depreciation from a previous year. It is of the utmost importance that we are able to understand the relationship between the excess cash going into investment and the depreciation in the resource accounting figures. Otherwise, we will not know what is happening to capital expenditure and its relationship with the assets being depreciated.
That is a severe, and odd, deficiency. I have not checked Hansard, but I seem to recall that we were given assurances during the passage of the Government Resources and Accounts Act that the problem would not arise and that reconoiliations would be shown. I hope that the Financial Secretary will ask his officials, at a more opportune time of day, to provide reconciliations. In that way, when the accounts come up for voting, we will at least be able to understand the broad headings and their reconciliation one with another.
As I said earlier, no one in the House will understand anything about the supply estimates. That is a much greater problem but one that can be remedied over time, as we develop a system of accountability that enables the House of Commons to hold the Government to account in a knowledgeable and pellucid way, rather than in a form that is opaque and lacking in knowledge.
Sir Peter Emery: I apologise to the House that I was not present at the start of the debate, but I have been watching it in my office. I hastened here before retiring to make a considerable point.
If the Government intend that the provision should apply only for the limited period of this year, they should introduce a Sessional Order, which will fall. They have introduced an alteration to Standing Orders which they will have to change again. Can anyone imagine anything more crazy than that?
Mr. Letwin: I have moved from ignorance, through a wiser state of confusion, and now the clouds have parted and I emerge into the light. My right hon. Friend knows more about the House's procedures than almost any other living person. He has explained for the first time how the Government should have acted. I hope that the Minister will take due account of that preferable way of achieving his intention.
1.2 am
Mr. Edward Davey: We have heard some fairly poor arguments in the debate, and especially in respect of the motion. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that Standing Orders cannot contain temporary provisions, and that Standing Orders relating to financial matters cannot be changed by Sessional Orders.
If Standing Order No. 55 were not amended in the way proposed, the House would not be able to receive votes on account for the coming financial year based on resource accounting. The arguments that have been advanced tonight therefore fall at their first examination. We should put aside what we have heard so far, and address the substance of the motion.
Like the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), Liberal Democrat Members have nothing against the proposal. The proposed timing charge is exactly right, and the proposal has not been foisted suddenly on the House. I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure that considered the issue We published the second report, HC 438, for the 1997–98 Session. All these issues, particularly the need to have resource-based accounts for 2000–01 in the spring, were foreshadowed in Treasury memorandums to the Select Committee inquiry and were reported on by the Committee.
The Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, in evidence to the Select Committee, referred to that change, as did the chief officer for accountancy, Professor Andrew Likierman. Therefore, nothing should come as a surprise to right hon. and hon. Members if they have followed the process carefully.
I am concerned about two issues at the heart of the argument and what lies behind it. The first is how the House changes its Standing Orders. The Government propose changes to Standing Orders. Although that has been the case for a number of decades it did not used to be. The Chair used to propose changes to Standing Orders until, in the 1920s or 1930s, the Government took over that power. I believe that it was a major constitutional change that slid by the House. We should revert—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman there. This is not an occasion for a wide-ranging debate on how Standing Orders work. It is a very narrow motion and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who were thinking of contributing would confine their remarks precisely to the motion before the House.
Mr. Davey: Of course I will do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely seeking to argue that the process of changing the Standing Orders that is before us is not a good one. I think that I have made that point.
My other concern is that the reason for this change that was foreshadowed in the Procedure Committee report has not been met. Paragraph 30 of the report shows that the Treasury said, and the Committee accepted it, that the reason for this specific change was that
"Since parliamentary approval for the Vote on Account would not then be sought until March 2001, that would allow Parliament an additional three months to scrutinise the first set of published Resource Accounts"—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) says from a sedentary position that the Financial Secretary has already said that. He did not say that in specific terms—he gave a separate excuse for that point. I am going back to the reason that was given to the Select Committee—the real reason. As I was saying, paragraph 30 of the report says:
"Since parliamentary approval for the Vote on Account would not then be sought until March 2001, that would allow Parliament an additional three months to scrutinise the first set of published Resource Accounts before voting Supply on a resource basis for the first time."
I took the liberty earlier this evening to talk to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I asked him whether, to his knowledge, either his Committee or a Select Committee had scrutinised the first set of resource accounts.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that the motion is to do with a simple change to a date in a Standing Order. That is all. I would be grateful if he would confine his remarks to that.
Mr. Davey: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am doing that. I wish to explain myself. The quote to which I referred was about that change. I am concerned that the reason that was originally given to the Select Committee for the change has not been met.
I am concerned that the House and Select Committees have not scrutinised the first set of published resource accounts—the reason we were given for the need for delay. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury might argue that that is the fault of Select Committees. That may be so, but why have they failed to take those measures? I have raised the matter previously in debates on the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. If I went into the reasons for what has happened, I should be out of order, so I will not take that route—
Hon. Members: Go on!
Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the idea that such scrutiny could be conducted effectively between now and 18 March is ludicrous?
Mr. Davey: I concur with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Indeed, I agreed with what he said during his opening remarks—that the accounts and estimates produced on the resource basis are not as clear as we were promised in the Standing Committee on the legislation that foreshadowed this proposed change in the Standing Orders.
The House spends much time debating such matters as Standing Orders and procedures, but spends little time on the substance—the cash and resources that we are sent to this place to scrutinise. That is a major problem—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again wandering off the subject. I should be grateful if he would now conclude.
Mr. Davey: I have done so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
1.11 am
1.11 am
Mr. Michael Fallon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the motion presents the House with a difficulty that your predecessor in the Chair this evening was able to clear up. Madam Deputy Speaker reminded the House that we can debate only the specific motion before us.
We are in a difficulty for two reasons, however. The title of the motion, which is not of course part of the motion, is "Vote on Account 2001–02". Madam Deputy Speaker ruled and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury clarified that the alteration of the Standing Order cannot possibly apply simply to the vote on account 2001–02, because we are altering a—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make it plain to the hon. Gentleman that, this evening, we are simply changing a Standing Order in the way set out?
Mr. Fallon: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that was the purpose of some of the earlier points of order. I was drawing the attention of the House to the title of the motion—"Vote on Account 2001–02". As Madam Deputy Speaker implied, something is wrong; if we are changing a Standing Order, it cannot be related to a vote on account for a particular year.
Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might help the House if we try to clarify the exact status of the rubric—the title of the motion. Surely, the title "Vote on Account 2001–02" is an error. That indicates the Government's intention, which is that the vote is for this year, but the title should simply read "Vote on Account". If the motion were to go to a deferred Division—as is possible—might the offending figures, "2001-02", have been removed by the time the voting paper appears? I believe those figures to be an error.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. That title "Vote on Account 2001–02" is not
864
an error. If he reads the Standing Order that is being changed, he will see that it refers to the "coming financial year".
Mr. Fallon: The House is in some difficulty. The present Standing order refers to the "coming financial year", but the provision for votes on account for the coming financial year is being translated from the paragraph applying to 6 February to the paragraph applying to 18 March. By changing the Standing Orders, that will apply to every subsequent financial year. Am I not correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say that the change in Standing Orders will apply to every subsequent financial year?
Perhaps that change has to be classified in House of Commons business as a vote on account for 2001–02, but shortly before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister conceded that he will have to change the Standing Order again for the future year, so something else is wrong. Of course the date of 18 March should only apply to the current year. The motion should state 18 March 2001, because the Minister has already made it clear that he will have to change it for the future year.
I hope that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that something is wrong; either the rubric is slightly misleading, or the date is incomplete, because the Minister has conceded that he is changing a Standing Order, but only on a temporary basis, and that he will return to the House to change it again the following year.
Mr. Bercow: The possibility of 18 March being a Sunday obviously needs to be adequately addressed.
Mr. Deputy Spe aker: Order. That intervention is irrelevant.
Mr. Fallon: I had not considered the possibility of 18 March occurring on a Sunday.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Fallon: I shall, of course, give way if my hon. Friend wants to make a separate point.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I was making only the first of two points, and I know that he will be attentive to that fact. Does he not agree that to be told, in effect, that changing the Standing Order involves changing the Standing Order is not only a tautology, but about as useful as Heidegger's "nothing noths"? Does he agree that we need to know—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be very careful if he is attempting to criticise the Chair in any way. It is very ill-advised.
Mr. Fallon: I shall not pursue the phrasing of the motion any longer; I simply leave the House with my suggestion that it would have been better entitled, "Alteration to Standing Orders", rather than, "Vote and

865
Account 2001–02", and that it might have been more complete if it had included reference to the year after the date in line 2, but I shall not pursue that matter any more.
We have some further difficulties, given what the Minister has said. I now fully understand, although there is no reference to this in the motion, that the change is intended to accommodate the greater change to resource accounting and budgeting. The Minister has not quite explained that to me, and I am further baffled by the reference made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) to three months because I understand that the change involves approximatetly 40 days. I do not understand how it somehow allows the House or its Committees a further three months for scrutiny.
Mr. Edward Davey: Under Standing Order No. 55(2), which relates to a date in February—
Mr. Timms: It refers to 6 February.
Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the Minister for that comment. Under Standing Order No. 55(2), votes on account were traditionally put before the House in November. That is why the change was suggested, and why it would allow an extra three months to scrutinise the resource accounts, but that has not taken place.
Mr. Fallon: I hesitate to correct my hon. colleague on the Select Committee on the Treasury, but, in effect, the Minister is, as I think I have now said four times, translating the provisions of paragraph (2) to paragraph (3); he is changing the date from 6 February to 18 March, which allows an additional 40 days. Of course the House allows an additional 40 days under Standing Order No. 55(3) in certain circumstances—for votes that relate to defence services, and there may well be good reasons for that; for supplementary estimates and equally I can understand why there may well be good reasons for that; and for excess votes, but only provided that they have been scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. In other words, the additional 40 days are allowed and provided for under our Standing Orders, but that is subject to certain safeguards and they are allowed only for a certain category of votes.
In proposing the change, the Financial Secretary is, in effect, classifying all estimates for the subsequent financial year under the category covered by Standing Order No. 55(3). All those estimates will fall under what was previously screened off for three particular categories alone. The change deserves a greater explanation than he has given us tonight.
The Financial Secretary should have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)— perhaps he will when he responds to the debate—why the change is being made so long after the move to resource and account budgeting was first traded. He has had a number of years in which to make the change to the Standing Order, and I am slightly puzzled why he is doing it this year.
Mr. Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fallon: Yes, but I hope that this intervention will be a little more fruitful than the previous one.
Mr. Davey: I shall not rise to that bait. The change could not be made earlier because the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 had to become law before it could be made. Until that happened, this change to Standing Orders could not be put before the House.
Mr. Fallon: I am not particularly satisfied by that explanation, either. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 has been law for some time.
Mr. Davey: This is a new Session.
Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a new Session but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) reminded us, we are not dealing with Sessional Orders. We are dealing with the Standing Orders of the House, and they are not produced or revised every Session at the whim and convenience of the Government. Any change to them is a very serious matter. These Standing Orders were reprinted a month ago, so I am puzzled as to why we are now being asked suddenly to amend them. Why did the Financial Secretary not introduce the change a little earlier in the Session so that we would not now be rushed into making the change after the period beginning in February had already begun?
Once the Act to which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred had become law, the Financial Secretary could have come to the House to make the change. He is making it at a very late stage in the proceedings and, in the normal course of events, the estimates that he is trying to translate from Standing Order No. 55(2) to 55(3) would be presented in the next couple of weeks in any event. He could and should have made the change very much earlier in this Session.
Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend aware that, between now and March 18—which is a Sunday by the way—only 12 parliamentary days are available. Of them, a number will be taken up by the Budget and the Budget debate. Is he not rather worried by that fact?
Mr. Fallon: I am concerned about that. My right hon. Friend has anticipated my remarks, because I was about to refer to the votes that are currently available in the Vote Office. At the moment, only four have been presented and they are all dated February. The first is for £120 million and is for the central Government supply estimates. The second is a vote for £212 million, which is the vote on account for the House and its running costs. The third—the vote on account for the National Audit Office—is for £46 million. The final vote is the supply estimate for the Electoral Commission, which is £4 million. Only four documents are before the House. My right hon. Friend may well want to explore when the remaining documents will be presented and how we will have sufficient time to conclude our deliberations on them before 18 March because, as the Leader of the House has indicated, there is substantial business to discuss before then.

867
As for what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was struggling to say, the purpose of the Standing Order, as I understand it, is to ensure that everyone—including the PAC and the departmental Select Committees—has sufficient time before the beginning of the financial year to subject the estimates to reasonable parliamentary scrutiny. However, if we classify them as matters that do not have to be considered before 6 February, we will weaken the scrutiny of the departmental Select Committees and the control of the PAC.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. The Treasury and the Procedure Committee decided that we needed three months to consider the first set of resource accounts so that the House would have some knowledge of how they were used and of their structure. As a result, we could then scrutinise the estimates that would be covered by the Standing Order. It is the accounts that are relevant, not the estimates.
Mr. Fallon: The motion refers to the estimates, not the accounts. We are not dealing with them.
Mr. Davey: The Standing Order was changed to enable departmental Select Committees to get used to the new system by studying the first set of resource accounts. That is what the Procedure Committee was told and it is what Her Majesty's Treasury set out in memorandum to justify the change.
Mr. Fallon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has studied the motion. It refers to the voting of estimates, not of accounts. We are discussing the estimates and asking for the departmental Select Committees and the PAC to be given time to consider them. We have been subjected to a confused procedure. The Financial Secretary has been caught out trying to amend a Standing Order on a temporary and sessional basis. He has been honest enough to concede that he will return to the House—presumably next November or December—to amend the order again so that it does not apply to 2002–03.
Mr. Andrew Miller: The reciprocal argument is that we should give the Government the power to commit a future Parliament to the provisions of a Standing Order. Surely it is only right that we pass an order that is relevant for the time being. A future Parliament must have the right to change it. The Financial Secretary cannot make that commitment, however good he is, and I respect him greatly.
Mr. Fallon: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon will speak. The whole point of a Standing Order is that it has been considered by the Procedure Committee and is adopted not for a Session, but for the long-term conduct of business.
Mr. Miller: Is it unamendable?
Mr. Fallon: It can be changed at a later date, but it must be distinct from a Sessional Order. There is no point in having orders that can simply be changed by any Government motion.
Mr. Bercow: We all understand the point about parliamentary sovereignty, but does my hon. Friend take the view, in so far as he can interpret Government thinking, that Ministers intend that the change should be subject to automatic expiry and the requirement for representation, or rather that it will continue ad infinitum—
Mr. Deputy Spt aker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is at it again. We are debating changes in the Standing Orders before the House, not what may or may not happen in future.
Mr. Fallon: That must be right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps my hon. Friend has been misled by the already stated intention of the Minister that the motion is not really a change to the Standing Order. It will be replaced by a subsequent change, which may or may not be a Sessional Order, a standing Order or whatever.
The change weakens the authority of the Public Accounts Committe e. It will make it more difficult for the departmental Select Committees to do their work because it completely changes the time scale. It does so at a late stage in the process. After all, we are already between 6 February and 18 March. If the change were to be made, it might not be unreasonable to conclude that it should have been made before we entered the period after 6 February. The House is entitled to a better explanation.
1.31 am
Sir Peter Emery: I do not like to find myself in difficulty when dealing with matters of procedure. I have no doubt that the motion, which is to insert
"(aa) votes on account for the coming financial year",
to be "inserted after line 21" on page 35 of the new Standing Orders, would be a permanency. It would apply for this year and every coming year. As I understand it, that is not the Government's desired intention. That was made clear when the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who has left the Chamber, said that he would introduce an alteration to the new Standing Order that we are being asked to pass.
If the Government had wished the change to apply only to the coming year, it would have been possible to have introduced it by means of a Sessional Order. I am being told that that is impossible, but the new Sessional Orders that we have had since 7 November last year have introduced programme motions, Programming Sub-Committees, a different procedure for amendments and deferred Divisions. Against that background, I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the House, if it desired the change to be made only for the year, to introduce a

869
Sessional Order, which would fall at the end of the the Session. Apparently, that is what the Government desired to do.
Mr. Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery: Yes, I suppose so.
Mr. Davey: I think that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, the Sessional Orders to which he has referred are not designed to change anything that is currently in the Standing Orders. If a change were made by Sessional Order, there would be a conflict with Standing Orders, and the occupant of the Chair would understandably have difficulty in interpreting the will of the House with respect to Standing Orders.
Sir Peter Emery: If the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for his intervention, believes that it was not a change to Standing Orders to introduce deferred voting on a Wednesday, thus altering the whole structure of voting, I can only say I do not know what would be.
Mr. Fallon: In the appendix to the Standing Orders, it is made clear—I do not know whether it refers to a Sessional Order or whether, since it is in the appendix, it is a Standing Order—that the order referring to deferred Divisions applies only for the next Session of Parliament. Surely that is the route that the Government should have chosen for this change.
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is what a Sessional Order is: it applies only for a specific Session.
The difficulty is that we shall introduce the words on the Order Paper as a permanent part of Standing Orders. There is no doubt about that. The doubt is whether the Government intend that. They have already had to admit that they must introduce an alteration to the motion that they are asking us to carry tonight. That is not the most sensible managerial way in which to deal with Standing Orders. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have to interpret the Standing Orders, and I am sure that you cannot believe that to be the best way in which to proceed.
It should be clear to the House that if the Government insist on carrying the motion, they will have to make an alteration soon to prevent it from applying in the next Session. Perhaps it would be more sensible of them to withdraw the motion and reintroduce it as a Sessional Order. Everyone could then agree to it. The Government would get what they wanted, but in a sensible way as regards Standing Orders and Sessional Orders. That is what I recommend them to do.
1.36 am
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I, like you, I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, voted consistently against televising the proceedings of this place. However, we have just heard a good reason why televising the House has brought some advantage. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) was able to observe our proceedings from his office and then come to
870
the Chamber to deliver himself of a lucid speech explaining why the Government have made a mistake in the way in which they have sought to present the motion.
Two issues face us. One concerns the arrangements regarding the motion. The other is the presentation of accounts. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made clear, the accounts are extremely difficult to follow.
On the motion, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) was helpful in reminding us of how matters stood before resource accounting was introduced. The votes on account would then have come forward in November, giving the Public Accounts Committee and the House plenty of time to consider them in advance of 6 February, the cut-off date by which the votes on account must be presented to the House for consideration.
The Government have been unable to produce those accounts in time for 6 February. Indeed, they have brought them forth tonight, so they are already, in a sense, out of time in respect of Standing Orders. I am happy to give way to the Minister if I am wrong on that, and I hope that he will say something when he winds up. Already, the accounts are out of date, and the Government must therefore amend the Standing Orders, either by Sessional Order or by changing Standing Orders, so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said, the arrangements for votes on account for the coming financial year can be moved from paragraph (2) to paragraph (3). However, as my hon. Friend points out, that leaves only 12 working days in which the accounts can be considered by the House, and the clock is ticking.
The Standing Orders before us are brand new. They were printed not last year, but as recently as 23 January. The Government seem to have mismanaged the business. They allowed Standing Orders to be printed a month ago, yet they are now inviting the House to amend Standing Orders.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The date on which the latest edition of Standing Orders was published is not relevant to the changing of the Standing Order before the House this evening.
Mr. Howarth: My point was that as we have so recently re-published the Standing Orders, the Government should have realised that they were due to present accounts to the House by a certain deadline—in the case of votes on account, by 6 February—and that to amend Standing Orders so soon after producing new Standing Orders was nonsensical, or at least a mismanagement of the arrangements. I am not sure how far the Government are responsible for the printing of the Standing Orders; I imagine that the Leader of the House has responsibility for that and must communicate with other Ministers.
I shall not labour the point, but it is worth noting that the documents before us are already out of time. Unless the Government do something quickly to change Standing Orders or by way of a Sessional Order, there is no way that the House can consider the documents that the Government have presented to us. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon is right to say that the change should have been made by way of a Sessional Order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing alternative ways of doing these things. We are discussing

871
the Standing Order which, if the House so decides, will be altered this evening. We are not here to discuss other ways in which we might have dealt with the matter.
Mr. Howarth: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that my right hon. Friend had suggested that that should have been done by means of a Sessional Order. We are being invited to consider a change to Standing Orders, a matter which the House should consider carefully, as Standing Orders are designed to maintain a certain continuity in the House and should not be changed at whim by Governments, willy-nilly.
There should be an element of continuity. The House should be invited to change Standing Orders only when there is a serious reason for doing so. In the Government's view, the introduction of deferred votes was sufficient reason for Standing Orders to be changed. We disagree, but I accept that the Government were entitled to do that. To change the Standing Order in respect of votes on account is wrong.
My second point relates to the accounts themselves and to the clarity thereof. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said that they were not entirely illuminating, and he doubted whether anyone understood exactly what they meant. Without disputing the amounts involved, I invite the Minister to explain the accounts. I do not understand why, for example, when there is in the central Government supply estimates reference to the Postal Services Commission and the Royal Mint, there appears under the heading
"Total forecast net resource requirement at Main Estimate on which provision on account is based"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that we are not here this evening to discuss the details of the accounts. We are here to discuss the change in the Standing Order before the House, and I should be grateful if he would direct his remarks to that.
Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
One of the reasons advanced by the Government for the change in Standing Orders is resource accounting, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. We discussed some aspects of the presentation of accounts earlier. The Financial Secretary will have noticed the discrepancy between the £1,000 net resource requirement and the £101,000 cash requirement, which is 100 times that amount, in respect of the Postal Services Commission. Perhaps he can briefly explain that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Financial Secretary cannot briefly explain that, as it is not in order.
Mr. Howarth: I used the word "briefly", but I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We should all be grateful for the vote on account in respect of hon. Members' salaries. We all at least want to ensure that matters relating to hon. Members' salaries are not out of order, or our bank managers might be very unhappy campers.
872
The Government have clearly had some difficulty with the application of resource accounting within the timetable that was envisaged for the more generally established cash-accounting mechanisms. Indeed, they have made an error in tabling the motion. I believe that the means by which they have sought to implement the proposal—a change in the Standing Orders—is not appropriate, but I accept that some change must be made. The votes on account are dated 27 February, but it is clear that they should have been presented to the House for consideration before 6 February, so I accept that some action is necessary.
1.47 am
Mr. Eric Forth: It has become obvious that the motion is largely about time and timing, so it is also inevitably about Government competence. The crucial times have become clear during the debate. The clock started running as far back as 1998 or 1999, when, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) pointed out, resource accounting was launched on at unsuspecting world. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, we all knew what parliamentary—and therefore procedural—response was required in respect of the introduction of resource accounting. That much seems clear and relatively uncontroversial, but then we come to the mystery.
The next crucial dates are 6 February, 27 February and 18 March. We know that existing Standing Orders require that these matters should have been dealt with by 6 February. Presumably, the Government knew that way back in 1998 and 1999. One would have thought that a competent Government would make proper provision and come to the House in plenty of time to give it an opportunity to reflect on the time scales. We should have been allowed to consider what was required, especially as this was a new process that we would all have to get used to. A competent Government would have looked ahead, planned, consulted and then made a proper alteration to Standing Orders or Sessional Orders.
However, none of that happened: 6 February came and went and we now find ourselves on 27 February with this badly drafted motion on the Order Paper. It asks the House not only to approve a change to Standing Orders, but to accept that these important matters, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) pointed out, involve billions of pounds, must be considered between now and 18 March. My diary tells me that there are 12 parliamentary days between now and 18 March. As that day is a Sunday, it is of no use to us, and neither is 17 March, unless the Government intend to suggest that we start sitting on Saturdays and Sundays to help them out of their mess. However, the situation is worse than that because those 12 parliamentary days also include the day of the Budget and the Budget debate.
So, unless the matter will be tacked on to or subsumed by the Budget debate—I would have thought that that would be procedurally unacceptable—the Government are saying to us, "As at 27 February, we will give the House of Commons a very small amount of leeway and time in which to consider matters that involve billions of pounds of expenditure, covering a wide range of issues." As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, that includes defence issues, matters relating to the House of Commons itself, a very long list of detailed items of departmental expenditure, and so on.

873
This is extremely unsatisfactory to say the least, and how we have got ourselves into this position is self-evident: the Government are either incompetent, or, worse—this is a more sinister explanation—they have conspired to bring the matter before the House so late as to give it insufficient time to consider not just the procedural matter but the substantive matter.
Mr. Edward Davey: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this point, much as I should like to. I have here a document dated 24 March 1998, which contains the phrase:
"Since parliamentary approval for the vote on account would not then be sought until March 2001".
The House was told more than two years ago that we would not be asked for approval for the vote on account until March 2001. Therefore, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's argument seems to Fall.
Mr. Forth: I am not sure that it does. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to help me; his expertise in and influence on these matters is beyond doubt. If we knew about the matter all along, why has it been brought before the House on February 27, late at night, in a rush, not allowing the House to give it proper consideration? That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves.
Mr. Letwin: Does my right hon. Fiend agree that the genesis of the change is that the Government believe, as, regrettably, Governments have for a long time, that votes on account and, indeed, the whole of the rest of the panoply of the Gladstonian system, are formalities and that we should be asked to vote through £250 billion with hardly a nod or a wink?
Mr. Forth: I fear that my hon. Friend is all too correct in his analysis. Yet again, we have an example—this is a very glaring and expensive one—of the Government genuinely believing that parliamentary scrutiny, whether of financial or any other matter, is so marginal and irrelevant that it can be reduced to the proposed process for both the motion before us and Standing Orders generally. I do not want to get too distracted by the debate—
Mr. Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (House to sit in private):—
The House divided: Ayes 1. Noes 62.

Division No. 137]

[1.55 am

AYES

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. Eric Forth and

Mr. Gerald Howarth.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Cann, Jamie

Austin, John

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Banks, Tony

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Clelland, David

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Coaker, Vernon

Burgon, Colin

Coleman, Iain

Butler, Mrs Christine

Cox, Tom

874

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Mudie, George

Davidson, Ian

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Dobbin, Jim

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Drew, David

Öpik, Lembit

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Pearson, Ian

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Pope, Greg

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Purchase, Ken

Hendrick, Mark

Rendel, David

Hepburn, Stephen

Roy, Frank

Heppell, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Hill, Keith

Sawford, Phil

Hood, Jimmy

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Hope, Phil

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Timms, Stephen

Hurst, Alan

Tipping, Paddy

Jenkins, Brian

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Leslie, Christopher

Ward, Ms Claire

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

McAvoy, Thomas

Wood, Mike

McNulty, Tony

Woolas, Phil

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Tellers for the Noes:

Miller, Andrew

Mr. Graham Allen and

Moffatt, Laura

Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Forth: Furthermore— [Interruption.] It is very gratifying to address such a lively House at this hour and I trust that that interest will continue for quite some time. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No.") Oh yes, for quite some time. We were discussing Standing Orders. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 100 Members are required to vote on a closure motion so the Government Deputy Chief Whip would have to magic up another 38 Members if he wanted to try to truncate the debate, which I am sure is far from his mind. We can relax, enjoy a full-length debate with no threat of Government truncation and explore the important matter before us.
We were talking, were we not, about time—which is very appropriate, given what has just happened. In this instance, "time" relates to how the Government can possibly expect the House to be able to give proper consideration to the billions of pounds to which we have referred, in the brief period remaining between today and the date of 18 March that is mentioned in the motion.
As I have said, there are few enough parliamentary days, and many of those will already be committed. How can the Government expect us to do justice to the items in the accounts? They involve detailed matters, and matters requiring considerable debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has already indicated their opacity; that would be bad enough, but their length, breadth and depth suggest to me that, in all conscience, we should give them much more time than the motion allows.
This is yet another matter—not the first that we have encountered this evening, and perhaps not the last—that places a substantial question mark over the Government's competence. It certainly places a question mark over their attitude to the House of Commons and the role it has played through the centuries, acting on behalf of the taxpayer in scrutinising accounts and satisfying us that matters are as they should be. It cannot be right for the

875
Government seriously to suggest that this pathetically inadequate amount of time can do justice to that job of scrutiny and accountability.
Confusion has featured throughout the debate. There has been procedural confusion; confusion has also been created by the fact that the Minister's version, rulings from the Chair and the text of the motion all seemed to be at odds. The only proper way out, surely, is for the Government to withdraw the motion and table another that reflects accurately what the Minister tells us is his intention and that of the Government. I hope they will do so, because that would contribute in a small way to correcting what all of us who have spoken consider to be a grotesque error on their part.
2.8 am
Mr. Timms: I have rarely felt such pride in the stamina and commitment of my hon. Friends. We have had a thorough discussion, although I am not sure that thoroughness has always been matched by illumination.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for reiterating his party's support for the changes, which might otherwise have been in some doubt, and for his kind remarks. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for his expert comments—he was able to shed important light on what had been said. I will certainly take up the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for West Dorset about the reconciliations.
As the debate has made clear, it has been said for the past three years that—for reasons I explained earlier—we need to take the vote on the account in March 2001. The procedure we adopted is entirely conventional; changes in Standing Orders are very common. I understand that the motion affects this year only, although it may well be necessary in future to change Standing Orders so that we can handle resource accounting and budgeting expeditiously.
Mr. Fallon: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms: I will give way once more.
Mr. Fallon: The Minister has honestly and honourably conceded that the motion may apply only for this particular year. Where does it say that in the motion?
Mr. Timms: It is, of course, a matter for the occupant of the Chair if the question is one of order, but my advice is that the form of words that has been adopted is to have effect for this occasion only. However, as I say, a change in Standing Orders in future may be necessary to ensure that the House handles resource accounting and budgeting expeditiously. There was some discussion about when the Standing Orders were most recently printed. The Government are not consulted about when Standing Orders are printed; that is a matter for the House.
The change that we are considering has been referred to repeatedly in discussions of resource accounting and budgeting over the past three years. It was set out again, for example, in the Treasury memorandum of January 2000 to the parliamentary Committees dealing with
876
resource accounting and budgeting. It is in the interests of the House that the motion be agreed. On that basis, I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply on a day not later than 18th March as if the words `(aa) votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Ordered,
That the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to Data Protection and Freedom of Information shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made,
That—
(1) the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.
(2) the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet at the County Hall, Cwmbran, on Monday 12th March at half past Ten o'clock and between Two o'clock and Four o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).—[Mr. Pope.]
Hon. Members: Object.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)
Motion made,
That Standing Ordet No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
Line 31, at end add—
`() The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.—[Mr. Pope.]
Hon. Members: Object.

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. Pope.]
Hon. Members: Object.

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

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as folows:
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. Pope.]
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. Pope.]
Hon. Members: Object.

Rail Commuters (Castle Point)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
2.12 am
Mrs. Christine Butler (Castle Point): I feel that we have come on a long, wearisome and tedious journey tonight. I take the unusual step of apologising to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has borne it out so well. Although I know that he has visited some of the subject matter of the debate previously this year, I have about 4,500 daily reasons to be here. Those are my travelling constituents, the poor commuters who have to make these journeys daily on the train to get to work and back. My focus will be on the peak hours when commuters have to travel.
Castle Point has one of the highest out-commuting rates that I know of. Practically two thirds of its work force leave the borough daily to go to work. Some of them go just over the border to Basildon or Southend, some go a little further to Chelmsford, some go to parts of north and east London. Many of them work in the City. Approximately 3,000—I am going on bald figures—take the whole journey to Fenchurch Street and back on the train.
Because we have such a large commuting outflow, we are not just engaged with railways. If we look at the patterns, we will see that roads, too, figure largely. I know that the Under-Secretary of State went to Castle Point briefly last year and saw for himself some of the problems of congestion there. In my constituency, we have some traffic hot spots of which he is aware and which I hope he will revisit soon. One of them is the Sadler's Farm roundabout system, which I believe should become a grade-separated junction, especially in view of its strategic location in the south-east Essex economy and in the overall Essex economy.
In my maiden speech, I dealt with another hot spot—Canvey way. I distinctly remember describing in that speech the slowly moving convoys of traffic coming on to and leaving the island in the morning. I do not think that I have left that subject for very long at any time in this Parliament.
Access to Canvey island is perhaps an even more contentious and important issue. I was delighted when Castle Point was included in the Thames Gateway regeneration project, making it a regeneration area. As such, last summer, its name shone out of a Government document stating that the Government wished to examine the potential for improved access to Canvey island.
All that is very relevant. Traditionally, we have been a low-employment area. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that our long-term objective must be to ensure the creation of more quality jobs within the borough to help to mitigate the effects of excessive out-commuting, which has become so necessary in the post-war period as the community of Castle Point has built up.
It is therefore essential that the journeys that people have to make by train should be comfortable, pleasant and reliable. Sadly, that has not been the case. Traditionally—

879
even in the good old days of British Rail—the line between Southend and Fenchurch Street has been known as the misery line.
Mr. Alan Hurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problems with the service extend throughout the whole length of the line? As a regular commuter and traveller on the line, I can confirm that the trains are drafty, unclean and, frankly, bone-shaking. Recently, I was talking to two county councillors who represent areas surrounding Laindon station, which is a slow train stopping station. They told me that when the trains are being difficult, the fast trains continue to be fast but the slow trains do not stop at all. The result is that there are no trains at all at Laindon station. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a misjudgment by management of how to run a proper service?
Mrs. Butler: Not only I, but very many of my constituents would have some sympathy with that view. In recent months, when they have seen the so-called new rolling stock coming toward the station platform, they have simply groaned because they know that the new trains simply do not work and would cause further delay to their journey. A young man from my constituency works the early shift in one of the cafeterias in Portcullis House and tries to catch a train at 5.30 am. Sometimes, however, he has been two hours late for work. Hon. Members will appreciate how such a difficult situation could impinge not only on people's work, but on their entire life. Although one would think that people welcomed the new trains, they do not.
I hear now that Adtranz is being tasked with putting these matters back in order. I have, however, collected some interesting information from various people. I thought I would give the railway travellers association—of which I am privileged to be honorary president—and C2C, which is the company itself, Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority a chance to have a say on the various issues. Among the papers is a curious picture of a train being tested in Czechoslovakia. Although I believe that it was a one-off situation, I hear that there was not scope within the United Kingdom to do justice to the required testing arrangements. In fact it is all very curious. I cannot but think that there is more to it, and that the new company, C2C, could have moved matters along in a more timely fashion. It is a subsidiary of the great National Express group, and I had thought that the company would bring more investment promise to the problem than did the previous franchisee, Prism Rail.
I have been on horrendous journeys on the old slam-door trains. In the middle of winter, one could not close windows that had fallen down. On other occasions, carriages have been locked because of incidents in which they have separated while in motion.
I have asked Railtrack and C2C for their views on breakdowns and similar matters. At this very late hour, I shall not go through all the responses. However, according to C2C, the major problems are to do with overhead signalling and circuits, while Railtrack has admitted that a lot of broken rails remain. It claims that the trend is decreasing: where two or three years ago there were 18 broken rails, this year there were only 11, but I suggest that that is 11 too many.
880
I have been offered reasons for the problems that my constituents encounter, but I cannot accept that the answers are good enough. The problems have lasted for decades. When the railways were privatised, Conservative Members jumped up and down with glee, saying that everything would be fine tomorrow. It has not been fine. We have had promises, but tomorrow never comes.
The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is the Opposition spokesman on transport matters. He is not present, but he has put the problem down to the Government, saying that the people involved are not able to manage a fragmented service. I thought that that was rather amusing. If I may use the expression, I am pleased that the Government are trying to get matters back on track.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is working on the matter, but I hope that he succeeds in getting on to the train manufacturers and in pinning the Strategic Rail Authority down to some specific date after which penalties will be imposed. However, I fear that Adtranz has run out of the penalty area and so cannot be penalised. I hope that the Government will contact the SRA on this issue. It would be a very poor do if that cannot be done.
Moreover, the problem of overcrowding on trains now represents a very sad state of affairs. Excuses have been offered, such as overloading as a result of the Hatfield crash, but that was only temporary. Undercapacity and overcrowding have amounted to a continual nightmare. People should not have to buy full-price tickets for standing all the way to Fenchurch street station. They often return at night, very weary, on dirty and overcrowded trains, when they have to stand all over again.
I hope that the criteria on which the contract with the present company stands might be reconsidered. I understand that that might be difficult, but there is no absolute deadline for improvement and the matter could be dealt with by the SRA. The authority was somewhat hesitant about telling me what was being done to monitor the situation on the line and about setting out its abilities in regard to enforcement. I am worried by the fact that the enforcement powers are limited. I want the authority to get its teeth into the problem and bite on it harder.
2.24 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on securing the debate and providing a further opportunity for the House to discuss C2C rail services. I was grateful for my hon. Friend's apology to me at the beginning of her speech, but let me assure her that there is nowhere else I would rather have been this evening than here, anticipating this debate.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for his contribution. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) in her place. I know that she and her constituents share many of the concerns that have been expressed by my hon Friend the Member for Castle Point.
As my hon. Friend's comments clearly portrayed, C2C's performance over the past year has been far from satisfactory. The House will know from my comments in two very recent debates that C2C escaped the widespread disruption suffered by other train operators following the

881
emergency speed restrictions imposed by Railtrack post-Hatfield. However, C2C's performance has been badly affected by problems of its own, notably problems with the introduction of new rolling stock. Unfortunately, owing to problems with software and faulty electrics, only 12 of the 44 new units have been operational at any one time. Considering that these trains should have been in service in November 1999, that is a lamentable and unacceptable record.
The new stock has been withdrawn from service until Adtranz rectifies the problems. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes C2C's decision to set Adtranz a benchmark quality target for the new trains. As a result, the trains will not enter into full service until they can clock up 10,000 miles between significant malfunctions or breakdowns.
Understandably, passengers who were looking forward to travelling in comfort on brand-new trains are unhappy about the return of older-style trains It is clear that the replacement trains do not offer the same levels of comfort and, because of their age, they come with their own reliability problems. Unfortunately, C2C was left with no choice but to replace the faulty new stock until Adtranz could demonstrate its reliability.
A further two new units are now to be procured in this first delivery of new stock, and a second tranche of 26 units must be delivered and in service by 30 June 2002. This will see the complete replacement of C2C's remaining slam-door stock and offer some recompense to passengers for the disruption that they have had to endure.
Let me say a word about fare levels on C2C. The autumn 2000 national passenger survey found that only 33 per cent. of passengers thought that C2C offered value for money. So I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents welcomed the Strategic Rail Authority's decision to cap C2C's regulated fares increases to an average of 0.3 per cent. as a result of the poor performance over the year to July 2000—a fall of 3 per cent. in real terms.
I was pleased that C2C chose to reduce many fares in January. For instance, the cheap day return from Benfleet to Chafford Hundred was reduced by 27 per cent. from £5.40 to £3.90, and the standard return from Benfleet to London was reduced by 90p.
It is easy enough to criticise train operators—as, indeed, I have done in this and the previous two debates on C2C. However, I firmly believe that it is only right that we applaud train operators when they offer initiatives that are firmly in passengers' interests.
I know that my hon. Friend has serious concerns about Benfleet, the only rail station in her Castle Point constituency. Benfleet is classed as one of C2C's core stations, and I am pleased that it has been accredited with secure station status, along with more than 20 of C2C's other stations. The scheme—a joint initiative between my Department, the Strategic Rail Authority and the British Transport police—awards accreditation to stations that reach specified standards in design and management and demonstrate reductions in the crime level and in passengers' perception of crime.
I was also pleased to learn that since C2C—or LTS Rail, as it was previously known—took over the franchise, Benfleet has been fitted with cycle racks, a tactile map for the visually impaired and a disabled toilet with baby changing facilities. Those are all welcome
882
improvements and I hope that the provision of such facilities will be considered at other stations in the network.
My hon. Friend also has concerns about the need for improved rail links to her constituency. Local authorities are responsible for planning transport in their areas. If there is a demand for a new station—for example, a rail link to Canvey island—it will be for Essex county council to approach Railtrack and C2C in the first instance.
We have made additional funds available to the SRA to support non-commercial schemes that are consistent with our integrated transport policy and can represent value for money. Sponsors of schemes can apply to the SRA for rail passenger partnership—RPP—funding; bidding guidance has been sent to all local authorities. The SRA will assess proposals against planning criteria that have been approved by Ministers. A new station or link could possibly qualify for RPP funding if the SRA judged that it met the necessary criteria.
My hon. Friend has concerns about bus services to Benfleet and Pitsea stations. I understand that a number of services are already provided in the Benfleet and Pitsea area, although I accept that there will always be scope for improvements. I hope that some of the initiatives that I have mentioned previously will help to bring any necessary improvements to the services in the area.
More generally, my hon. Friend will recall that I visited her in Canvey island last year, when she emphasised to me, in no uncertain terms, the importance attached by local people to the need for improvements to transport access to the area. We have considered carefully the proposals in the local transport plan for Essex, including two schemes aimed at improving access to Canvey island. One of the proposals was a high-quality bus link to improve transport from Canvey island to rail stations in the surrounding area.
My hon. Friend will also be aware from our earlier contacts on the matter that, at the time of the local transport capital settlement last December, we did not have sufficient information to form a view on both schemes. We are keen, however, to work with Essex county council to assist it in completing the necessary work for the schemes to be evaluated against our criteria, in time for a decision to be made next December.
We hope that the necessary work can be completed by July this year and a revised bid re-submitted, along with the local transport plan annual progress report, for a decision to be possible in the next local transport plan.
In conclusion, I hope that my hon. Friend is encouraged by the plans that lie ahead for rail services in her constituency. Our plans to deliver a high-quality rail network that can play a full part in a truly integrated transport system will require substantial investment and coherent strategic direction over the next 10 years.
In our 10-year transport plan, we announced £60 billion for the railways—the largest rail spending programme for more than a century. We still have some way to go before we can deliver our vision, but we are determined to work with the rail industry and others to turn our vision into reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Three o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Revenue Support Grant (Norfolk)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Mike Hall]
9.30 am
Mr. Keith Simpson: I am pleased to be sitting here under your eagle eye this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the important matter of the revenue support grant for Norfolk, and local government finance support for Norfolk in general. I welcome to the debate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and my right hon. Friends the Members for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), as I do the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who is sitting where the Liberal Democrats usually sit. I do not know whether he is making a statement by so doing.
I also welcome to the debate the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). I am loth to congratulate him on his promotion because, as a Whip myself, I prefer to think that he has been translated into another sphere. The military historian in me believes that he is in the position of a German general staff officer in about 1942, involved with planning operations and training, who finds himself translated to command a division in the Stalingrad pocket. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions could be roughly compared with that.
My theme today, which I hope is shared by colleagues, is a fair deal for Norfolk. I say that against the background of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Fortunately, to date, we have not yet had such a case in Norfolk, but the constituencies of many colleagues have. Many people in the rural communities of Norfolk are terrified of the possible impact that the disease may have on their lives and on our economy. Norfolk is special to its Members of Parliament, not only because we represent constituencies there, but because it is an outstanding country. It is the second largest county in the United Kingdom. Its population is in excess of 700,000—a population that is concentrated heavily in the three major towns of Norwich, King's Lynn and Yarmouth, but one that is spread out over such an enormous county.
The county has an extensive coastline, which reminds me of the joke made by the late Professor Malcolm Bradbury. When he was lecturing at the university of East Anglia, he said that Norfolk was cut off on three sides by the sea and on the fourth side by Anglia Rail. One of our most famous sons, Horatio Nelson, used to talk about going into Norfolk and coming out of Norfolk, as though it was a separate country. At times,
166WH
the people of Norfolk feel that they are apart from the rest of the United Kingdom. During the past four years, they have faced several severe constraints. Due partly to our geography, even those in the major towns are reliant on the use of motor vehicles.
I found out from the Library that the average availability of one or more cars in the United Kingdom is 66.6 per cent. In my constituency of mid-Norfolk, it is 83.1 per cent. That is not because people in mid-Norfolk have more money than others in the United Kingdom, but because cars in mid-Norfolk are a necessity, not a luxury. Therefore, anything to do with the cost of running a car has a major impact on individuals' finances and on how the county councils and district councils deliver their services. To enable people to move around Norfolk is an added cost that the major unitary authorities do not face.
Understanding local government finance is like understanding the Schleswig Holstein question in the 19th century. As hon. Members may know, the late Lord Palmerston said that only three men understood the Schleswig Holstein question; one had died, one was now mad and he, Lord Palmerston, had forgotten what the question was. If that is true in general, it is so specifically when considering the present Government and the way in which they have financed local government since 1997.
Our debate must be seen against a background of a Government who, I am sad to say—I note that the Minister is trying not to smile about this—have achieved a reputation for spin over substance, and a habit of announcing and re-announcing measures. That also applies to the revenue support grant and local government finance. The way in which the Government have organised local government finance has been detrimental to the shire counties, especially Norfolk. I remind the House that, as a direct consequence of the Government's changes in methodology introduced in 1997, the shire counties will have lost out to the sum of approximately £700 million. Norfolk must face part of that, which puts us at a disadvantage.
Since 1997, council tax in England has increased by three times the rate of inflation. This year, council tax payers in Norfolk will see an increase of 6.25 per cent., which is almost three times the rate of inflation. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), estimated that the average band D council tax bill would rise by 5.1 per cent., yet Norfolk county council has been forced to agree to an increase of 6.25 per cent. Commenting on this year's local government finance settlement, the Minister said:
"Given these government increases in grant, I would therefore expect the majority of local authorities to be setting a lower Council Tax this year than last year, when the increase was 6.1 per cent."
Unfortunately for Norfolk county council tax payers, last year the rise was 9.8 per cent., not the Minister's guesstimate of 6.1 per cent. The local government finance settlement that Norfolk has received during the past four years has, with one exception, meant cuts in real terms and progressive increases in council tax. This year, Miss Celia Cameron, leader of the Labour-Liberal coalition running Norfolk county council, has written to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions

167WH
because she is concerned that Norfolk's revenue support grant will be £4.5 million lower than the council's estimates.
If one examines the RSG allocation for Norfolk in the local government finance budget over the past four years, one sees that, for the year 1998–99, there was a decrease of 0.41 per cent. In 1990–2000 there was an increase of 3.53 per cent., and in the period 2000–01 there was a decrease of 3.48 per cent. This year, surprise, surprise, there is an increase of 9.78 per cent., although I do not suspect that that has anything to do with a general election. Until this year, Norfolk has been in deficit and that has had a major impact on council services. In addition, during the past four years we have received inadequate local government finance settlements, and the council tax payers of Norfolk have seen a reduction in the quality and extent of services that they receive from the county council, for which, ironically, they have to pay more.
Councillors in Norfolk have told me that one of the principal causes of the council tax rises is the impact of Government stealth taxes, such as higher fuel tax, higher landfill tax and new taxes on pension funds that are passed on to council tax payers. Increases in the cost of petro-carbons for Norfolk county council this year are DERV, 6 per cent.; petrol, 4 per cent.; gasoil, 11 per cent.; and kerosene, 29 per cent. I remind colleagues that, in a county such as Norfolk, with a population that is spread out, transport costs are crucial. Those additional costs are separate from any local government finance or settlement. All sorts of extra costs for consultation must also be added, relating to, for example, best value, community strategies, verification frameworks and performance indicators, all of which will cost the council large sums.
Although I approve of the management techniques and robustness introduced by the previous Conservative Governments and continued by this Government, many of us feel that many levels of government are now being managed to death and that there is no direct relation between management costs and output and quality of service. For example, Norfolk police authority is only too well aware that best practice costs it several hundred thousand pounds a year and ties up several valuable members of staff for what is ultimately no real increase in the deliveries not only that it would like but that people in Norfolk expect.
During the past few years, there has been an enormous increase in cuts or deferment of services in Norfolk. We have a £90 million-pound backlog in road maintenance. We have experienced severe cuts in social services, to which I shall return shortly; chaos in our schools, with children being bussed around the county; and badly thought through school reorganisation. We have had a muddle over the waste disposal strategy, and that strategy, along with the moneys allocated to it, will be a major issue in future. Library hours and the availability of books have been reduced.
I should like briefly to touch on an example from the past four years. A result of local government finance awards and council policy was the closure in 1998 of many youth centres throughout Norfolk. In my constituency of mid-Norfolk, the youth centre in the small market town of Aylsham, which has a population
168WH
of about 4,000, was closed. Colleagues from Norfolk know only too well that, outside the major cities, there is not a lot for young people to do in the country. The closure of a youth centre, where young people congregate to get away from their parents, will probably result in their going elsewhere and trying to get into pubs, which invariably leads to trouble. The gap left by the youth centre that was closed is now being ably filled, at a cost, by a small community centre financed entirely by local churches and surviving from hand to mouth. It is used by not only young people but mothers, in the mornings, and pensioners, and I salute that. I realise that the Government and councils are under pressure for money, but I firmly believe that youth centres are a good way of investing in the future and ensuring that young people have an opportunity to do what they want without being tempted into casual violence and drugs.
The impact on the people of Norfolk is not entirely consequential on Government policy. I believe, as might be expected, that the problem has been compounded by eight years of a Labour-Liberal coalition running Norfolk county council. Obviously, the council has had to make decisions within budget, and we are now living with the consequences. We have seen a growth in bureaucracy, a borrowing of money from the reserves, and time and energy wasted on talk about visions and stakeholders rather than spent considering the quality of service that can be delivered.
The Government recognised that, this year, many county councils faced the prospect of a disastrous rise in council tax, and have attempted to come to those councils' rescue with extra resources. It may seem churlish, but I regard a lot of that money as funny money with strings attached, as do many local councils. We estimate that Norfolk county council should have levied a 10 per cent. increase in council tax this year, but it has levied only a 6.25 per cent. increase. I say "only", although that is three times the rate of inflation. The council has been able to do that largely because it has received extra money from the Government, but also due to some creative accounting in its budget. For example, money has been moved out of the highways reserves and cuts have been made in social services.
I come briefly to the impact made by the Government's failure properly to fund Norfolk, and to the effect on my constituents of the council's problems. The impact will be at its greatest in social services, on which there has been an estimated overspend of £2.7 million. The Government's area cost allowance criteria contain a bias against counties such as Norfolk, where sparsity of population creates problems. The Government have failed to take into account a steady increase in population, especially among the elderly. In my constituency, some 20.8 per cent. of the population is of pensionable age compared with 18.7 per cent. nationally. One might say that that is only a 2 per cent. difference, but on tight budgets such as Norfolk's that can make all the difference between just about getting along and failing to deliver.
Under the council's proposals for next year's budget, the social services budget will see increased charges and cuts. Charges for meals on wheels will rise from £1.80 to £2, the cost of transport to day centres will rise by approximately 50 per cent. and the cost of delivering occupational therapy equipment to people's homes will double. The level of day care is to be cut, and the number

169WH
of people aged over 65 admitted to residential and nursing homes is being reduced by 150—so do not get old in Norfolk. Rex Humphrey, the chief executive of Age Concern in Norfolk, said:
"We have known for a long time that there are going to be more and more people, particularly over 85 and 90, and we have to recognise that … My main concern is that the social services is reducing day care while at the same time reducing residential care and there is a mismatch in that position."
It would be no exaggeration to say that we are approaching a crisis in residential care and nursing homes in Norfolk, as a consequence of the policies to which I referred and the 2 per cent. fee increase approved by Norfolk social services. Denise Denis, chairman of the Norfolk Independent Care Homes, said that the rise of 2 per cent. was minimal and that homes would be forced to make staff or maintenance cuts. That is placed on top of the Government's proposed legislation, which places an even greater financial burden on care homes.
As Members of Parliament, we are in favour of the highest possible standards for residential care homes, because elderly people demand the best. However, those who run care homes, in both the public and private sectors, are being driven to distraction by the increasing bureaucracy, which places further demands on such minutiae as the size of rooms, and other matters connected with the facilities.
I began by saying that my theme today was a fair deal for Norfolk. I hope that, by outlining the revenue grant support element of the local government finance settlement, I have shown that Norfolk has done poorly compared with other parts of England. Norfolk, along with other shire counties, is collectively £700 million worse off than in 1997. Council tax in Norfolk has risen by three times or more the rate of inflation to provide either stand-still services or cuts in services. That has been compounded by the way in which the council has taken decisions and examined priorities during the past eight years. I ask the Minister to re-examine the way in which the area cost allowance is calculated, taking into account the particular problems faced by a large rural county, such as Norfolk, with a dispersed population.
People in Norfolk often view London as foreign. In fact, they view Bury St. Edmunds as foreign, but they view London as foreign because our discussions and decisions do not relate to their experience. They think that they come fairly near the bottom of the list when the Government are developing policy. They seek a fairer deal for Norfolk. They do not necessarily want more money than everyone else, but they would like a fair deal in which some of the problems that I have been spelling out are considered.
Norfolk is a marvellous county and I am honoured to have represented Mid-Norfolk for the past four years. We want to do better for its people.
9.50 am
Dr. George Turner: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing this debate. I served on Norfolk county council for more than two decades and was chairman of its education committee prior to the 1997 election. I therefore especially welcome the opportunity to contribute to this morning's debate.
170WH
The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk has provided a mixture of facts and—as often happens in debates on local govt finance—highly partisan comment about support grant for Norfolk for this year and the preceding three or four years. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with much of what the hon. Gentleman had to say about this year's settlement. My hon. Friend already knows of my support for major reform of the standard spending assessment and rate support grant systems that we inherited.
Indeed, the Government have already gone some way to deliver a fairer deal for Norfolk and that should be acknowledged. I was especially pleased when the Government not only initiated research work, but recognised the need and delivered resources for rural policing, taking proper and better account of the sparcity problems. I was also pleased with the grant made available for my part of Norfolk, shared with cross-boundary policing in the fens. Of course, the bottle is only half full; more needs to be done. However, we know from the consultation that has been under way for some time that further reform is on the way. Given the history of dispute across party lines over local government finance, the Government are right to take the time to seek to maximise consensus on introducing a new system.
I have argued for many years—mainly under the previous Government—for a fairer deal for counties such as Norfolk; I shall continue to do so. However, I want to take a different tack from that of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk. He painted a picture based on recent RSG settlements that distorts the reality and would have the nation conclude that we should change the Government and, by implication, I suspect, return to the old regime under which I suffered.
An analogy with football suggests itself to me—I am not sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you are a supporter, but I find that it helps when discussing financial issues with my constituents. As the season draws to a close, many fans will criticise their team's performance. Few managers or players approach perfection, and armchair critics have an especially clear concept of the ideal, but before calling for the manager to be sacked, most are fair minded and consider various questions. What problems and financial constraints did the management inherit? Is performance improving or deteriorating under the new management? What alternative management is on offer, and with what track record? I wonder whether many fans would turn with enthusiasm to a former member of the worst team in living memory; a man of maturing years but inclined to mimic the young—baseball hat and all—populist to a fault and with a self-confessed 14 pints a day drinking problem. That may not represent the ideal management.
I shall have to be selective this morning, even given the modestly greater time that may be available. I therefore turn to some other facts that were not mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk. In particular, we should consider the track record of the present management compared with the previous management. The fairest way of doing that is to ask some of those who are directly responsible for the data that I have used. I asked the financial director of the county council and the treasurer of the borough council in my constituency for a summary. I wanted to compare the four years of the budget set by this Government with the previous four

171WH
years, which seemed a fair-minded approach. If one makes that comparison, the picture of what has been happening is very different from that painted by the hon. Gentleman.
Before doing that, I want to say that the attack made this morning on the merits of the present county councillors—and, by implication, the attack on King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council in my constituency—was deplorable. There has been considerable improvement in management and the way in which budgets have been handled in Norfolk recently. The Eastern Daily Press reported on Friday 23 February that an assessment undertaken by Cranfield university school of management, Sunday Business, British Telecom and Management Today, listed Norfolk county council as one of the top 100 UK visionary organisations. It said:
"Norfolk County Council—once one of the worst performing of the rural shires, it has driven itself to the top by an aggressive and ambitious strategy. It is now a reference point for good practice in local government".
The report continues:
"When the Conservatives lost control of Norfolk County Council in 1993 for the first time in 100 years, the new Lab/Lib administration set about reviewing services and overhauling the organisation.
Under new chief executive Tim Byles, the council set up a change management programme, transforming the way it works with schools and forging public/private partnerships and strategic partnerships for economic development and health improvement. A senior manager worked exclusively on communicating the vision to the council's 25,000 staff.
School test results show that pupils in Norfolk are improving faster than almost anywhere else in England, and the region's roads will benefit from a £19.2 million increase in spending—the highest in the country. Technology specialists Capita will help meet targets for e-government and improve the way the council deliver services and communicates with local people."
That is a somewhat different picture of the county council than that painted by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk.
Mr. David Prior: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is good practice to increase the council tax four times more than the basic state pension?
Dr. Turner: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point. To be fair, we should compare what has been happening with the track record of the previous Government on council tax and what pensioners received.
First, I want to refer to the information provided by the finance director of Norfolk county council on changes to budgets during the past four years. Local government finance is notoriously difficult. It is necessary to consider not only changes in the headline figures, but changes in underlying rules and changes in responsibilities. I asked for a summary of changes in the revenue budget. The figures this year are remarkably good, which has been commented on. The net figures show an increase in expenditure of £27 million. Hon.
172WH
Members will not have noted from the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk that that included a £5.7 million increase in expenditure for social services.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that matter?
Dr. Turner: I am not taking interventions for the moment, because I want to put the figures on the record.
The figure for 2000–01 is plus £8 million, for 1999–2000 it was plus £9 million and for 1998–99 it was minus £7 million, giving a total for the four years of increased net growth to the council of plus £37 million. I also have the figures for the previous four years, determined by the capping regime, when local democracy was removed by the Conservative Administration. The net growth figure for 1997–98 was minus £11.8 million, for 1996–97 it was plus £4.2 million and for the previous two years it was minus £6.2 million and minus £2.1 million, giving a grand total for those four years of minus £15.9 million in the council's delivery of services. I repeat, that is minus £15.9 million for the last four years of the previous Administration, and plus £37 million in the first four years of this Administration.
I am the first to admit that the bottle remains half empty and that more needs to be done, but the bottle is filling: we are addressing people's needs in Norfolk. I especially welcome the dramatic increases in school investment. The figures are amazingly different from those under which I had to struggle when I was chair of education. The education capital allocations have risen from £4.7 million in 1996–97 to £27.8 million in 2000–01; we do not yet know the full figures for the coming year.
As chair of education, I faced a backlog of £40 million in much-needed work to be done on school buildings. Now, I go to schools and see work in progress, with further funding to come. Improvements are visible to anyone who visits the schools—there are new classrooms, improved decoration, and better staff facilities. Under this Government they have a rosy future.
I want to give right hon. and hon. Members the figures that relate to my borough council, King's Lynn and West Norfolk. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) intervened to ask about increases in council tax. Yes, his colleagues in my borough jump up and down, pointing to the 29 per cent. increase in band D council tax and hoping that people's memories are short, but they do not remind the electorate of the 55 per cent. increase in the four previous years. There was a 29 per cent. increase in the past four years under this Government and a net increase in the council's expenditure of about 7.5 per cent. However, there was a 55 per cent. increase in the last four years under the previous Administration, but a net decrease of 6.3 per cent. in the council's expenditure.
Not all is ideal in north-west Norfolk, or with the borough council's budget, but in the last four years of the previous Administration there was an increase of 7 per cent. in capital resourcing, which is most important in respect of the dilapidated housing provision in my constituency, compared with an increase of 79.6 per cent. in capital expenditure in the past four years under the present Govt. To pretend that that is not a dramatic improvement is to ignore the facts, which is what the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk would have us do.

173WH
Finally, I want to speak to an issue that is close to the heart of many of my constituents, the policing of crime. I had a meeting last week with the chief constable and the chairman of the police authority to look at what was really happening without the gloss put on it by the Opposition. The chief constable told me that the new money now available to the police authority would increase the number of front-line police officers from 1,400 to at least 1,475 by the end of the year. He explained that the run down in police numbers in Norfolk had been as a result of his policy, initiated ahead of the last election, to address the dramatic need for improved IT and back-up equipment. With the funding now available, not only can he and his chairman continue to invest in that equipment, but they can provide the extra police on the beat that people want to see.
In addition to the extra 75 police officers, the chief constable can free up a further 23 police officers by introducing civilians to do their work. That means there will be another 23 police officers on the beat at the sharp end of policing. He also has extra funding to provide two mobile police stations in my part of the county, each equipped with radio and communications systems. He tells me that he will be able to invest £250,000 into the vehicle fleet. He describes it as old, but I would describe some of the vehicles that I have seen as dilapidated.
The chief constable went on to explain further planned improvements in policing. They include better intelligence services and the potential I use of helicopters for some chases, which are notoriously difficult in the fenland area because of the nature of the roads. There are clearly gains from the increases in the Government's support for policing in Norfolk and the changes in the council tax. Under the previous Administration there were far larger increases in council tax and a net decline in spending. Now, although there has been an increase in council tax, which is less than the rate that we inherited, there are also real improvements.
The local Conservatives would h lye us believe that the improvements to policing, schools and education are as nothing. They say that there is virtually nothing to show for the increases in taxes that they are paying. That implies that one could cut the council tax by 30 per cent. without doing any damage. They need to be open about that, certainly ahead of a general election. It is uncertain whether under the Tories there would be £23 million, £12 million or £6 million for my constituents. It depends on which month it is, whether it is a Tory tax promise or a Tory tax guarantee and on their current wriggling to pretend that they can both spend and cut at the same time. My constituents should beware. The Tories' pretence that there have been no improvements in services implies that cuts are possible. I know that they cannot make cuts without damaging the services.
In summary, returning to my football analogy, not all is perfect with the team and its management. There may be changes in the team, which may have to raise its performance. There are tasks to be completed. We may be in the middle of a league table and have yet to reach the top, but if we compare what is happening under the present management with what happened under the previous management, we can see that progress is being made. It will take time to complete that process. When the fans out there come to take their decision, they will realise that they need to stick with the present team for a little longer if they are to achieve their ambitions.
10.10 am
Mr. John MacGregor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on initiating the debate and on the admirable way in which he spoke. He covered so many points that I wanted to cover that I shall be fairly brief, although I want to re-emphasise some of them.
People in rural areas, including my constituency, are astonished that hon. Members in the main Chamber will spend today debating the Hunting Bill. That shows a ludicrous sense of priorities, an astonishing unawareness of what is happening in rural areas and a ludicrous lack of sensitivity. The issues being debated in this Chamber are the ones that concern people in rural areas. That feeling runs very deep and I shall return to it later.
The Government and the ruling parties on Norfolk county council—Labour and the Liberal Democrats—have achieved a combination of heavily increased council taxes. I say to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) that vision is all very well, but the facts and the impact on people on the ground are what matters. The heavily increased council taxes have a real impact, while we receive poorer services and there is a further running down of reserves.
I shall deal first with services. Just before Christmas, the leader of Norfolk county council approached us all, I believe, to protest strongly about the impact of Government decisions on this year's rate support grant settlement for Norfolk. We were asked to make representations, which we all did. The hon. Gentleman talked about making adjustments to the area cost adjustment and changes in the formula. However, the change in the formula that the Government have introduced has greatly disbenefited Norfolk. I understand that it is the main reason why we received £4.5 million less in this year's settlement than Norfolk county council had accepted. The Government introduced a change that greatly disadvantaged Norfolk. I just hope that we will not have more such changes.
The implications for services are serious. I shall pick out three services, the first of which is social services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk said, there is a deficit of more than £2 million in this year's social services budget. The implications for pensioners and other poorer people in my constituency are very serious.
I want to draw particular attention to the effect on residential care and nursing homes. We all know that private sector residential and nursing homes are facing serious difficulties through a combination of insufficient fee increases on the one hand and heavily increased costs on the other. I join my hon. Friend in commenting on the impact of the Government's changes in regulations for higher standards in residential homes. We all want higher standards, but we need to be practical and realistic.
I have seen nursing homes in my constituency, both in the public sector—financed by the local authority—and in the private sector, which face substantial increases in their capital costs. That will lead either to fewer places or to the closure of those homes for comparatively minor adjustments over the next few years to comply with improved standards. I have talked to the residents of rooms in those homes, who cannot see how a big

175WH
increase in costs will greatly benefit them. I have protested about that before. It is important that the Government take on board the need for a sensible transition, because Norfolk risks a massive loss of places in care homes in both the private and public sectors in the next few years. There is a particular issue with Dennyholme care home in Diss, but the situation will be much more serious for private sector care homes.
In the Eastern Daily Press a few days ago, in response to protests from independent care homes, Joan Fowler, the portfolio holder for social inclusion and care in Norfolk county council, said:
"I would have liked to have given them more than 2 per cent. but there simply isn't any spare cash around. The social services overspend is coming down but it is still £1.5 million. Everyone is having to cut back."
That is the reality for social services.
I have some specific questions about highways and fire services. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) on his appointment. He is certainly moving into a heavily embattled sector. I acknowledge that he did not take part in this year's RSG settlement, but I shall put my questions to him because he is now responsible for defending it.
Norfolk has a considerable backlog of maintenance requirements for its highways. Norfolk is one of the largest counties and has a huge network of roads, yet our settlement for highways this year is 1.8 per cent. That is not only below the rate of inflation, but well below our neighbours' average of 4.5 per cent. and below the shire counties' average of 3.3 per cent. I simply do not understand it. I am told that one reason is the weighting given to heavy goods and the high gearing effect that that exerts. I fail to understand, however, why Norfolk, with its huge requirement for maintenance on highways and its substantial highways network, should receive an increase of only 1.8 per cent. this year. Will the Minister explain why in his reply?
Dr. George Turner: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is ignoring the £19.2million — almost two and a half times the allocation for previous years —for capital investment in Norfolk's highways? Should not that be taken into account when assessing the moneys available for improving roads in Norfolk?
Mr. MacGregor: The highways maintenance figure, which is important, shows only a 1.8 per cent. increase. That is why I am worried that the working out of the formula is substantially disadvantaging Norfolk.
I also want briefly—so that my right hon. and hon. Friends can join the debate—to mention the 2.8 per cent. increase allotted to fire services for a county whose rural spread imposes heavy demands. The shire counties' average increase is 4.8 per cent. and that of our neighbouring counties is 3.9 per cent. Once again, in view of Norfolk's huge requirements, I do not understand why our county should fare so badly.
The facts on council tax are clear, but the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk did not explain them correctly. Before the general election—apart from
176WH
1995–96, which saw an 8.5 per cent. increase—all the increases in Norfolk's council tax were below 4 per cent. Subsequently, the increases have all been way above the level of inflation. It is worth spelling out the details. In 1998–99, the increase in band B council tax was 15.6 per cent.; in 1999–2000, it was 9.76 per cent.; in 2000–01 it was 6.25 per cent. and in 2001–02, it is projected to be 6.25 per cent.
Those are substantial cumulative increases, which take a great deal from pensioners who are reliant on the state pension or have just a little above it. When people move out of council tax rebate, it takes a great deal out of any net increase in incomes gained during the year. Pensioners may well protest further as a result of these increases. They complained during the past three years and I expect them to do so again. The county council has not properly dealt with a major concern that affects pensioners.
The wider impact on rural communities is another issue. We all know that farmers are facing a disastrous crisis with foot and mouth disease. In East Anglia—and particularly in my and neighbouring Norfolk constituencies—swine fever is an additional problem. Furthermore, we ail know that farming incomes have declined significanty in the past four years. Yesterday, the Minister, in response to requests for help for beleaguered farmers through monetary compensation or other ways, said in the Chamber that no previous Government had given assistance on foot and mouth disease other than to those whose herds had to be slaughtered. That is true, but previously, particularly in regard to the outbreaks that have occurred during my time in the House, the general position of farmers was very much better. Unlike in the past, farmers have no spare capacity whatever to cope with the current crisis. The relevance of that significant fact to agriculture and all allied trades in Norfolk is often misunderstood: in terms of the national figures for the numbers employed in agriculture, we are much more dependent than other parts of the country on the income flowing in to such activities. Further council tax increases on such a scale, on top of those of the past three years, will be a further huge burden for many families.
My protest is that the Government appear to have removed £4.5 million from Norfolk as a result of some of their formula changes, with particular impact on social services. Like other rural areas, but more than most, Norfolk has suffered at the hands of the Government in the past four years—which is why we are having the debate today, for which I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that the Government will take note of it.
10.21 am
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am grateful to be called in the debate, which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) for having initiated, because the issues raised obviously touch on the lives of people in Norfolk. He gave an admirably clear account of how the Government and a Lib-Lab controlled county council are, between them, failing the people of Norfolk.
I congratulate the Minister on his position and I believe that he will bring good experience and a steady hand to a difficult task. I would like him to answer a question that is being asked in my constituency: are the

177WH
Government treating urban areas favourably in terms of the revenue support grant to their local authorities? There is a strong suspicion that what happened in the first couple of years of the Government's term of office has happened again this year—rural areas have lost out.
I shall concentrate on the effects of the cuts that my hon. Friend so eloquently described and, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), on the care of the elderly and the vulnerable. Ministers like to speak of the continuum of care provided by health and social services, particularly in regard to bed blocking and hospital care.
My right hon. and hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), will know that the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital is being completed in Norwich and has been hailed by Ministers and others as the means to end bed blocking. It is also an excuse to close several smaller community hospitals such as the Wayland hospital in my constituency. The Eastern Daily Press reported on 16 February that the centre is giving no funds for the additional revenue costs of the new hospital. The chief executive of Norfolk health authority said:
"The centre has been highly prescriptive about what it wants to be achieved but there does not appear to be latitude to pick up the additional … costs of the new hospital."
We may have a new hospital, but now the debate is about how people will get there. I do not mean that access and road provision will be a problem, but that the funds will not be available to open the hospital.
Against that sad saga must be set the cuts in Norfolk's social services. One would have thought that, with the seamless and joined-up government that we are now said to enjoy, a situation of the sort that I have outlined would not—indeed, could not—be combined with the cuts in social services that elderly and vulnerable people in Norfolk are having to face this year. Yet, sadly, that is the position.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk quoted the portfolio holder for social inclusion and care on Norfolk county council, who said that there is no cash to spare. She claimed that because 351 beds had been closed last year in Norfolk care homes, money would not be available to increase the number of beds in the residential sector to provide more support for people in their homes. At the same time, of course, she is increasing charges for meals on wheels, for home visits from occupational therapists and, even more disastrous, for day care.
At one and the same time, the elderly and vulnerable in Norfolk face the prospect of a new hospital that cannot be opened because the money is not available, a reduction in the number of beds in the residential sector, an increase in the charges that are designed to keep them in their own homes and an increase in council tax for the privilege. I would call that social inclusion. In effect, Norfolk social services department is passing on to the elderly the funding cuts that were imposed on Norfolk people by the Government. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asks us to approve the barrage of statistics that he produced; but I am concerned with the experience of people in my constituency, not with a recital of statistics.
Dr. George Turner: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Shephard: Not at the moment.
178WH
Like many other areas in Britain, Norfolk has an increasing number of elderly and vulnerable people. About 25 per cent. of my constituents are over retirement age. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk pointed out, the social services department is having to fund a possible overspend of £2.7 million by cutting the level of day care. What does that mean? Who deals with day care? A vast army of volunteers give their own time to transport elderly and vulnerable people to day-care centres. The impact on them of increases in fuel costs has already been described. The number of people aged 65 and over being admitted to residential and nursing homes will be cut by 150 and, as I said, those people will face increased charges. It is extraordinary.
The leader of the council said that the council would have to make "tough choices". That is fine for her; her choices are made on paper. The choices that face the families of elderly and vulnerable people are also tough. If their relatives cannot be admitted to care homes—and as we have heard, 150 fewer places will be funded this year—they face tough choices in trying to make up the shortfall, and the anxiety of wondering whether it would be possible to cover the increased charges. Their choices are as tough as those facing Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors in Norfolk. The leader of the council was quoted in the Eastern Daily Press on 15 February as having commented that
"the Revenue Support Grant from the Government had been disappointingly low and setting the coming year's budget was a difficult balancing act."
We do not seem to have heard much in the way of solidarity with her from the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk.
The problem that we are considering is not confined to Norfolk. The National Care Homes Association will be lobbying Parliament on Monday. It is concerned about the combined effect of a squeeze on public funds, the national minimum wage, the working time directive, pay increases for nurses and the proposed national standards for care homes. While each of those is justifiable, the outcome last year was the loss of 351 beds in the residential sector in Norfolk; less nursing care in the residential sector, because homes could not afford to employ nurses; less choice for elderly people and their relatives; more travelling for those people, with the closure of homes; and less employment in residential homes.
The National Care Homes Association has posed an interesting question. In Norfolk in 1999 the fee for care was £227 a week. In 2000, the Department of Social Security awarded each person in a residential care home sponsored by social services an increase of £5 a week, which was rightly trumpeted by Ministers as a way of helping the elderly and vulnerable. However, the association points out that the contract price in Norfolk for 2000 remained £227 a week. Where did the money go? Norfolk county council should answer that question.
The current state of affairs in Norfolk is a cause of fear among elderly and vulnerable people and their relatives. Elderly people wonder what will happen to them if they cannot enter a residential home, and how their relatives will cope with caring for them. They wonder how the money will be found to support them at home. Above all, elderly people want to avoid feeling

179WH
that they are a burden, but the factors that we have heard about this morning will combine inevitably to engender that feeling in their hearts.
Mrs. Marie Farrelly, the co-proprietor of the Feltwell Lodge nursing and residential home, wrote to me on 15 February. She said:
"We are very worried about our business, we haven't had a referral from social services since before Christmas."
She went on to comment that her husband
"has contacted … the manager at Downham Market about this and has been told that they are only allowed to refer six people per month for West Norfolk. It looks as though this government has put the elderly at the bottom of the pile and the local government in Norwich are just as bad."
She puts it well and I agree with her.
10.34 am
Mr. David Prior: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing this important debate. There is a danger when one speaks last in a debate such as this that everything has been said but not everyone has said it. I should like to make some extra points.
We hear a lot from Norfolk county council about visions, strategies, long-term plans and best value, but we and others in Norfolk will judge the council on results, not on promises for the long term. People in Norfolk, are interested in how much council tax they are paying and what services they receive in return. During the past four years, council tax has risen by about 40 per cent., which compares with a rise of about 10 per cent. in the basic state pension and 13 per cent. in inflation. So there has been a massive increase in council tax. What have we got for it? The roads maintenance backlog now runs at £90 million. We have heard about pressures on the social services budget and about how vulnerable old people are in Norfolk. Many schools in North Norfolk and elsewhere still have mobile classrooms, and public transport has almost collapsed in many areas. Few people in Norfolk today could put their hand on their heart and say that services have improved during the past four years; on the contrary, for many of us, services have considerably worsened while council tax has increased.
I shall dwell on only two aspects of county council activity. The first is residential homes. A number of traditional residential homes in North Norfolk in places such as Sheringham and Cromer, which have for many years provided wonderful care for older people, now face huge cost increases deriving from future proposals and from employment costs—in particular, the need to pay full holiday entitlement to part-time carers in those homes. There will be a collapse in the number of beds provided in private sector residential homes in Norfolk, which is of real concern when the resources made available for looking after people at home are also under pressure. As my right hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) have mentioned, many old people are extremely worried.
However, that matter has already been covered; I want to focus on young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk said, "Don't be old in
180WH
Norfolk." He could also have said, "Don't be young in Norfolk". During the past four years, many youth and community centres have closed, and the few youth centres left—for example, one in Hickling in my constituency—are ranging on by a thread. What has replaced them? The answer is, very little. I can give examples of voluntary groups in North Norfolk that, despite everything, have hung on, but they do so by a thread. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk probably knows the Carpenters Arms in North Walsham, supported by the Methodists, which has to beg, borrow and steal a few hundred pounds every week to keep the project open. The Holt youth project is trying to raise money from the East of England Development Agency and the lottery—spending more time trying to raise money through hugely complicated and difficult routes than it is looking after and providing facilities for young people. Another example is the Fakenham sports centre. I can give the Minister hundreds of examples of people who are trying to provide activities for young people, but who are doing so in an extremely arid environment.
It is one thing to provide facilities for young people, but they must also be able to get to them, and there are problems with the availability of public transport in rural Norfolk. There has been a significant reduction in the number of bus services in North Norfolk and no replacement for them through a more highly developed community transport system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk said, for many people the car is a necessity, not a luxury, yet about 25 per cent. of families in Norfolk do not have a car. They face serious deprivation.
There is a general feeling that the Government have understood the deprivation faced by many people who live in big towns, but that they have not come to terms with how many people in rural areas have to live. That is sad. I am particularly sorry that the countryside march on 18 March will not now take place. That would have brought home to the Government how fed up and frustrated those who live in the countryside are.
My final point concerns policing. The lack of local policemen on the streets is probably the biggest single worry for many people living in the market towns and seaside resorts of Norfolk.
Dr. Ian Gibson: During the past two days, the Eastern Daily Press stated that there will be 75 new police officers in Norfolk, many of whom will be located in rural areas. The hon. Gentleman seems to be denying that move in the right direction.
Mr. Prior: The Government are making up for lost time. The hon. Gentleman made a cheap point. He knows that there has been a significant reduction in the number of police officers on our streets over the past four years. Of course I welcome any improvement, as I do the extra police officers who have now been promised, but the increase is small. The people of Norfolk want more police officers who live in the local community to be on our streets, not just catching criminals, but preventing crime from happening in the first place. The past four years of Liberal Democrat and Labour-controlled councils have shown how easy it is to spend money and to receive little in return.
10.41 am
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing it. He has made good use of such a timely opportunity. Others who represent Norfolk constituencies have made excellent contributions to our discussion. It is significant that the Liberal Democrat party has made no contribution to the debate, despite its complicity in some matters that have concerned Norfolk.
My hon. Friend described a serious state of affairs. As he reminded us, Norfolk is the second largest county in the United Kingdom. It has an extensive coastline. It has all the problems that are associated with large distances, sparsity, rural transport and so on. He was right to pinpoint the crucial change in SSA methodology when the Government came into office. That has resulted in £700 million being diverted away from shire counties such as Norfolk. The net result is an increase in council tax of more than 6 per cent., three times the rate of inflation. It was 9.8 per cent. last year and it is not as though that is balanced by any increase in local services. The opposite is the case.
We heard a depressing litany of cuts in services throughout the country. My hon. Friend described in detail some of the other stealth taxes that have affected the council. In many ways, council tax has now become a stealth tax, affecting as it does particularly the elderly and the most vulnerable in Norfolk. My hon. Friend referred to the backlog in road maintenance, which amounts to about £90 million for the whole of the county. He spoke about problems in schools and libraries, the closure of youth centres, real reductions in care and social services, the crisis facing care homes—a problem that is replicated throughout the country, such as in my own constituency—and higher charges for services.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) referred to the big jump in council tax, cuts in services, the running down of reserves and how he, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, had been asked by the leader of the Lib-Lab pact in Norfolk to make representations to Government about the poor deal that Norfolk has received, the £2 million deficit in social services and the significant increase in council tax rises since the Government came to power. He spoke knowledgeably about the combined effect of those and other factors on farming in a community that depends heavily on that industry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said that rural areas had been losing out, as proved by the figures. She referred to problems with the local NHS, cuts in social services for the elderly and most vulnerable, and increased charges. She said that politicians have tough choices to make, but that individuals and families face even tougher choices, as a result of which people suffer real fear. That situation can be summed up as joined-up incompetence as opposed to joined-up government.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) also referred to worsening services, focusing in particular on the problems with care homes—not
182WH
only cuts in funding and references to homes but problems caused by "Fit for the future", and other regulations, which are apparent to the banks as the financial supporters of the homes. He mentioned the effect on the young of closing youth centres. The situation affects people across the spectrum—the young, the old and everyone in between.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), who spoke from the Government Back Benches, proved graphically that any analogy could be taken too far, in talking about the capping regime under previous Governments having removed local democracy. I will turn to this Government's attitude to local democracy in a moment. With respect, I thought that many of his remarks were intemperate. His final, feeble conclusion was that not all is perfect in Norfolk.
We are discussing a wider set of issues that affect other places apart from Norfolk. The inexorable rise in the proportion of specific grants means that the money made available to Norfolk is often spent on the basis of Ministers' priorities rather than those of local communities. The Government panicked over the impact of its settlement on many local authorities this year. The Times talked about "crisis talks" between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor, which resulted in an emergency package of £100 million being diverted from the neighbourhood renewal fund, as well as extra bits of money for social services and education. Some of those bits of money are actually recycled or reannounced cash—in the customary style of this Government.
Across the country, a significant difference exists between living in a Conservative-controlled authority area and those dominated by other parties. Conservative councils still have the lowest council taxes; in the coming year, a typical band D household will pay £724 under an average Conservative council, compared with £124 more under a Labour-controlled council, a figure not dissimilar for Liberal Democrat-controlled councils. Norfolk, of course, suffers from the double whammy of a Lib-Lab pact.
Shire councils such as Norfolk have lost out by up to £700 million under the Government, who make a virtue of their so-called freeze on SSA methodology on the grounds that it delivers stability. However, if one is treated unfairly at the beginning of the process, one is treated just as unfairly at the end and during the course of it. The policy cements the unfairnesses that the Government imposed in the SSA settlement when they came to power. We have heard of floors and ceilings, but the Government have tried to tinker on the margins.
When we strip away the rhetoric, there is an element of cross-party consensus, although it seems to have been lost on the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. My right hon. and hon. Friends and the Lib-Lab pact that control Norfolk all take the view that the county has been treated unfairly. That is true across Norfolk. Clearly, the current administration in Norfolk feels that it has been treated badly. The Government have treated Norfolk shamefully, and there is now a £4.5 million black hole in Norfolk's finances thanks to their approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk asked for a fair deal for Norfolk. Everyone in Norfolk seems to agree that the one thing that Norfolk does not have is a fair deal. I am happy to endorse the call for a fair deal for Norfolk.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing this debate. I thank him and other hon. Members for welcoming me to my new position, even if, as he suggested, it is like moving from the staff college to the Stalingrad front. His analogy fails to recognise that while von Paulus was up against the Red Army, backed up by material from the British empire and United States of America, we are up against the modern Conservative party, if that is not a contradiction in terms. It may be a little different. One never knows.
The national spending review in 2000 provided good news for local authorities, with continued increases in grant. The first year of the review set the baseline for the coming financial year, within which we have been able to increase Government grant by £3 billion. In the four settlements since we took office, we have been able to increase the amount of Government grant given to local authorities by £8 billion in total. That is a real terms increase of 14 per cent. compared with a 7 per cent. cut in the four years preceding the 1997–98 settlement. Our priorities, of course, are education and personal social services. As a result, provision for education spending will increase to £1.9 billion next year, which is an 8.1 per cent. increase, and social services will receive an extra £576 million, which is a 6.2 per cent. increase.
There can be no doubt that levels of investment have greatly improved since 1997–98. There is general agreement that the settlement provides welcome grant increases for local authorities. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk complained about spin, but was very selective in the figures that he gave for Norfolk. He chose to use those for the revenue support grant settlement rather than those for the total grant settlement. He knows well that that is not the whole picture.
The hon. Gentleman should be pleased to note that in 2001–02, under the settlement, Norfolk county council will receive a 4.2 per cent. increase in general grant, which amounts to £16 million. That is a good increase, which is well above the current rate of inflation.
The hon. Gentleman will also be pleased to note that, on top of that, Norfolk will receive a 26.8 per cent. increase in ring-fenced grants, which is an additional £7.786 million. When those amounts are added together, Norfolk will receive a total increase in Government grant for 2001–02 of £23.867 million or 5.8 per cent.
Mrs. Shephard: I am of course impressed by the Minister's figures. Will he explain how such marvellous news has apparently escaped the Labour leader of Norfolk county council? Why has council tax increased by three times inflation?
Mr. Ainsworth: I shall try to deal with that point. I shall also, in the time available, try to cover all the issues raised by hon. Members. Before I do so, I shall finish setting out the facts. In terms of the total SSA, Norfolk has received an increase of 4.9 per cent., which is in line with the national average increase. Norfolk's
184WH
education SSA has increased by 5.1 per cent. and its personal services SSA has increased by 5 per cent. The right hon. Lady may wish to note that all those increases are well above the rate of inflation. In the past two years, Norfolk has also received good settlements for its SSA increase: 6.2 per cent. in 1999–2000 and 5.3 per cent. in 2000–01. In the four years since we took office, Norfolk received an average SSA increase of 4.5 per cent. each year, compared with an average annual increase of 2.1 per cent. in the four years prior to that. No one would suggest that inflation has got worse in the latter four years; in fact, it has got considerably better.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) did a good job of explaining the inheritance that Norfolk county council has had to deal with and the priorities that it is trying to implement. As with local government the length and breadth of the country, it is trying its best to juggle its priorities, meet modern needs, move services in the direction of need and catch up with backlogs such as that which my hon. Friend mentioned in education services. My hon. Friend made apparent that backlog and the real problems that the council faces.
The situation in Norfolk will not be all roses—no one suggests that—but it is not as the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk suggested with his partial citing of the figures. There have been bigger increases in central Government support for Norfolk under this Government than there were under the ancien regime that the hon. Gentleman supported, and he should recognise that fact.
Mr. Keith Simpson: The hon. citizen—I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman; I got that in—has not yet replied to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk Given what he has just said, how does he explain the rise of 6.25 per cent. in council tax and the vehement protests of the leader of the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition that the grant is not enough?
Mr. Ainsworth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that I am trying, in a relatively short time, to answer the points raised in the debate. I have been asked many questions.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) asked me about the highways and fire calculations—two elements of grant in which Norfolk appears to be well below both its neighbouring authorities and the national average. All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that there has been no change in the method of calculating SSAs. We have tried to use the most up-to-date data, so Norfolk's lower than average SSA increases must mean that Norfolk's figures have fallen compared with the national average. The figures have surprised the right hon. Gentleman; if they have surprised the council and it wants to raise the issue because it believes that there is an anomaly, the Department is prepared to consider the matter, but there has been no change in the formula used.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) asked whether there had been a bias in favour of urban areas under this Government. That is not the case; there have been no changes in methodology, as she knows. Indeed, since the 1998–99 settlement, the increases for shire areas have been 4.4 per cent. compared to 4.2 per cent. for London and other

185WH
metropolitan areas, so there has been no bias whatever against the shire areas. Hon. Members know that there have been changes in the area cost adjustment. We have done no more than previous Governments. We have updated the data regarding area cost adjustment. I have not yet heard that it is the position of the Conservative party that we should not have done so. It would be strange if that were its position, because that is not what the Conservatives did when they were in office. Equally, they know that we are due to publish a Green Paper to examine local government finance and these issues will, hopefully, be dealt with at that time.
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): Order. We must now move on to our second debate.

Aviation and the Environment
11 am
Mr. David Taylor: I note the depth of versatility lurking in our Whips Office. It is remarkable that a former member should spring to a ministerial seat and have responsibilities for such a varied selection of topics as North Norfolk and night noise. It is great to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), in his new role with responsibility for aviation. Indeed, among the rich and varied bequests left in the pending tray for my hon. Friend by his predecessor is the hugely important Green Paper "The Future of Aviation". It invites ideas and views on a wide range of aviation and airport issues that will underpin the publication later this year of the first White Paper on aviation since 1985. During the intervening period, the economic, environmental and political framework within which airports and airlines operate has changed in the most dramatic way.
Today's debate is the first parliamentary opportunity for Back Benchers to flag up their own concerns. In my case, those concerns will be restricted purely to civil aviation and will not include military or defence activities. The changes during the past decade and a half to which I referred include a doubling of the number of planes using United Kingdom airports. Unless that rate of growth is dampened down, in the next two decades Britain will need four new airports each the size of Heathrow, and the number of passengers will rise from 180 million this year to more than 400 million by 2020. "So what?" say those who regard growth in economic activity as an unmitigated good. I expect that they would point to the report in 1999 by Oxford Economic Forecasting that asserted that aviation increased United Kingdom productivity, and that even limited restraints on growth would have serious negative effects. The report included charts demonstrating that the economy in 2015 would be £30 billion or 2.5 per cent. larger if passenger numbers were to be allowed to soar into the stratosphere unchecked by social and environmental constraints. Those forecasts were buttressed by the astonishingly complacent view of the London Chamber of Commerce that "capacity must be provided to meet all reasonable demand."
I believe that the previous Minister responsible for aviation made it clear that the Government reject the predict and provide strategy and are opting for a demand management approach that recognises environmental considerations and political realities and listens to the important aviation lobby.
Present growth rates are not sustainable. Issues that the previous aviation White Paper failed to predict or tackle have been in a holding pattern for too long, circling high above the political arena, although they are now starting to land in the Government's lap, whether or not the Government want them to.
I declare an interest to the extent that East Midlands airport is in my constituency. Last summer, East Midlands airport's own survey showed that there are 5,400 employees in firms on or near the airport site, perhaps 10 per cent. of whom are my constituents. No hon. Member with an airport in his constituency is

187WH
unaware of the economic significance of aviation and its contribution to constituents' standard of living. Equally, hon. Members' e-mail in-boxes are probably bulging with examples of how those living in airport communities experience damage to their quality of life. The main types of environmental impact are: the effect of aircraft noise on communities near airports or under flight paths; the effect of emissions from aircraft on climate change; local air quality; the effects of emissions from aircraft at airports and of the airport infrastructure that serves them; noise, emissions and congestion arising from surface access to airports, especially from road transport; land take and urbanisation resulting from airport development; and, other environmental effects of airports such as water quality, energy consumption and contaminated land and waste.
Other hon. Members will want to consider noise and climate change, so I shall refer to those matters only briefly before speaking about other concerns in more detail and suggesting the way ahead for the Minister and his colleagues.
Noise from aircraft, especially at night, arouses the strongest feelings of those who are affected by it. Ten days ago, in Kegworth, I addressed a local meeting organised by People Against Intrusive Noise—PAIN. It really is a pain when excessive noise occurs because there is inadequate international regulation to enforce limits on aircraft or inadequate local regulation to control impact around airports.
Last year's consultation paper on noise included some useful suggested changes to the existing noise control powers in the Civil Aviation Act 1982, and my first question to the Minister is: when will those changes be put in place? British tolerance is beginning to stretch very thinly over the cauldron of public protest and there will be direct, European-type action if something is not done soon, especially about night noise.
My local planning authority, North West Leicestershire district council is consulting on night flying limits, which it will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to impose using his powers under section 78 of the 1982 Act. It thereby seeks to safeguard the amenities and the environment of people living around East Midlands airport, not only in its own area but in the South Derbyshire, Rushcliffe and Charnwood local authority areas. The council's proposed controls address the litany of complaints so frequently encountered: a ban on movements by aircraft with high quota-count noise levels; a limit on aircraft movements at night; a reducing night-noise quota; monitoring and track-keeping; early phasing out of the noisiest aircraft; a noise management system with surcharges and penalties and a noise insulation scheme.
Those are challenging topics for debate, but I hope that the new owners, Manchester airport, with its long track record of striving to be responsive to community concerns, will be able to agree a modus vivendi that recognises and resolves those local problems promptly and effectively. The airport recently introduced a consultative forum and noise-preferential routes, and noise and track monitoring equipment will soon be introduced. There is a foundation on which the new owners can build.
188WH
The impact of a rapidly changing and expanding aviation industry on global warming and climate change is probably the main threat to the wider environment. In a recent report, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expressed anxiety about carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft and about the possible increase in global warming due to condensation trails. Globally, aircraft emissions of carbon dioxide already account for about 3.5 per cent. of all human-induced global warming; in comparison, current United Kingdom emissions contribute 2.5 per cent. More worryingly, with those emissions set to rise at about 3 per cent. a year, the IPCC estimates that aviation's contribution to global warming will be about 7 per cent. by 2050.
Aviation is not covered by the Kyoto agreement and I put it to the Minister that it can no longer be excluded from the policy discussions on climate change as its emissions are now clearly implicated. A recent report entitled "The Plain Truth: Aviation and the Environment", commissioned by Transport 2000 and the Ashden Trust, argued powerfully that aviation must respond as other industries are beginning to do to the challenge of climate change. I hope that the Minister agrees.
At a lower level in terms of height and detail, is local air pollution. Large airports and their aircraft can be major polluters because so many aspects of their operations produce toxic emissions that are a major threat to human health. The Government state in their Green Paper that the effect of emissions from aircraft on air pollution in the vicinity of airports is in most cases less than that from road traffic to and from airports. That may broadly be the case, but as road traffic becomes progressively cleaner, the proportion of total emissions from aircraft will grow and aviation emission standards will have to be raised.
Official data on UK airport emissions is hard to find, but the general American experience and the European experience show seriously heightened levels of air pollution around larger airports. Research in the United States and mainland Europe reveals that airports are comparable to large industrial plants in respect of their toxic emissions. In the US, the top four emitters of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are chemical factories, refineries, power stations and airports. A study of Frankfurt airport showed that it was responsible for three quarters of all unburnt hydrocarbons in the city. In an area measuring 9 by 12 km around the much smaller Zurich airport, almost 30 per cent. of nitrogen oxides were found to be of airport origin.
One exception to the near invisibility of British data on the all too detectable air pollution around airports is Heathrow. The nearly interminable terminal 5 inquiry heard from the British Airports Authority that present levels around Heathrow were not unlike those at Frankfurt airport. Present air pollutants in a 6 by 8 km area around Heathrow are, according to the BAA, largely attributable to the airport—three quarters of sulphur dioxide, 60 per cent. of nitrogen oxides and almost half of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds.
Growth in air traffic linked to the construction of terminal 5—I shall not press the Minister for his predictions about the outcome of the inquiry—would

189WH
have a worrying effect on air pollution, especially from nitrogen oxides whose levels could be expected to more than double.
Two other pollutants in and around airports are ozone, formed in the presence of sunlight from VOCs and nitrogen oxides, and the particulate matter frequently produced by airports and aviation activities. Both pollutants are associated with a wide range of respiratory diseases and loss of lung function.
When does the Minister expect the publication of the interdepartmental group report on the costs and benefits of measures to improve air quality, which should help to achieve the targets n the national air quality strategy? Will he confirm that demonstrable health benefits to residents in airport communities as a result of reduced air pollution will be a significant factor shaping the development of our future aviation policy?
One of the most insidious and depressing effects frequently linked to airport development is the loss of, or damage to, natural habitats, attractive landscapes, biodiversity and heritage sites, collectively caused by land take—a phrase as unattractive as its impact. Evidence in my own constituency is not difficult to find. When those hon. Members present today are next on the Leicestershire section of the M1, I urge them to look carefully as they drive north from junction 23A—in other words, leaving the civilisation of the midlands or Leicestershire behind—and they will see the beginnings of an urban sprawl that threatens in he medium term to engulf the attractive villages of Castle Donington, Isley Walton and Kegworth. The location of those villages lying close to the east midlands nexus of the A42, the A50 and the M1 has been a key factor, but the nearby airport has certainly been a catalyst for the worsening position. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that much tighter requirements for the use of brown land will reduce to a minimum the land needed for any developments required by the airport and related activities?
Finally, I draw attention to the occasional problems associated with waste disposal and the discharge of water into inadequate drainage systems and water courses, which contributed to the serious flooding experienced last year in parts of the north-west Leicestershire villages of Hemington and Lockington.
What can the White Paper do to reduce the significant environmental costs that are being largely met by those outside the aviation industry? The Minister is a keen walker, and one useful short walk that he might make this afternoon is along the ministerial corridor in Eland house to the office of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—it might even be next door—whose richly varied brief includes responsibility for the nation's rail network, which he seems to be standing up to very well.
The two Ministers might then examine the report "From Planes to Trains", which was commissioned in October 2000 by Friends of the Earth. That looks at realising the significant environmental potential from shifting short-haul flights, both domestic and European, to rail. The pre-Hatfield findings ai e that the rail routes in the UK that offer the greatest scope for cutting large volumes of air traffic are the east and west coast main lines. There is some limited potential to develop the
190WH
midlands and the Great Western main lines, but as the majority of domestic air traffic is between the regions and London, rail links between air919ports outside London offer less scope for substitution.
The extent to which the transfer can take place depends crucially on the level of investment made in the rail network and rolling stock to reduce travel times, and on the provision of rail links to all major domestic airports. That would be achieved most easily in a rail network back under public control, as I am sure that the Minister would agree although he may not confess it now. Obtaining modal shifts from air to rail is one way to apply a gentle brake to unrestricted and harmful aviation growth. I hope that the White Paper will also take a more direct route to regulate environmental impact by improving the planning regimes and policies at local, regional and national level that have proved so ineffective in the past two decades.
The present planning system for airport developments is totally inadequate even when it limits its aspirations to mitigation packages to offset some of the environmental impacts or at most to attempt to slow the rate at which they worsen. I said that I welcome the abandonment of the predict-and-provide planning regime, which seemed continually to approve expansions or to pre-determine them. Long-dormant permissions, granted on appeal with few environmental constraints, as was the case in 1983 in my area after a decision by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, can still be reactivated to the chagrin of those affected.
Statutory environmental impact assessments are not the whole answer either. EIAs, especially when they are commissioned and financed by developers, are immensely variable in their scope, accuracy, detail, clarity and transparency. Those that cover airport developments cry out for a standard, more rigorous and well-defined approach. In any case, EIAs predict a level of impact of activities a decade or more in advance. Whether those estimates are borne out by future events, and whether the mitigation measures imposed prove to be adequate, never seems to be reviewed. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that the White Paper totally overhauls the airport planning system, which satisfies neither the developer in its speed, cost or flexibility, nor the airport communities in delivering environmental safeguards, nor the planners in providing adequate opportunities to enforce them.
It is generally agreed that the aviation White Paper must be target driven. As the Aviation Environment Federation argues, tough but realistic targets for noise and emissions would protect the environment, reassure residents living under flight paths and ensure that the industry had clear incentives to obtain a much more sustainable and socially acceptable approach. All campaigners recognise that aviation is largely dependent upon a complex arrangement of European and international agreements, so collective action at those levels is crucial.
Britain must press hard for international aviation to become part of the Kyoto agreement on global warming and we must persuade the international community to adopt and implement the standards recommended by the World Health Organisation on noise. The Government also need to legislate for local targets for noise and air pollution levels.

191WH
After modal shift and tighter planning and legislative regimes, there remains one powerful way of levelling the uneven airfield that favours the interests of the aviation industry against those of the environment and airport communities—charges and taxes. It is therefore appropriate that this debate is taking place a week before the Budget. I shall send a copy of today's Hansard to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we are to manage the demand for air transport in a sustainable way—the present regime clearly cannot—we must ensure that the polluter pays, not just pay lip service to the principle. The aviation industry does not pay the costs of the noise pollution and climate change that it causes. A 1995 study assessed those externalities for the EU at an annual cost of £11 billion. Although charges and taxes seem to be best co-ordinated at European level, the Dutch have shown, through a noise tax at Schipol airport, that it may be feasible to introduce local environmental charging at national level.
The aviation industry does not pay for its pollution or its fair share of taxes. In fact, it is heavily subsidised. The White Paper must spell out the levels of that unjustified subsidy. There is no VAT on the purchase of planes or airline tickets. Vast sums are spent providing surface access to airports, particularly on roads. Worst of all from an environmental perspective is the fact that no duty is paid on aviation fuel. Indirect subsidies at EU level have been estimated at £20 billion annually. Again, changes in fiscal regimes can be achieved only by agreement at European or international levels, but the Government must start to move down that path, lobby for change and negotiate. Aviation has been a tax avoider for far too long. We must be realistic. In the short term, it will be impossible to reach global agreement on fuel taxation, but an OECD aviation fuel tax or a harmonised climate change levy on landing fees should be possible. Some of the revenues raised could go into international funding of projects to tackle climate change.
I hope that the White Paper will draw a vapour trail in the sky beyond which future growth in aviation must not go without addressing the serious environmental concerns that I have described. The frequently heard argument that restriction of aviation growth would inhibit general economic growth must be seriously scrutinised, but many observers believe that it will not stand up to examination. Indeed, it is probable that planning for limited growth would achieve the double top of improved quality of life for airport communities and enhanced standards of living for those who work both in the aviation industry and in the wider economy.
The new owners of East Midlands airport envisage that passenger numbers will treble to 6 million a year and that the number of jobs will double to more than 11,000. It is undeniably a major regional spur to help economic development to take off, but more than 40,000 people live near the airport and are deeply concerned about its impact on their communities and lives. That dilemma is repeated up and down the country as regional airports brace themselves to absorb the surplus growth decanted by the London airports.
192WH
I have shown how economic growth versus environmental protection can be made a win-win game. We need clear policies to reduce greenhouse emissions from aviation; fiscal changes to ensure that air travellers and freight hauliers pay the full environmental and social costs of their decision to fly; regulatory measures and incentives to invest in cleaner, quieter aircraft; investment in inter-city rail to reduce short-haul demand; stricter application of regulations governing airport use; and, vital to many constituencies such as mine, a more strategic approach to the consideration of plans for new airports like Finningley in Yorkshire, or expanded ones, such as East Midlands airport. A greater public debate, which does not pit the well resourced aviation industry against cash-strapped communities, is of the essence. There is a pressing need for a huge change in public attitudes and policy towards aviation. The forthcoming White Paper provides an opportunity to address that need for change. I have every confidence that the new Minister will not miss that opportunity.
11.24 am
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am pleased to take part in the debate as I represent Farnborough, the birthplace of British aviation.
The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) spent the best part of half an hour criticising one of Britain's greatest 20th century success stories. We were one of the first countries in the world to master the art of flying when, on 16 October 1908, Samuel Franklin Cody took to the skies from Laffan's plain in Farnborough. We remain one of the world's leading aerospace countries, through our manufacture of air frames and aero engines. Our airlines are also second to none. It is therefore astonishing that the hon. Gentleman, who has an airport in his constituency and who has been on innumerable councils in Leicestershire, should tell us what bad news that is.
I hope that he will tell his constituents the bad news that he has in store for them. If his recommendations to his ministerial colleagues were accepted—although I do not expect for a minute that they will be—the price of his constituents' air tickets to Ibiza, Florida or wherever would go up by 50 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's speech was seriously devoid of practical suggestions, other than that we should switch from plane to rail. That process is already happening and the privatisation of the rail industry will ensure that the process accelerates faster than it would have done had the railways remained under the dead hand of nationalisation.
Mr. David Taylor: No one, least of all me, is suggesting that the economic and social importance of East Midlands airport to the people of the region, and south Yorkshire and beyond, is not considerable. The proposed measures would enhance the profitability of the airport and its value to the region. Conflict between improved environmental considerations and economic performance is not inevitable.
Mr. Howarth: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman flatly contradicting himself. He said earlier that we needed to increase taxes on what he calls the polluters, that people need to pay more, that the cost of aviation in terms of its alleged pollution needs to be

193WH
more transparent, and so on—and now he says that of course he welcomes that investment in his constituency. I am sure that he does, and that when he goes back to his constituency he will find that the Conservative candidate there will, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be armed with a copy of Hansard, showing the hon. Gentleman's rather Luddite view on the development.
Joan Ruddock: Does the hon. Gentleman deny aircraft pollution? Does he deny the effects on global warming or the effects of environmental pollution generally, particularly noise pollution, of which my constituents in north London are well aware? Surely it remains the policy of his party, along with others in the House, that the polluter should pay.
Mr. Howarth: I had hardly got into my remarks when the hon. Lady intervened. Of course I recognise that there is inevitably some pollution. There is a degree of pollution from motor cars, for which the motorist pays. Under the Government, the motorist pays extremely heavily—much more heavily than under the previous or the next Conservative Government, after May or whenever that will be.
However, Parliament needs to try to balance out the conflicting interests. I fear that, in trying to achieve a balance, the hon. Gentleman has skewed his argument so far in one direction as greatly to inconvenience the travelling public, whether the business community or holidaymakers. Air travel is a necessity for business people and one of the great joys of life for leisure travellers. It has opened up the world and given people easier access to distant regions, which once would have been impossible. I suppose that one could go to the far east with P&O, but one would need more than the four weeks holiday that most people get. Air travel gets people to such destinations more quickly.
Mr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again; he is most generous. The core worry and our dominant concern is the night noise produced by freight aircraft, particularly the older variety. Dealing with that will not imperil or threaten package flights or holiday makers.
Mr. Howarth: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. When in London, I live about 300 yd north of runway 27 right. I happen to be an aviator, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands my description; I mean the northern parallel runway at Heathrow. I am well aware that jumbo aircraft arriving at 4 am during the summer can disrupt people's sleep patterns. I understand that; I am talking about getting the balance right.
The hon. Gentleman seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge the efforts that the industry has already made, particularly in the United Kingdom. For instance, improved burn technology and air frame efficiency and better operating procedures have cut the consumption of fuel per passenger mile in the past 40 years by no less than 70 per cent. That fantastic achievement was achieved in part by the International Civil Aviation Organisation regulations on noise, and the fuel crisis of the 1970s may have helped; but it is also
194WH
the result of the industry's determination to operate more fuel-efficient aeroplanes. It did not happen by accident. It needed investment.
The Government have lauded their investment in the aerospace industry. For instance, Rolls-Royce has received another £250 million to develop the 900 and 600 variants of the Trent engine. It is hoped that those engines will produce even further efficiencies in power performance and reduce fuel consumption and, therefore, pollution. The aircraft will also become quieter. Everyone must know that aircraft have become less noisy. One needs only to hear a Boeing 707 go past to know that—although the only ones to be seen nowadays are probably owned by corrupt and incompetent African dictators, of which there are quite a few. However, at air shows one can hear the difference between a 707 or a B52 and an Airbus. It is amazing to see an Airbus go overhead at that incredible angle and seem just to hang in the sky.
Credit ought to be given to the aerospace industry, and we should certainly sing the praises of the British industry. I am sure that you would be extremely upset if I did not mention the contribution made by your constituents at Hawarden, Mr. Jones, where the Airbus wings are made. They have joined others across the United Kingdom to ensure the success of the British aerospace industry by making more efficient and quieter aircraft. The aircraft entering airline fleets today are typically 20 decibels quieter than comparable aircraft of 30 years ago. Ours is a success story.
I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire about the ludicrous nature of our planning arrangements. I congratulate the Minister on obtaining his position as Aviation Minister. Will he please ensure that the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions looks urgently at the matter? We cannot go on dealing with planning procedures in this Neanderthal fashion. The terminal 5 inquiry has been going on for five or six years and has cost hundreds of millions of pounds. The issue is simple. Of course there are passions on both sides, but there are arguments for T5 and against it; let us hear them and make a decision. We should stop fiddling around in this extraordinary way, damaging the United Kingdom's economic effectiveness and continuing the uncertainty for people who live in the environment of Heathrow.
I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire on the planning issue. If he wants to stop night flying at Heathrow, then fine; let us find a brand new airport, as has been done in Munich. We would need a brand new greenfield site. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us what part of North-West Leicestershhire would be suited to the new site.
Caroline Flint: Finningley.
Mr. Howarth: I shall be happy to give way if the hon. Lady wants to tell us about that. I gather that she will do so later. I flew in and out of Finningley when it was an RAF airfield, so I know it.
South-east England will not be given another airport. Under present planning arrangements, another airport is not realistic. The attitude of the antis is understandable. Who wants a socking great six-runway aerodrome taking up square miles of crowded

195WH
countryside in south-east England? We must maximise the benefit of what we have. Heathrow was the most successful airport in Europe because it was revolutionary. It had two parallel runways when no other airport in Europe did. Charles de Gaulle now has six and we are being overtaken by our continental partners. It is not realistic to consider an alternative new airport for London. We need to make the most of our assets and try to accommodate the demands of business and leisure travellers within the constraints of existing airports.
The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire talked about people who live near airports. We have new arrangements at Farnborough, which is the designated business airport for the south-east of England, as the Minister knows. It has now been agreed that a company called TAG, more familiar to the public as TAG McLaren, the Formula 1 operation, is to turn the aerodrome into the executive jet centre for southeast England, with 28,000 movements. That figure is causing my constituents some concern. The figure for Heathrow is something like 420,000. My constituents are concerned that the site will turn into another Heathrow, although that is simply not going to happen. I understand the worries that people express, but in any estate agency properties are marketed on the strength of easy access to Heathrow or East Midlands airport or the prospect of easy access to Finningley. The public want that access. What is at stake is the reconciling of the different demands.
We have a great deal to be proud of in our aerospace industry. It has served our people well and enhanced Britain's competitiveness. Good air links are a vital factor in companies' investment decisions about the United Kingdom. Without them—if we price those involved out of the market—we shall seriously damage the economy. That is the context in which we must consider the burdens that we are willing to impose on our industry, to its detriment against competitors.
11.39 am
Joan Ruddock: Noise is one of the prime problems for Londoners today. Despite what the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has said, it is not only the noise produced by an individual aircraft that needs to be considered but the overall pattern of aircraft movements in London.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on having secured today's debate. I agree with absolutely everything that he said about wider environmental damage and climate change taxation. However, I shall refer to noise.
HACAN ClearSkies, the Londonwide campaign on the matter, suggests that 1 million Londoners are now affected by aircraft noise. Some of that noise comes from City airport, but the vast majority comes from Heathrow, where between 75 and 80 per cent. of the year prevailing winds mean that aircraft fly over London.
Like the hon. Member for Aldershot, the Department asserts that there has been a decrease in the amount of noise. We have reason to believe that the investigations
196WH
and records that the Department makes and keeps are inadequate in assessing the current position, as I shall explain.
The noise data maps collected by the Department measure only the noise of take-offs, not landings. Takeoffs have become quieter, but the big increase in complaints in recent years has related to landing aircraft. The data do not include noise of less than 57 decibels, yet in large areas of London people are complaining about noise levels of 54 decibels or less. The data do not take account of the number of planes, which is a continuing problem despite individual planes becoming quieter. The area measured is based on a study conducted more than 18 years ago, and it takes no account of what is happening today. Parts of London that were not previously affected are seriously affected this year and have been for the past five years, my constituency, Lewisham, Deptford, in south-east London being a case in point.
Furthermore, the hour between 6 am and 7 am, the busiest and noisiest hour of the day, is not measured. Londoners want the few aircraft that fly in and make the greatest noise in the early hours of the morning to be completely banned. I am sometimes woken in bed in south-east London, many miles from Heathrow, between 4 am and 5 am. The economic value of such flights is extremely small, and Londoners are insistent that that economic price is too great a price to pay for people constantly being woken in the early hours of the morning.
The numbers affected are much greater than the Department's data suggest. The United Kingdom data suggest that only 158,000 people are affected by noise of more than 60 decibels around Heathrow and Gatwick. However, there are several reasons for believing that that is a serious underestimate. Most notably, no account is taken of people who live under flight paths but not in the immediate vicinity of airports, my constituents being a case in point. A more recent study of noise levels around Heathrow shows that many more people are disturbed by aircraft noise. That study, which was conducted by the European Environment Agency, found that 440,00 people around the airport are exposed to noise of more than 55 decibels.
I have several questions to ask the Minister. I wanted to refer to the World Health Organisation, but I know that other colleagues want to speak. The WHO has shown the severity of problems ranging from insomnia and stress to mental disorders in adults and retarded learning among children subjected to intense aircraft noise around airports. The WHO proposals specify safe noise levels that are well below those operating at our major airports. Do the Government or industry have plans that offer a realistic prospect of reducing aircraft noise to the safe levels recommended by the WHO? What progress has been made on the European Commission's plans to draft a noise directive that would have further implications for aviation in this country? Can the Minister confirm that radar controllers' video map centrelines have been extended from 15 miles to 20 miles from Heathrow? When will the new night-time arrangements that his predecessor announced on 21 December last year be put in place? Does he have any idea when we will hear the result of the terminal 5 inquiry? Finally, what plans are there to extend proper

197WH
noise monitoring to areas such as my own, in south-east London, which are not near an airy ort but are under flight paths?
11.45 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on introducing this important subject into the debate today and for the comprehensive way in which he covered the subject.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the effect of aviation on climate change. As we had a debate in Westminster Hall on climate change before the COP 6 talks in the Hague, it may be best if I do not read into the record all the effects of climate change. I simply note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recently said that the effects of climate change in its worst-case scenario have doubled. The Government acknowledged that, when the Deputy Prime Minister said that the report from the IPCC showed that we risked major irreversible changes unless we significantly cut emissions of greenhouse gases.
Some 96 per cent. of the deaths from the changes resulting from natural disasters happen in developing countries. We in the western world must think about the impact of our activities on those countries.
Does aviation have an effect on climate change? International freight is projected to 1 row by 70 per cent. between 1992 and 2004 because of increased global trade. That is one of the fastest-rising causes of greenhouse gas emissions at the, moment. In effect, international trade is getting a free ride because those emissions are untaxed and excluded from the Kyoto principles. Members of the Conservative party who have great concern for the farmers, as I do, know that a reason why our farm produce is under-priced is that it is so cheap to import by air freight. Therefore, there is a good sustainable environmental reason, as well as a local economy reason, to support British farmers by reconsidering what aviation is doing to farming in this country.
Aeroplanes emit 2 per cent. of all man-made CO2 released into the atmosphere and some nitrogen oxide, which creates ozone—a potent greenhouse gas. The IPCC has developed a measure for calculating the effect of aircraft emissions, which the organisation calls "radiative forcing". The emissions, being at a higher altitude, have a higher warming capacity. Using that formula, the IPCC calculated in 1992—since when we have experienced growth—that aviation emissions contributed 3.5 per cent. of the effect of global warming. That is the equivalent of the entire CO2 output of Canada. Canada is involved in Kyoto, but aviation is not. Clearly, that situation needs to be addressed in future talks on global warming.
Emissions of CO2 are set to double by 2015, and nitrogen oxide emissions will rise by 96 per cent. The Government have acknowledged in their global change programme that by the year 2050, we should have reduced CO2 emissions by some 50 or 60 per cent. The Deputy Prime Minister said that that should be our target, but I cannot understand how we can approach that target without including aviation within it. The aircraft industry has made a huge social and economic
198WH
impact. We have until 2050, but let us start planning now so that there is an incremental change within aviation. No Member has suggested an overnight change that might frighten many whose economies and livelihoods depend on aviation. However, we have an opportunity to start planning now within international agreements to include aviation, as with any other form of transport, in environmental considerations.
Some argue that economic benefits are such that we cannot curb air growth. The same arguments could be advanced about the economic benefits of road traffic. However, during the past 20 years, road traffic has increased at a greater rate than economic growth. Air traffic is increasing similarly because it is so cheap to use air for both freight and passenger traffic.
Freight, in particular, undermines our own local economy. That was brought home to me by a recent constituency case. My local authority is considering an application to allow an MOD facility at Aberporth to become a civil aviation facility. Although it would be located in Blaenannerch, a rural village in remote west Wales, it would become the second largest civil airport in Wales—second only to Cardiff. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire about the planning process, which seems completely inadequate in terms of allowing local residents to have their say and make a real assessment of the impact of such a facility.
The environmental impact assessment has been funded by the developer, which means that local residents have no faith in it. It talks of reaching 8,800 flights from Aberporth within two years, increasing by 10 per cent. each year thereafter. That is clearly taking United Kingdom statistics and applying them to a remote site in west Wales. I do not share the same worry as some local residents about such figures, although I appreciate their concern at the potential growth in air flights. However, we are not talking about west Wales decanting from London. Aberporth is a five-hour car journey from London, so I doubt whether people will fly into west Wales to relieve pressures in south-east England. We are two hours from Cardiff.
Will the Minister explain the role for small civil airports, particularly in remote areas such as west Wales? I have some faith in the application because it is linked to a technology park and a move away from an MOD facility to a Civil Aviation Authority-controlled facility would be an improvement. In terms of the environmental impact, I have slightly more faith in the CAA than the MOD. My constituents want to know how the Government see aviation fitting into sustainable development. The Green Paper entitled "The Future of Aviation" mentions regional plans, and places them in a Welsh economic context.
There is no doubt that aviation has an effect on climate change, but that it is missed out from all international considerations. That is a clear sign that the problem must be addressed. The aviation industry must be part of sustainable development. All other industries are, and the aviation industry—important though it is in the economy—should not have an advantage over other parts of the economy. Several steps can be taken. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no tax on aviation fuel. That may be prohibited under the Chicago convention,

199WH
but an emission charge tax may be considered in terms of how we can internalise the full costs of the flight, including the environmental costs.
The industry has improved noise emissions. It has done so because it knew that the Government were interested in noise. Until now, not so much attention was paid to noise emissions. Perhaps the industry can work with the Government in improving emissions, but I should like to see some form of charges so that some of the older freight aircraft that are in use pay for their effect on the environment. We must also examine the removal of unfair state subsidies. There is a VAT exemption on air tickets. It is possible that Air France puts direct state subsidies into its operations. Let us consider the infrastructure involved in constructing an airport. A road alignment must take place for even the small airport that has been suggested for my constituency, and that will have to be paid for by the local taxpayers, many of whom are upset that we are using objective 1 money.
My understanding is that airports are excluded from the provisions of integrated pollution control, which were introduced by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Will the Minister reconsider the matter? Why should airports be excluded when factories and other industrial processes are not? Airports have an effect in terms of local air pollution and climate change. It is worrying that airports are not included in IPC, which is the highest standard of pollution control in this country. Airports should be included.
The autumn assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation will provide an opportunity to press such issues. The Government have at least flagged up some of the concerns in their Green Paper, and I am grateful that they are aware of those matters. International standards for aircraft emissions have been agreed in the past through the ICAO, and it can be done again. With more work, international aviation can be included within our Kyoto targets. Given the disappointments in the Hague, some might feel that, if we cannot even address the current situation, more should be done on climate change. However, it is a clear omission if international aviation cannot be included in our Kyoto targets. I hope that the Minister will listen to the concerns expressed by Members today, and consider how to factor them into the Government's future programme and the White Paper.
11.52 am
Caroline Flint: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) to his new position as Minister, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) for securing the debate. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), one of my local colleagues, who shares my interest in seeing Finningley fulfil its potential in the growing industry of airports and aviation.
As Members may have become aware, the proposed Finningley airport is in my constituency. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) flew in, and I am also pleased to hear that he
200WH
flew out again. There is no doubt that many Members who have an interest in aviation are aware of the superb facilities at the Finningley site, which has one of the longest runways in the United Kingdom. It is a shame that the previous Government, who decided to close that excellent facility and advanced a proposal for yet another prison—there are already three in the area—did not use joined-up thinking to realise its potential for recycling millions of pounds of public investment. Stories abound that Manchester airport was interested in Finningley as its second runway at the time. We might have avoided a huge public inquiry in relation to that site if Finningley's potential had been recognised earlier.
I understand that airports must be good neighbours. I am not naïve enough to believe that there is never a conflict between short-term commercial interests and effective environmental controls. I have made a detailed submission to the Department in relation to its paper on the future of aviation and the separate consultation on aircraft noise.
More than 50,000 people have written to the council in support of Finningley being developed as a civil airport, and 500 people have written in against it. That is 100 to 1 in favour of the site rising from the ashes to be a major contributor to the local economy. That is what it signifies to many people who lived and worked with the RAF for many years. Whether the site meets its potential again is a question of sustainability. Considering the numbers who are against it, never have so few tried to thwart the ambitions of the many. I think that I am the only Member of Parliament who has presented to the House a petition of more than 20,000 people, in this case against a public inquiry into the proposed airport development.
Several simple proposals could significantly improve the environmental sustainability of UK airports. First, on a macro level, the Government should aim to reduce the average journey made by consumers to airports that provide an appropriate service. Each region should seek to provide suitable services for the majority of its residents. Government policy should deal with those regions where existing airports demonstrably fail to achieve the level and range of services to meet local needs. Yorkshire and the south-west are two such regions where new air services are desperately required. Where necessary, Government should recognise the availability of suitable brownfield sites—the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) made that point well in respect of the development of the Ministry of Defence site in his constituency—and we should certainly consider using former RAF airbases. Where new airports are needed, we should avoid greenfield development.
Each region should guarantee a long-haul capacity. At present, we have too few airports capable of long-haul travel, unevenly distributed throughout the United Kingdom. Our objective should be to have between 12 and 15 long-haul airports. Without those, there will be a rising trend of passengers travelling to the south-east or Manchester to take long-haul flights.
All of that is fully in keeping with the Government's other worthy objective of maximising the potential of regional airports to assist in economic regeneration for each region. The Government should develop sustainable access to airports and financially reward those that achieve the highest rates of access via public

201WH
transport and means other than cars. Rail-bus-air intermodal hubs should be created wherever possible. Two means of achieving that are diverting major intercity rail lines through airports and locating parkway stations at such interchanges. One Government target should be to reduce long road journeys to airports—mainly in the south-east—and the overall distances travelled to airports.
Every airport should have noise quotas applied and all new airports should match or better the noise controls of comparable airports. All airports should be given a timetable for meeting agreed minimum standards via nationally determined quiet operation policies and noise control programmes. Enforcement of noise controls should be separated from commercial considerations. The imposition of penalties on airports and airlines for breaches of noise controls or departure from noise preferential routes should be independent of the airport and local authorities, and should perhaps be administered by the Civil Aviation Authority. The present system discourages enforcement of noise controls for commercial reasons—especially, I regret to say, if the airport is partly or wholly owned by the local authority. Minimum noise standards should apply irrespective of how few or many residents are affected. Each household should be accorded the same minimum protection.
Freight should be encouraged by rail and then by air, rather than by road, and each region should be able to offer appropriate air freight services—Yorkshire and Humber makes a poor contribution in that respect, thereby adding to the number of freight-related journeys by road to airports further afield. The Government should deter and discriminate against internal flights that can more sustainably be undertaken by rail. However, the Government should not cap passenger numbers, which would only thwart legitimate consumer aspirations for international travel and have the effect either of driving up the price of travel as supply was restricted, or of driving passengers abroad to meet their air travel needs—neither is in the national or consumer interest.
The best way to improve airport capacity is to adopt policies to increase the number of regional airports that can provide long-haul as well as European flights, thereby increasing the chances of significant market penetration. That would assist in meeting the objective of reducing internal flights and short flights to European hubs, such as Amsterdam and Brussels, before a long-haul leg.
Government policy should seek a diversity of ownership and market penetration in the interests of competition and of the consumer, and of raising standards, including environmental standards. Policy should prevent a duopoly developing, with BAA and Manchester dominating the market and preventing the growth of other airport consortiums, especially in long-haul travel. By ensuring that, we will not only increase consumer and airline choice but raise standards through competition in this growing area of our economy.
12.3 pm
Mr. Steve McCabe: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing
202WH
this debate. It is important that airport authorities never underestimate the impact of airports on local communities, nor should they evade their environmental responsibilities. However, I stress that we should not view developments at Birmingham international airport as totally a gloom and doom story, because the airport authority has made strides in recent years and provides a model of airports engaging in sustainable development but still entering legally binding agreements that protect the local community. Credit should be given for that.
Like my hon. Friend, I am conscious of airports' impact on jobs. Birmingham international airport employs as many people as MG Rover's Longbridge plant. Hon. Members will recall the shock waves that went through this House when Longbridge recently came under threat.
I want to focus on a couple of matters relating to noise. I, too, have noticed that noise levels in general are reducing thanks to the introduction of quieter aircraft, which is particularly important. My hon. Friend mentioned PAIN, and said that night flights are one of his core concerns. Birmingham airport operates what is probably one of the most stringent night flying policies in the country. Operators whose aircraft exceed agreed levels are fined the equivalent of a full runway charge, and the money thereby generated is diverted into local community schemes. Those sums are reinforced by a £50,000 annual grant paid by the airport, so it is not true to say that air operators do not pay. Stringent agreements can be entered into, and by and large operators observe them. Where they fail to do so, the money generated through fines can be recycled into local communities.
As is doubtless true of airports throughout the country, Birmingham has invested a lot of money—about £500,000—in monitoring and tracking equipment to ensure that aircraft follow noise preferential routes. In 1999, about 98 per cent. of aircraft taking off from Birmingham did indeed follow such routes. By investing in the right equipment and engaging in the right agreements, it is possible to ensure that local communities are protected.
Reference was made to American studies on pollution and the impact on health, but Professor Roy Harrison of the University of Birmingham, who is a leading authority on the subject, has also done some interesting work. His two-year study of respiratory disease in the area around Birmingham international airport, which involved some 9,000 people, concluded that there were no significant health risks. In fact, where respiratory illness and similar conditions were found, they were as likely to be associated with smoking and housing conditions as with the airport itself. The air quality monitoring scheme at Birmingham international airport has revealed pollution levels that are lower than those at other sites monitored by Birmingham city council. Therefore, we should not automatically make such claims about airports.
Reference was made to surface transport, which is a crucial factor in ensuring that local communities do not suffer as a result of attempts to develop airports. The bus network in Birmingham has been expanded extensively to serve most of the surrounding areas. The airport itself is building a dedicated public transport interchange that is linked to Birmingham railway station, and as my hon.

203WH
Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, such developments are crucial. It is also investing £10 million in an environmentally friendly people mover, and is engaged in green commuter plans that are crucial for staff who commute to the airport. It is therefore clear that there are steps that airports can and should be encouraged to take.
In conclusion, I agree about the importance of protecting local communities and ensuring that the environment does not suffer when airports develop and expand. However, we should not underestimate the positive impact—in terms of jobs and other factors—of airport developments and we should not negate the efforts of airports such as Birmingham international to respond to the concerns of local communities.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), may I ask him to be extremely brief? I had intended to call him earlier, but he did not rise in his place. We must allow the Opposition spokesman and in particular the Minister adequate time to reply.
12.10 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: I am grateful to be called, Mr. Winterton, and I apologise for failing to catch your eye earlier. I thought that I had made my intentions clear. I acknowledge that significant contributions are yet to come from the two Front-Bench spokesmen and I look forward to hearing them.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing the debate and raising an issue that is vital to this country's transport debates, but is regularly ignored in debates about sustainability. We must acknowledge—and I do nothing to detract from it—that aviation is a great UK success story. Its growth has been phenomenal and is expected to intensify in the next few years.
Too often, however, the environmental and social aspects of the sustainability equation have been either less well understood or not debated at all. The Green Paper, "The Future of Aviation", sets out some of the important arguments. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response and I belatedly welcome him to his position. Last year, he and I spent some time considering the transport legislation. As he was often not able to speak at all, it is a rare treat to hear him twice in one morning.
The Oxford economic forecasting report has already demonstrated the economic success of the aviation industry but, as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire pointed out, many serious concerns have been expressed about the limitations of that report.
We have had a measured debate, which has taken account of the delicate balance between environmental and economic issues. Hon. Members representing constituencies with airports have made valuable contributions. However, there can no longer be any escape from the need to tackle noise pollution, local air pollution and, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, the effects of global warming and climate change.
204WH
The Liberal Democrats accept that—directly or indirectly—aviation contributes hugely to the economy of this country and of the world, but it is not without cost. The British Airports Authority itself recently suggested the need for a sustainable aviation forum.
The "polluter pays" principle cannot be ignored and should be closer to the heart of aviation policy than it has been in the past. My hon. Friends have been vigorous in their opposition to terminal 5. Perhaps we can tempt the Minister to comment on it today. Urgent measures should be taken to deal with climate change in the international context, which means considering the introduction of an international aviation fuel tax.
The Green Paper starts the debate, which we hope the Minister will continue; and when the White Paper finally arrives, we hope that it will measure up to the task.
12.14 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: Thank you, Mr. Winterton. Let us hope that you are soon appointed Mr. Deputy Speaker officially.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing this important debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, aviation is one of Britain's greatest success stories not only in manufacturing aircraft, but in respect of airline; and airports. British aviation is second only to the United States of America. It contributes £10 billion to our economy, 1.4 per cent. of gross domestic product, and it directly employs 180,000 people and supports the jobs of a further 380,000 people. Despite criticism during our debate, it contributes £2.5 bill on in taxes and represents 11 per cent. of UK export services.
The industry has been successful because it has allowed itself to innovate. In recent years there have been developments such as low-cost airlines, the growth of the charter market and the expansion of some regional airports. The Confederation of British Industry said that airport links with the rest of the world are crucial for any company or business that wants to invest in the United Kingdom. The industry has an excellent safety record, which I hope will continue.
There is no question but that air transport has an environmental impact and the forecast growth in air travel requires steps to he taken to tackle the issue. A rational debate is required, the starting point of which is that global aviation consumes 12 per cent. of fossil fuels burnt by the transport sector, and road transport 75 per cent. As a result of improved burn technology, air frame efficiency and better operating procedures, consumption of fuel per passenger mile over the past 40 years has been out by 70 per cent., which is a substantial improvement.
Aircraft are becoming quieter, and aircraft entering the fleet today are typically 20 decibels quieter than comparable aircraft 30 years ago, a reduction in noise annoyance of about 75 per cent. and a massive shrinkage of noise footprints around airports. Great progress has been made in the matter.

205WH
The industry's role has changed, and aircraft manufacturers appreciate what they must do in future years. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) spoke about aircraft noise recently. He said:
At present, aircraft noise is assessed against an absolute measure: decibels. However, the disturbance a noise causes depends upon the loudness in relation to the background noise. The noise of flights into Heathrow has little impact over West London, alongside traffic and other, daytime noise. But at night, London's suburbs are deadly quiet, and there are parts of the countryside that are noted for their tranquility. Some special areas are designated as such, citing their tranquility. There is absolutely no provision for tranquil areas in present policy. Public support for aviation depends upon the way these questions are addressed. The next Conservative government will not only expect the growing number of aircraft in our skies, a: technology continues to improve, to have less and less noise impact. We will also adopt relative systems of measurement for assessing the impact of aircraft noise. Furthermore, we will create a presumption that low flying air traffic should avoid tranquil areas and tranquil periods. This will not change much—or indeed anything— quickly, but it may lead to some significant changes at the margin."
That is a good start.
Terminal 5 and airport policy have been mentioned; if we have a difficulty, it is with strategic planning for airspace and airports. Governments of all colours have not always been willing to grasp the nettle, because of the four or five-year cycle of parliamentary elections and the longer-term cycle required to develop airspace. The terminal 5 inquiry cost between £70 million and £85 million and since it began, Charles do Gaulle airport has completed a third runway and started a fourth. Schipol will have five runways by 2003, yet the five London airports combined have only six runways. There is a problem, especially in the south-east, of ensuring that capacity is met. Those issues need to be addressed and it is difficult to set out a sensible regional strategy; it is a pity that we cannot look at things strategically, across the whole country, until we know the result of the terminal 5 inquiry.
Airport operators can do a great deal about improved surface access; we heard that pollution caused by cars going to and from Heathrow may be more than that caused by the aircraft. The airline industry is a profitable industry, and so are airports; what is needed is a balancing factor to ensure that profits go into improving the infrastructure for passengers and reducing the environmental impact around airports. There are numerous examples, such as the London to Heathrow express rail link and Manchester an port's development and public transport strategy, which should be pursued to develop a more sustainable policy.
Overall, if air traffic is increasing it is sensible to try to accommodate it with investment. The only effective way to dampen down demand, as the to hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire recommends, is by taxation or by putting people off flying. People have a right to travel. We hear stories about rip-offs in the selling of cars and fuel, but here is an efficient industry that is delivering good value in terms of flights and packages so that people can move around the world. The criticisms we have heard today are unfair. We have a successful industry and if we work with it to ensure improved environmental standards and investment it should not be beyond the wit of the fourth largest economy in the world to allow people to travel and to improve environmental standards.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing the debate and on the comprehensive way in which he dealt with both the global and local issues. I will try to answer the points that were raised, but I am fairly certain that I will not get them all in. I give a commitment to write to hon. Members about any that I miss.
Our consultation paper, "The Future of Aviation", published in December, raises a comprehensive range of issues for the longer term, with the environmental implications of the industry right at the heart. We must seek to minimise the impact of aviation on the environment. At the same time, our present and future policies must and do take account of the economic benefits from a strong and competitive airline industry and from enabling capacity to be provided where it is economically and environmentally justified. That is emphatically not the same as what has been termed, perhaps simplistically, "predict and provide".
We must look critically at the environmental dimension, and that is what we are doing. However, we must also recognize that demand arises because people want to fly for business, for holidays and to visit friends and relations. Whether aviation growth is sustainable is a decision for Government. We have recognised that responsibility, but it also involves personal decisions on how, and how often, we want to travel. We are therefore consulting very widely.
Responses to the consultation paper are due by 12 April. We are not just waiting passively for people to respond. We are actively involving representatives of the industry, and environmental and residents' groups, in the various strands of work as they are developed. We have commissioned a series of studies of airport issues in six regions of the UK. The studies assess the economic, environmental and social impacts, and we shall balance all those factors before reaching a view about whether additional capacity should be provided, either at a particular site or at all. Again, I stress that there is not a blanket commitment to meet demand and then just to mitigate the environmental effects. The demand management option is on the table.
We are working towards a White Paper on air transport looking about 30 years ahead, which will set a course that the aviation industry, its users, and those affected adversely by its operations, can follow. As most hon. Members here will know, jet aircraft are subject to noise certification requirements agreed through the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The noisiest subsonic jets—those certificated to chapter 2 standards—are already being phased out and, apart from minor exemptions, may no longer operate in Europe beyond March 2002. That has already delivered significant benefits, but we have to move on.
The Government have been prominent among those in ICAO who have argued for tighter standards for new aircraft. After much hard technical negotiation, in January this year CAEP—the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection—agreed on a set of recommendations to the ICAO council. The headline in respect of noise is the agreement on a new noise

207WH
standard for new jet aircraft 10 decibels lower—cumulatively across the three certification points—than the present chapter 3 standard. The new standard will apply from 2006.
I make no secret of the fact that we had argued vigorously for an even more stringent standard than the new one, which will consolidate the technical progress in engine and airframe design achieved by the industry. We shall continue to work in CAEP for a more stringent long-term standard and for action to prevent noise from increasing in the short term. For three years we have been arguing for a standard that ensures improvement in future designs and for a phase-out programme covering the noisiest chapter 3 types. They are generally the oldest aircraft, including many of those hush kitted to meet the standard.
As well as reducing noise at source, our policy includes mitigating its impact around airports. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are designated under section 80 for the purposes of section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. That provision gives the Secretary of State powers to impose requirements on the operators of the airport, and of aircraft using it, for the purpose of limiting or mitigating the effects of noise. The requirements imposed include departure noise limits—which for daytime have been reduced with effect from this week; the new night-time limits come into effect next month—night restrictions, noise preferential routes for departures and certain regulations for the management of arriving aircraft.
Hon. Members will be disappointed if they expect me to comment on the Heathrow terminal 5 decision process beyond noting that the inspector's report is being carefully studied in the Department. A mass of evidence on environmental matters was submitted to the T5 inquiry, which the inspector has had to consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire expressed a keen interest in the possibility of East Midlands airport being designated for the purposes of section 78, as North West Leicestershire district council and others have requested. Although I am not entirely unacquainted with the east midlands
208WH
region, I am sure that everyone will understand that I cannot comment in detail on that request. The council and the airport are still discussing the noise controls at East Midlands airport. Now that the airport's sale has been completed, subject to clearance by the Office of Fair Trading, it may be possible to expedite the dialogue somewhat. We shall take a decision when all parties' representations have been considered.
Currently, the Government impose controls only at the three London airports. Elsewhere, we continue the long-standing policy that operational noise controls are best addressed at local level as far as possible. Many larger airports tend to model their controls on those at the designated airports, modified to suit local circumstances. Noise charges, set by airports themselves, are also used at the London airports and elsewhere.
We are considering improvements to the regime for non-designated airports. Separately from the consultation on the strategic issues for the White Paper, we have consulted on legislative proposals to strengthen those aerodromes' powers to control noise. We propose to repeal section 5 of the 1982 Act, whereby the CAA could be required to address environmental factors when licensing an aerodrome, and replace it with a new power of designation with an emphasis on locally agreed noise amelioration schemes. That will continue the broad policy of local resolution and add to the incentives to find effective and appropriate voluntary controls, with the possibility of central Government intervening where necessary. The paper was published last July, and the consultation period closed in October.
I apologise for being unable to move on to the issue of emissions, which is very important and was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). I make a commitment to write to my hon. Friend about the situation with regard to emissions and about where the issue fits into Government policy in international negotiations and the work being done in the run-up to the publication of the White Paper. I shall write to all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. We now move to the next debate.

Regional Policies (Dorset)
12.30 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions for agreeing to respond to the debate. I understand that on Friday she will address the south-west regional assembly in Exeter, in a debate on the south-west; she comes from the north-east, and both it and the south-west are badly affected by foot and mouth disease. I hope that she agrees that the current foot and mouth crisis shows that regionalism is an irrelevance. In the jargon of the management consultant, Government regional policies add no value; indeed, the bureaucracy, centralisation and interference with local decision-making involved in regionalism engender a significant waste of scarce resources and are a drain on local communities. Nowhere is that truer than in Dorset.
I am also grateful to the Minister for responding because she has the greatest responsibility for decisions on the distributions of taxpayer' money to local government. Today I am giving her the opportunity to apologise to the people of Dorset for the consistently unfair discrimination that the Government have exercised against them. Why does a band D householder in Dorset pay 50 per cent. more towards the cost of the police than a similar householder in Hampshire? It is not because the police service in Dorset is any better than that in Hampshire but because the Government's formula is unjust. Why does a band D household in Dorset pay some £45 more towards its county council than such a household in Hampshire?
Hampshire can afford to spend more per pupil on education. One might think that that would suggest that Hampshire council tax payers had higher bills, but the reverse is true. Why is that? This year, Dorset's education standard spending assessment has risen by less than the national average. The county council is forced to spend about 5 per cent. above that SSA, but is still not able to afford to fund its pupils on a basis comparable to that of Hampshire. That is partly because the Liberal Democrat county council insists on holding back too much money at the centre, but also because the Government's funding formula discriminates against Dorset for being in the south-west. In 2001–02, £132.50 less per pupil was spent in Dorset than in Hampshire on pupils aged between 11 and 15 and £82 less per pupil was spent on pupils aged between five and 10.
Why have the Government awarded a special cost-of-living supplement to nurses working in Hampshire when they have denied it to those in Dorset? My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) has campaigned strongly on that issue because he has Poole hospital in his constituency. All Dorset Members of Parliament are united in their opposition to the Government for their unjust handling of that. When Dorset and Hampshire were both members of Wessex health authority, they received equal treatment. However, now that the Government have forced Dorset into the south-west, nurses living and working in Dorset not only pay higher council taxes, for the reasons that I have just given, but are paid less.
To add insult to injury, for the third year running, the additional funding made available by the Government to Dorset health authority is significantly below the
210WH
national average, despite the fact that Dorset has a rapidly expanding population, a high proportion of whom are elderly. Indeed, Dorset receives less than its fair share on many counts—not only for health, education and police, but for district council services. One is bound to ask whether the Government are engaging in pork-barrel politics. It seems that because no Labour Members of Parliament represent Dorset seats, the Government are taking it out on the Dorset people by starving them of an equal share of resources.
Why else are the Government discriminating against the two district councils in my constituency—East Dorset and Christchurch—in their concessionary fares policy? No less than £54 million of taxpayers' money was made available to pay for the Government's compulsory concessionary fares policy. How much of that money reached the people who live in the East Dorset and Christchurch district council areas? Not a penny of that £54 million has been made available to East Dorset council, despite the fact that a high proportion of pensioners live there, and only £20,000 has been made available to Christchurch council; yet the additional burden of concessionary fares costs about £150,000 in East Dorset and £93,000 in Christchurch.
Christchurch has been running a system targeted on those in greatest need, which costs about £72,000 a year. The Government have now imposed a new system that would cost up to an additional £230,000 if the council could afford it. Christchurch has thus been forced into providing the minimum reduced service laid down by the Government, and many of those who benefit under the concessionary fares scheme will now lose out because the council can no longer afford it. The Government do not seem to realise that many elderly people cannot get on buses—it is physically impossible for them—and that a voucher scheme that would enable them to use taxis would be much more attractive. The Government have removed Christchurch council's local discretion; they have instead imposed a new burden, and they expect that burden to be funded through the council tax.
Mr. Robert Syms: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his robust defence of Dorset, which I fully support. It is ironic that many of the elderly who are supposed to benefit from concessionary fares will now be paying far more in council tax for that benefit.
Mr. Chope: Indeed, they will. In Christchurch, about 32 per cent. of households are pensioner households; in East Dorset, the figure is about 25 per cent. The Government are expecting those pensioner households to pay more council tax. Council tax poverty—when householders have to pay more than 10 per cent. of their income on council tax—is a fast growing problem in Christchurch and Dorset. I suspect—my hon. Friend the Member for Poole will know—that it is probably at its worst among pensioners who live in the more rural parts of Dorset. While the Government continue with such regional policies, we shall have to work within that framework when representing our constituents.

I gave the Minister of State's private office notice of some of my concerns about the impact of the latest draft regional planning guidance on my constituency. After extensive consultation and an independent panel inquiry, it seems that planning guidance is being altered

211WH
at ministerial whim. I shall illustrate that by referring to the status of Bournemouth international airport. In 1999, the south-west regional planning conference proposed as part of policy 12 that
"Policies should support the further growth of Bournemouth International Airport as a sub-regional Airport and employment location."
After consultation and public examination before a panel appointed by the Secretary of State, the panel reported that the regional policy guidance should contain a policy to achieve
"the continued development of Bournemouth International Airport as an important airport for the region and as a major strategic employment site".
The Secretary of State now proposes a further change in the wording, so that the policy would support
"the continued development of Bournemouth International Airport as an important airport for the region and as a site for airport related development".
That last minute change of wording has caused consternation in Christchurch district council and Dorset county council, and among local businesses. It is also opposed by the regional development agency. The change is not supported by evidence, yet the process purports to be evidence based.
I have given the Minister notice of my intention to ask where the proposed change of wording originated, so I hope that she will be able to answer. The introduction to the paper that set out the proposed changes in December stated:
"This consultation draft is based on the draft approved in July 1999 … It takes account of comments from consultees in autumn 1999 and, in particular, the panel report on the public examination held in March 2000 of key issues raised by consultees."
However, neither the planning conference nor the panel suggested the changes that are now being proposed for incorporation by the Government. Indeed, the Government seem to be making up the rules as they go along.
Why is the Secretary of State proposing the change in status? The reason that he gives is that
"the role of Bournemouth Airport should be recognised but its development potential should not be minimalised by the development of inappropriate activities on the site. It is important in this location, therefore, that future development should have a strong need to be located at or near this facility".
No one really knows what those words mean. Surely the best judges of how to use the airport should be its owners and the present tenants and lessees of the land. Suspicions are mounting that the significance of the Secretary of State's wording was not thought through. Indeed, in the latest draft the Secretary of State
"invites comments from parties on how this might be achieved".
Perhaps he could begin by explaining, through the Minister of State, why the change is necessary in the first place. At the same time, he could explain what the words mean.
The Government say that they want Bournemouth international airport to be recognised as having regional importance. However, the regional air service studies that are being undertaken clearly envisage the airport serving a catchment area far beyond the confines of the south-west region. Indeed, some people fear that the aim
212WH
of the regional air service studies is to meet airport demand in the south-east by supplying additional capacity in the south-west. The results of the regional air service studies could be of major significance, yet they are not to be published until after the date of the expected general election and after the closing date for further representations on the regional planning guidance. Is it unduly cynical to view the Government's timing as calculated to deny local people and their elected representatives effective input into the major decisions that may already have been taken within Government but which have not yet been shared outside, for fear of frightening the electorate?
The A31 presents another example of the Government's high-handed treatment of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, as well as the rest of the people of Dorset. The south-west regional planning conference said that policies should
"support the Port of Poole and associated regional and local transport links, particularly the A31-Poole link."
The panel reported that the regional planning guidance should seek to achieve
"the continued development of the Port of Poole including the improvement of regional and local transport links and in particular the A31-Poole link."
The A31-Poole link is important to my constituents in Ferndown, because it will bring them traffic relief. However, the Secretary of State has proposed in his latest draft regional planning guidance that references to the A31 link should not be included,
"as this scheme is being progressed through the local transport planning process".
If only it were. However, it is not.

On 14 December, the Secretary of State issued the results of the first full local transport plan settlement, which was undecided about the Poole bridge scheme. Care was taken to explain that, even if a favourable opinion were to be adopted on the Poole bridge scheme, there should not be a read-across to the Poole-A31 local link. All that has been offered is the possibility of a meeting between the local council and the regional office. All that I can say is, "Big deal." That is another example of the Government's ignoring the recommendations of the planning conference and the report of the panel, which examined the issue in detail and the evidence. What is the point of an evidence-based process if the Government tear up the recommendations and do what they like?
The boundary of the south-west region does not serve Dorset well, but I do not have time during this short debate to discuss that in great detail. The Government have decided to divide the south-west into four sub-regions. I have asked some parliamentary questions about that and have been told that the sub-regions cannot be defined by constituency or even by which constituencies are situated in more than one sub-region. We know that there are four sub-regions, which overlap. I have asked—I have not received a reply—whether the south-east spatial sub-region of the south-west extends into the south-west spatial sub-region of the south-east. The Minister has refused to answer that question, which is important to my constituents. The Government are imposing rigid, regional boundaries that are creating a host of anomalies.

213WH
If the Government want to insist on this regional nonsense, they could try to make the people of southeast Dorset feel part of the south-west by improving the road links between south-east Dorset and Exeter and Bristol. I do not know what means of transport the Minister will use when she goes to Exeter on Friday, but when she gets there, she might bear it in mind that to travel from Christchurch to Exeter takes the best part of two and a half or three hours in the summer. Someone representing Christchurch at a regional assembly would have to spend five or six hours travelling. It would be quicker to travel to London for a meeting and even quicker to travel to the so-called south-east regional headquarters that is emerging in Guildford.
Regionalism does not work in the south-west. We know that it is the means by which the European Commission hopes to destroy the individual nations of Europe; its agenda is to divide the United Kingdom and then to divide England by imposing top-down structures. The model that suits Dorset and England better is one in which local communities govern themselves through a network of truly local councils and are represented in Parliament by Members of Parliament who can hold Ministers to account. That is what our debate is all about.
12.47 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on again obtaining an Adjournment debate or Dorset. Not much of his speech was about regional policy and most of it concerned local government, which is not part of the regional programme. He obviously could not find enough to say about regional policies to fill the time available. I shall attempt to deal with the substance of his comments.
The hon. Gentleman continually says that the Government have already made decisions; the conspiracy theory survives. The only reason for his believing that is that he acted in that way when he was in government. I have no experience pf the Government working in that way. I am sorry that he continued to push the cynical conspiracy theory until, eventually, we heard his real reason for fearing regionalism. He believes that it will draw us closer to the European Community. His hatred of that is such that it totally colours his perspective. That is very sad. If he ever comes to the north-east, he will see that people were interested in regional policy long before the European Union became interested, and long before the Government introduced a regional policy.
The hon. Member for Christchurch probably cannot remember, but when his Government took power, there were strong protests from people who sought a more regional approach and the equivalent of the Scottish Development Agency for the English regions. That suggestion was rejected by the Conservative Government. The regional policy is not just a whim of the Government but one that comes from a clear understanding of what is going on in the regions now. It is important to address imbalances from a regional perspective.
214WH
Our commitment to opportunity for all demands a new regional policy. Greater prosperity and rising employment, which I know has been a feature of life for many people in Dorset in the past three to four years, does not automatically mean fairer sharing of prosperity across regions, cities or neighbourhoods. We know that all too well. However, unemployment and child poverty have fallen in every British region since 1997, although I accept that unemployment remains higher in some regions than in the south-east.
Six out of eight English regions have incomes per head below the European average. We can ill afford to view regional prosperity as an optional extra, to be established only after we have established another tier of government. There is nothing inevitable about regional inequalities and incomes, employment or opportunity. We can achieve balanced growth and rising prosperity not only in one or two regions but in every region and city. However, that requires a new approach to regional policy.
Mr. Syms: Does the Minister realise that regional inequality is growing because the Government are giving us less grant? Hampshire gets more money; Dorset gets less. That applies to both Christchurch and Poole.
Ms Armstrong: I shall come to inequalities in local government funding in a moment. Given what the hon. Member for Christchurch said, I need to make it clear why the Government have approached these matters from a regional perspective. It is necessary to back regional and local enterprise and initiative by exploiting indigenous strengths in regions and cities. Regional policy must be bottom-up rather than top-down, and further steps are required to deliver greater accountability and scrutiny both regionally and locally.
The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to local government finance. He will know—I am criticised by my hon. Friends for this—that we have not substantially changed the local government funding system since the general election. We use the system that the Conservative Government operated of standard spending assessments that are linked to need, levels of scarcity and many other things that reflect the position in different areas. He will know that I am not content that that always gives us the best outcome possible, but we have been able to ensure that in Dorset there are now only 219 infants in classes larger than 30, whereas there were 3,736 in such classes in 1997. There are 9,314 people waiting for in-patient operations compared with 12,371 in March 1997. I understand that there was an increase of 8.3 per cent. in 2000–01 and 7.9 per cent. in 2001–02 in the Dorset health authority allocations. The hon. Member for Christchurch will acknowledge that no such increases occurred when his party was in power, and I reject his view—
Mr. Chope rose—
Ms Armstrong: If I am to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions, I must make progress.
I was somewhat confused by the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Bournemouth airport. The wording of the regional planning guidance is subject to a

215WH
consultation process that will not be completed until 14 March, so it would be inappropriate for me to say what the final wording will be. As with all consultation exercises, it is important that we listen to the views of everyone and respond to them, and the views that the hon. Gentleman has expressed today will be taken into account. He asked why we rejected the local panel's recommendation on the green belt around Bournemouth airport. The matter was recently reviewed through the development plan process, and green-belt status would not prevent development of the airport. For example, its situation in the green belt has not inhibited extensive expansion of Bristol airport, which has significantly higher throughput than Bournemouth airport.
The hon. Gentleman said that the change to a policy to support "airport-related development" was not recommended by the panel. However, as he subsequently acknowledged, that phrase was intended to indicate that no one was anticipating general development. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman himself would want housing or industrial development on that site. As I understand it, he wants effective development of the airport and its associated functions, but as he knows, availability of land for development on the periphery of Bournemouth is limited. If land were used for general development, the growth of the airport might well be restricted, which is why the draft regional planning guidance supports airport-related development. However, that does not preclude other development. Primarily, the matter is one for the local district plan, which, as I understand it, states that land with airport access should predominantly be used for aviation-related activities that require such a facility. If
216WH
the hon. Gentleman can demonstrate that the planning guidance runs contrary to the genuine concerns that he has expressed, we will be able to achieve the right wording. However, I suspect that rather more heat than light has been cast on the issue today.
The hon. Member for Christchurch also referred to the road and transport plan for Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth, and asked why the proposed A31 link to Poole had been cancelled. With the reinstatement in 1995 of the A31-A 35 trunk road, Poole has retained a core trunk road that is in close proximity to its port. The Government Office, Poole borough council and Dorset county council have discussed the matter constructively, and in the light of those discussions the councils will consider how best to take the matter forward. The local transport plan settlement recognised the importance to the area's regeneration of a second crossing for Poole harbour, and we look forward to examining the councils' proposals in July.
Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth submitted their first local transport plans in July 2000 and subsequently received substantially increased funding, but it is for Dorset county council to determine its local investment priorities and to hid as part of the local transport planning process. No proposals were made for improved links to Christchurch, so we could not fund them. Cross-boundary issues must be considered by Cornwall, Dorset and Hampshire county councils and by the Government offices. They are discussing those matters, and it is important that they do so. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to see questions settled locally. Those are precisely the mechanisms that we have put in place, and I hope that those involved will work co-operatively to address the issues.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Time is up. We must move on to the next debate.

National Minimum Wage
1 pm
Angela Smith: I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness here. I know of his commitment to issues affecting the rights of those at work, and I hope that he will give a sympathetic response to the debate.
We all have days when we wonder why we wanted to be Members of Parliament in the first place, and it is easier to find the reason on some days than it is on others. When I was appointed as a member of a Committee that considered a statutory instrument about daylight saving hours, I did not feel—important as that matter is—that such matters were a motivating factor in my having become a Member of Parliament. However, when I was appointed as a member of the Standing Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill, I felt that I was dealing with one of the major reasons why I got involved in politics, because it was an issue of fairness and equality.
During the 1997 general election campaign, the Conservatives claimed that the minimum wage was one of 10 good reasons not to vote Labour. On that basis, during the next campaign they will probably say, "Don't vote Labour because it will spend money on schools and hospitals." We believed the minimum wage to be economically and morally right. The Tory party believed that it was wrong and predicted gloom and doom for the economy. It is worth spending a few minutes assessing which of those two views was accurate. Someone recently said that in theory, theory and practice should be the same, but in practice they rarely are. In this case, the Tory theory certainly did not work in practice.
In Basildon and East Thurrock more than 1,400 people have benefited directly from the national minimum wage. In reality, the figure is probably much higher, because many employers, when they realised that the legislation was about to be introduced, raised their wage rates to the amount that they expected the minimum wage to be—or, indeed, higher than that. Low pay is more widespread in Essex than it is in the south-east as a whole, and my constituency has benefited significantly.
One of the biggest fears was that the minimum wage would cost jobs. The scaremongering story was put out that creating a floor in wages would price the low-paid out of employment. We were told by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that it was the height of irresponsibility, and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—I have notified him that I am quoting his comments—confidently asserted:
"The truth is that a national minimum wage will not create jobs, but destroy them".—[Official Report, 1 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 103.]
and that it would be a "calamity". A Conservative party press release stated:
"The minimum wage, even if set at £3.60 an hour, will fuel inflation and necessitate further interest rate rises."
I am sure that at the time those who made such comments believed them to be true.
218WH
The Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill has the distinction of having had the longest sitting of this Parliament, and probably of other Parliaments. It sat throughout the night more than once, on one occasion until 1 pm the next day. Conservative members of the Committee left us in no doubt that they were appalled and horrified by even the suggestion of fair pay. They argued against a minimum wage for pensioners, the disabled and those in the voluntary sector—all tactics to try to prevent anyone from benefiting from something that they now cannot say that they would do away with. They argued late into the night, through the night, into the next day, through to the next day and into the next.
That was not merely token opposition but full-blown opposition to the minimum wage, based on the deep-rooted belief that it was wrong. Their acceptance of the policy must be one of the biggest U-turns in history—although I admit that my experiences on the Committee give me some cause for doubt. However, they were right to make the U-turn. The evidence is there for all to see. The minimum wage was welcomed by businesses across the country that had previously been undercut by cowboy workers. Before the introduction of the legislation, a man who owned a private security firm that employed quality workers was a regular visitor to one of my surgeries. He was desperate to see the national minimum wage introduced because he feared that cowboys would undercut him and his business would go bust. I am pleased to say that he has not felt the need to come and see me since the introduction of the legislation.
Fears that enforcement would be too difficult were unfounded—only six enforcement orders have been needed in the eastern region. The Low Pay Commission thinks that the majority of businesses have met their obligations on the minimum wage.
What of the other predictions? There has not been a sharp upwards step in earnings and inflation has not soared—in fact, it has gone down. Unemployment was the issue that caused the most worry. Tory scaremongering that the national minimum wage would cost more than 1 million jobs was unfounded. Since its introduction, we have more than 1 million extra jobs in the UK economy, so by any standards—even Tory standards—it has been a success.
The Minister will agree that the rate will continue to be debated. I support an increase in the overall rate, but the issue that I want to address today is the youth or developmental rate. When the national minimum wage was introduced, workers aged 18 to 22 were covered by a lower developmental rate. Last year, the adult rate increased by 10p an hour, while the developmental rate increased by 20p to £3.20, which narrowed the differential from 60p to 50p. That was welcome, but the time has come to consider removing the developmental rate to ensure that workers aged over 18 are covered by the adult rate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) will recall a debate on the subject when the National Minimum Wage Bill was in Committee. The proposal would not mean that everybody was paid the same, but it would ensure the same floor under everybody's wages, which would prevent poverty pay. The then Minister of State, Department of Trade and

219WH
Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), stated that the clause allowing for a lower rate for those aged under-26 was
"essentially an empowering measure … It is important that we have the flexibility and discretion to ensure that when the Low Pay Commission comes forward with any proposals on young people in this category, we can take account of them if we are desirous of accepting them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 27 January 1998; c. 367.]
It was made clear that there should be no differentials for location or type of employment. The Government wanted the opportunity to listen and take account of the specific recommendations of the Low Pay Commission on younger people. The commission feared that the national minimum wage would price younger workers out of the employment market. Therefore, it was right to be cautious and monitor the employment market to see what occurred. I understood the fear that there would be problems in the youth job market, but those fears proved to be groundless. Youth unemployment has fallen to levels that many doubted were possible. In my constituency—the new deal has played a great part in this—youth unemployment has fallen by 94 per cent. The figures sound unreal, but the evidence is clear if one talks to young people in Basildon, where employment has risen to record levels.
The Low Pay Commission reported:
"We propose to monitor the progress of the developmental rate with the longer term expectation of linking it only to formal, accredited training."
That link has not yet been made for young workers. The second report of the Low Pay Commission in February 2000 stated:
"The developmental rate for young workers has meant a pay rise for many young people while not affecting their employment opportunities."
Ministers have rightly stressed that the developmental rate should be kept under review. Therefore, I hope that the Minister accepts that there is evidence to review the operation and consider making changes.
Modern business trends show a move away from age-related and time-served pay scales towards those based on performance and competence. In 1996, 51 civil service organisations abolished age-related rates—including the Cabinet Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, neither of which is known for being ahead of its time. Even McDonald's does not make a distinction on pay for those aged over 18.
The Trades Union Congress has found isolated examples of employers cutting their rates of pay for young adults as a result of the new law. The practice is not widespread, but it is not in the spirit of the law. The British Youth Council has said that workers should be paid equally for work of equal value. They do not want to encourage the employment of young workers on short-term contracts as cheap labour, displacing more expensive, older workers. The youth forum of the Trades Union Congress has taken an active role and it has described the national minimum wage as a landmark achievement. We all concur with that. The youth forum welcomes the right to a minimum wage, but believes that it stops short of delivering for younger people. Its argument is simple and based solely on
220WH
fairness: to introduce a blanket exemption from the full minimum wage, bused solely on an individual's age, is discriminatory.
Many organisations, including trade unions, understand the purpose of a raining rate, but in this day and age it is not only young people who undertake training in their employment and there is no reason to use the need for training to justify a differential youth rate. The suggestion that age and training are linked is not necessarily true An 18-year-old in a burger bar—we are back to McDonald's—is less likely to receive training than IT workers in their late 50s. The Government's skills task force found that employees in the hotel and catering industry were less likely to have training programmes, although that is the largest employer of younger people.
The youth rate has not worked as a development rate and the Low Pay Commission found that a quarter of 18 to 24-year-olds were in jobs without formal training. Its latest report states that there is
"little change so far in employers' training policies in response to the"
national minimum wage.
What do young people think about the differential rate? I held a youth forum in my constituency and invited young people from Basildon and East Thurrock and sought the views of young people throughout my constituency on this and other issues. I have also received views from the TUC's youth forum, the British Youth Council and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. It is clear that the view of younger adults, many if not most of whom are already receiving the higher rate adult minimum wage, is that everyone aged 18 and over should receive the same rate. Even those who are already receiving the higher rate believe that everyone should be covered by it. It is interesting that the new earnings survey states that the median earnings of those aged over 18 is above the adult rate of the national minimum wage.
One reason for having one rate instead of differential rates is the cost of living. Young people, whether in full-time education or on a low wage, must pay the full price for services. Transport costs in particular hit young people hard and there are no bus passes for younger people as there are, rightly, for pensioners. Young people who try to live independently often have the same housing, transport and food costs as older people, but for those on a low rate of pay, the transition to adulthood can be more difficult and delayed because they cannot take on the same responsibilities.
The lower rate also means that younger workers may have to work longer hours, damaging their chances of continuing education in out-of-work hours. The Government are committed to extending and encouraging lifelong learning, but it is more difficult for young people on the lower youth rate. At the age of 18—not 21—people are entitled to vote, marry without parental consent, serve in the armed forces and are deemed in law to have reached the age of complete responsibility. I believe strongly in linking rights with responsibilities and if young people have those responsibilities, they should also have the right to the basic rate of national minimum wage.

221WH
I believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should all be in full-time education or a combination of work and training that allows them to continue to gain skills and education. However, the reality is that many 16 and 17-year-olds have part-time and holiday jobs, as I did and as have many of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) recognised that in his excellent Bill to introduce stricter regulations and tighter controls on the working conditions and hours of young workers. Some hon. Members believe that it is always wrong for 16 and 17year-olds to work. However, that is not realistic because approximately two thirds of 16 and 17-year-olds work and 60 per cent. of them are in full-time education.
If we accept that younger people will work and that it is right to provide protection in terms of working hours and conditions, it is also right to offer some protection against exploitation in pay. Whereas employers in a high proportion of high street retail stores pay those over 16 adult minimum rates and more, rates of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds have been recorded of as low as £1 an hour. We must close a loophole that allows employers to take on younger workers at the expense of the over-18s, and we must not condone exploitation. We do not want to tempt 16 and 17-year-olds away from full-time education into full-time employment.
A sixth form in Suffolk that conducted a survey about the employment of sixth formers gave me some interesting information. The survey found that some employers sought to replace full-time adult staff with part-time teenage staff to reduce overheads. Many employees are under pressure from employers to work more hours during free study periods and after school, and they worry that if they refuse to do so they will lose their jobs. They feel pressured because of their low rates of pay. I recognise that the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds in work is complex, but I hope that consideration can be given to providing some wage protection to that age group.
It was a major step forward in April 1999 when we introduced the national minimum wage, giving protection to workers for the first time. On the night that the final Bill was passed in the House of Commons, some guests from America were having dinner with me. I was nipping back and forth to the Chamber, and they said, "What is the fuss about? Are you uprating the national minimum wage?" It was beyond their comprehension that, before the Labour Government came to power, we had no floor under wages. They could not understand that we had never introduced such legislation. Those days have gone, and everyone now accepts that it is right to have such a floor. The Government should be proud of their record. It is also a foundation on which to build.
I hope that I have outlined the reasons why I consider that the current exemptions and different rates are unfair and do not fulfil our commitment to balancing rights and responsibilities. Many 18-year-olds are already receiving a higher rate, so employers are moving in that direction. The higher rate will have little or no impact on jobs, and I ask the Government to consider moving that rate to offer all adults the same legal wage protection. I know that the Minister has an excellent record on such issues. I hope that he will be sympathetic, and I welcome his comments.
1.17 pm
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) for providing a further opportunity for us to debate the national minimum wage in this Chamber. As she said, it is one of the Government's most popular policies, and a manifesto commitment that has been carried out with—it is not an exaggeration to say—spectacular success. That success was by no means universally predicted. My hon. Friend was one of the shock troops, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), when the Bill was considered in Committee. She explained eloquently the kind of opposition that the Government faced in introducing a minimum wage.
Although it is fair to say that I have an excellent track record on the issue—as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was kind enough to say—I am afraid to admit that I went to TUC congresses year after year in the 1970s and, with my colleagues, voted against a national minimum wage. The success of its introduction must be seen in that context. The last time that we were in power, it was not only employers that were opposed, but the trade union movement as well, with one or two honourable exceptions. We were worried about jobs and concerned to preserve our precious differentials. When we look back at those arguments now, a blush should come to our cheeks. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise the context in which we introduced a national minimum wage, as my hon. Friend says, for the first time in the United Kingdom, whereas other countries such as Japan, America and some in Europe have had one for many years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon is also right to point out that the issue has become a positive U-turn zone for members of Opposition parties. It was not only Her Majesty's official Opposition who went through a policy process known as the Portillo process, in which, immediately before Treasury questions, the shadow Chancellor decides whether any policies should be changed, and immediately changes them. I have pointed out many times, including during the debate on the statutory instrument that increased the minimum wage last year, that the Opposition are not wedded to a national minimum wage with no regional variations. They have spoken on several occasions about small firms being exempted from the national minimum wage. My hon. Friend is right to say that the national minimum wage would not be completely safe in their hands.
Let us not forget that the Liberal Democrat party has made a spectacular U-turn on the issue. When the Bill was going through the House, the Liberal Democrats argued that there should be a regional minimum wage, not a national minimum wage. Such a concept was so bizarre that it would have led to so many problems throughout the country and place genuine burdens on business. It would have been extremely difficult and bureaucratic for a company to operate a different minimum wage from a company a few yards down the road. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats now agree with a national minimum wage.
The national minimum wage has been extremely successful, as has been the influence of the Low Pay Commission, which is monitoring the impact of the national minimum wage. Its job is to consider it not on

223WH
the basis of formulae or headline figures, but of movements in earnings, the impact on the economy and the effect on some low-pay sectors. The fact that it is a minimum wage, without sectoral and regional variations, makes the commission's job more important. It must carry out a careful analysis, as it has done in all the reports that it has submitted thus far. It announced in its press release of 31 January that it intends to produce its third report sooner than its terms of reference proposed, which is early March this year rather than July.
The Government have already announced that we will implement changes to the rate in October 2001, so that businesses have plenty of notice of a new rate. Businesses have argued consistently that they need the longest possible warning period. Having collected all the evidence that it requires to recommend a new main rate, which will be volume 1 of its report, the commission's recommendations should be made public at the earliest moment. We welcome that decision. We can expect the rest of the report, which is particularly relevant to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend, by May. That second volume will deal with the youth rate and the effect of the minimum wage on young people generally.
I welcome the debate. It is not about whether we should have a national minimum wage. We have gone well beyond that. It is about the level at which it should be set, whether there should be a separate youth rate for 16 or 17-year-olds and some other elements that I shall try to cover today. It is customary to ask whether hon. Members want the good news or the bad news. Unfortunately for the balance of the argument, there is nothing but good news. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics confirm that between 1.2 million and 1.5 million low-paid workers and their families have benefited from the national minimum wage. It was introduced only in April 1999. Women have been particular beneficiaries of it. In its first year of operation, the gender gap closed by 1 per cent., and that cannot be put down to anything other than the national minimum wage. The gap is now narrower than ever before.
Part-time workers have seen an improvement in their position, with the national minimum wage having been at least partly responsible for stronger growth in average part-time weekly earnings. The regional pay gap is also closing, a point that is close to the hearts of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and myself. For example, earnings increased by 4 per cent. in Wales, by 4.7 per cent. in the north-east of England and by about 4.3 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humberside compared with the national average increase of 2.3 per cent. That is almost the first change in many years to what has been referred to sometimes as the north-south divide. We must ensure that people throughout Britain share in the country's economic prosperity. More than £3.2 million worth of underpayments have been secured for workers since April 1999 as a result of our enforcement orders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was right to say that we have had huge success in enforcing the national minimum wage. All that has been achieved without the slightest evidence of any damaging effects on the economy. It was said that the national minimum wage would lead to job losses. A million more people are
224WH
in employment now, and we have a national minimum wage. It was said that the national minimum wage would increase inflation. Inflation is at its lowest level for 30 years. Long-term interest rates are at their lowest since England won the World cup. More importantly, it was argued that the minimum wage would feed through into price increases Price rises are at their lowest since 1974. Wherever we look for the evidence, it suggests that the national minimum wage has had a positive impact on poverty pay without affecting the economy. Indeed, many arguments suggest that it has been extremely beneficial to the economy—not least the argument made by my hon. Friend. Companies are ringing our hotline number—0845 6000 678—to have the collars felt of some of their competitors who, they believe, are still paying less than the minimum wage and thus unfairly competing with them on poverty pay. That has certainly been an issue in the fish processing industry in my constituency.
It was evident both to us and to the Low Pay Commission from the start that setting minimum wage rates for young people was the aspect that presented the greatest risk of an adverse impact on employment. As the minimum wage had been introduced over many years in many other countries, we could analyse all the information about how it had worked. That demonstrated that the effect was most keenly felt for younger age groups and gave us reason enough to proceed with caution. We are also anxious that the minimum wage should support rather than hinder training and education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon says that it was right to be cautious in introducing the measures. It is right to continue to be cautious, because we must continue to ensure that the minimum wage is not only established but grows roots, and that no political party, whether on the right or the left of the spectrum, will ever dare interfere with it again.
It is in that context that we asked the Low Pay Commission to reconsider the matter. Its first report pointed out the dangers of setting one rate for everyone over the age of 18 and of setting a rate for 16 and 17year-olds. That was not merely a Government argument; it was the Low Pay Commission's argument, based on its analysis.
We increased the minimum rate for young people by 6.7 per cent. in June last year. We shall be cognisant of evidence and analysis is from the Low Pay Commission, which consists of representatives of the Confederation of British Industry, the TUC and several academics led by Professor Bain, who has done a remarkably good job.
Although our actions are based on the Low Pay Commission's recommendations, we are not obliged to accept its suggestions. For example, the commission's advice was that 21. year-olds should receive the adult rate. At present they count as young people. There are good reasons for our decision, which was not motivated by any animosity towards 21-year-olds; we were all 21year-olds once. However, we shall await the commission's next report to decide whether our position needs revising in the light of that report.
Our fear was that there was a spike, or peak, of youngsters coming through the system. Lots of evidence suggests that if young people lose a job at 22 or 23 years

225WH
of age and experience unemployment, that has a long-term effect on their future employment prospects. In taking a cautious approach to the matter, we wanted to see how that blip in the population developed through the system and to be absolutely sure that employment prospects would not be damaged. That is why we decided not to implement that part of the report.
All those issues are being re-examined. It is a specific part of the Low Pay Commission's job in its next report to consider young people, including 16 and 17-year-olds, who we believe should be in full-time education. We have a tremendous problem—which other countries do not have—of 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school to go to work. That is what the educational maintenance allowance is all about; that is the right priority, and there is definitive evidence to show that giving the minimum wage to 16 and 17-year-olds would militate against our priorities.
We will consider the matter again; we understand the arguments. The Low Pay Commission's report will inform our decisions, and I welcome the debate generated by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon this afternoon.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): The Minister finished exactly on time. I congratulate him.

Bedford Hospital
1.30 pm
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to have the opportunity to introduce this debate on Bedford hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) cannot be here, but he associates himself with what I have to say. I am also glad to see the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) in his place.
Bedford hospital hit the national press on Sunday 14 January, when a local newspaper, Bedfordshire on Sunday, published a sensational picture, widely syndicated in national newspapers, showing bodies on the floor of the chapel of rest at Bedford hospital. One of the bodies was partially uncovered to show the legs and part of the head of the deceased. There was, rightly, widespread concern at such an unacceptable situation.
On Tuesday 16 January, the Secretary of State came to the House to answer a private notice question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). The Secretary of State rightly described the situation as unacceptable, and informed the House that the initial findings of an investigation begun on the Sunday by the eastern region office of the NHS Executive had identified
"a failure of management within the trust."—[Official Report, 16 January 2001: Vol. 361, c. 201.]
and that the chief executive, Mr. Ken Williams, had "stepped down". He said that the final report would be published and placed in the Library. However, he went on to tell the House then and there that the situation had nothing to do with funding and everything to do with the failure of management. The clear implication to the world was that the failure was the responsibility of the chief executive, and he had rightly agreed to fall on his sword. That was it; it was a problem unique to Bedford and the fault of management; the report might be of marginal interest but, in effect, the matter was done and dusted.
As soon as I read the newspaper reports, I took the opportunity to speak to the chairman of the region, Mrs. Rosie Varley. There had plainly been strong pressure from the very top for immediate action. She told me that Mr. Williams had agreed to stand down. I confess that I was not happy, but the impression was given to me that somehow the practice had been allowed to become a regular occurrence; that no competent chief executive could have failed to have known what was going on, and that although everyone liked Ken Williams—there were considerable suspicions that the half-covered body had been something of a set-up—he was none the less right to have agreed to go.
When I questioned the Secretary of State on 16 January, I pointed out the excellent work that had taken place in Bedford hospital during the 10 years that Ken Williams had been chief executive, and his own hard work above and beyond ordinary working hours to help patients in difficulty. However, when I questioned the adequacy of the mortuary facilities, the Secretary of State indicated dissent. He insisted that the problem had nothing to do with cash—nothing to do with a shortage of resources—but everything to do with top management at the hospital.

227WH
I must tell the Secretary of State that the belief in Bedfordshire is different. One thing is common ground: that what was shown in the photograph, and in particular the fact that one of the bodies was uncovered, was unacceptable. However, views are very different about the fundamental causes, exactly how the situation came about, where responsibility should lie and what is a fair and proportionate reaction.
The Secretary of State now knows that the chief executive has strong support at every level in the hospital. He has received a letter signed by no fewer than 70 members of the medical staff committee—I think that that represents the whole committee—asking that Ken Williams be reinstated, and I understand that a petition supporting Mr. Williams has received more than 800 signatures from people working at the hospital. Above all, a strong feeling exists that, when the story broke, there was an almost immediate demand for a head on a plate.
It was said that the result was unfair, and that the particular incident was a set-up in which the chief executive and senior management were deliberately kept in the dark while the press was informed. Problems of adequate mortuary facilities at times of pressure are widespread in the NHS and Bedford's antiquated mortuary has been known as a problem to management at regional level for not only years but decades. Problems of underfunding were specifically set out in the original reports of the inquiry by eastern region, but were deliberately removed from the report before it was published at the insistence of the Department. Indeed, the fact that the report has been altered was, in substance, admitted both in an answer to a parliamentary question that I put down, and by Mrs. Kate Phipps, who chaired the inquiry, during a recent interview on the "Today" programme.
The debate seeks answers to a series of questions that, unless properly addressed, will lead to an unfair result. The background to the matter is a growing fear in the NHS, which is becoming all too well founded, of a steady growth of a blame culture. I am not happy about it. If things go seriously wrong, those who are genuinely to blame must take responsibility, but if we are going to be tough we must also be fair. The questions that I raise must be answered if justice is to be done and seen to be done.
Bedford hospital made real improvements during the years when Ken Williams was its chief executive. Its buildings have been upgraded, notably its marvellous Cygnet maternity and paediatric unit, and its new accident and emergency unit, opened in 1997 by the then incoming Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Relations between medical staff and administrators have improved, and the strong feeling among other staff is shown by their petition.
On other objective fronts, the hospital has won a series of awards. Cleanliness was a matter of recent concern in the NHS; Bedford hospital is the eastern region beacon site for cleanliness. In December 2000, it won a charter mark for its hotel services. It is among the top 10 for the lowest hospital mortality in the region. Recently, it won the Bedfordshire borough council
228WH
heartbeat award for food hygiene and healthy eating. It has supported Dr. Rob Thomas in his efforts to become hospital doctor of the year for his cancer services, which is of huge credit not only to him but to the hospital's support for him. It is a well-run hospital.
I come now to the mortuary facilities, of which the Secretary of State s statement to the House of 16 January fails to paint a fair picture. Like more than 100 other hospitals in the NHS, Bedford's mortuary facilities are antiquated. Under the present Government and the previous Government, of which I was a member, resources have been concentrated on front-line medical functions. Bedford has been significantly underfunded for decades, being either the worst or second worst funded trust in the whole of the eastern region, and consistently behindhand in the necessary catching up as money gradually ca me out of London to the provinces.
The health authority in the region was fully aware by the end of 1997 that non-clinical revenue costs were underfunded. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, when Secretary of State, was expressly told about that when he opened the new accident and emergency department. A letter from the Department, dated 22 June 1997 states:
"I recognise that significant contribution to Bedfordshire's problems is the distance between current funding and the capitation target."
The author of that letter was none other than the present Secretary of State when Minister of State.
Many mortuaries throughout the NHS are out of date. I say that not to blame the Secretary of State, who inherited the position, but to emphasise that that needs to be taken into account in doing justice to those who manage the hospitals. According to the chair of Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd., which supervises mortuaries, more than one third of the 300 mortuary and post-mortem facilities that were visited had significant problems relating to their mortuary conditions,
"some of them comparable to those at Bedford hospital trust".
The statement continues:
"What Bedford needs is a new mortuary and so do many hospitals across the country."
The CPA chairman fairly described staff at Bedford hospital as
"doing their level best against a background of underinvestment and underfunding."
Those were important matters to take into account, yet they were simply not mentioned in the published public report—and neither were the circumstances in which the photographs were taken.
I do not blame the press, which exists in a free society as a watchdog for the public. However, if justice is to be done, the circumstances in which the press was tipped off must be carefully considered. Mr. Willy White, the regional representative of Unison, freely admits that he deliberately told the press rather than the management, let alone senior management. In doing so, he deliberately breached the hospital's whistle-blowing policy, which he had helped to write only six months previously. His excuses were that it was a long-standing problem and that he was aggrieved over unfair treatment of another member of staff, Monica Carmichael. She is entitled to fairness and her case has properly gone to appeal, but the present problem was not of long standing.

229WH
The temporary mortuary had been installed only at the end of December and for four days it had been out of action due to a build-up of a partial vacuum with which anyone with a fridge freezer is familiar. We all know that freezer doors cannot be opened if warm air has got in. That should have been put right more efficiently, but how can that be laid at the door of senior management unless they were told about it?
Mr. Patrick Hall: On the temporary mortuary unit hired and then purchased by the hospital, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, although it has the capacity for 24 bodies, it could be used for a maximum of only eight because of its siting and certain health and safety rules? Does that not suggest mismanagement of the use of that particular unit? If it had been used fully, we would not have seen the bodies on the floor of the chapel of rest in the mortuary. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that that problem should be acknowledged and addressed?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman is right about the temporary mortuary units, which are not perfect. They have health and safety problems, but they were used in a dozen NHS hospitals with approval before Bedford bought this particular unit It was a problem, but not a hanging offence, and it had not been drawn to the chief executive's attention.
Much was made by the Secretary of State of the new guidelines issued in May 2000 and of their breach by Bedford hospital. I assumed from listening to the Secretary of State that those guidelines had made it clear that in no circumstances should bodies be stored in places such as the chapel of rest. It is not a consecrated chapel, just a nice little room. However, the guidelines do not say that at all. These much vaunted guidelines say no more than:
"any NHS Trusts should ensure that mortuary capacity is adequate to meet peaks in winter deaths and take steps to provide additional facilities where this is likely to be required. Temporary mortuary facilities must meet minimum standards to respect patients' dignity; refrigerated vehicles and trailers must not be used."
There is not a word about chapels of rest.
Let me explain exactly where the chapel of rest is. It is in a secure area. It is a small room, not consecrated, but reasonably nicely furnished, immediately adjacent to the mortuary itself. There is no question of it being open to the public. The only specific point in the guidelines was the prohibition of the use of refrigerated lorries.
Finally, on the basis of the facts, there remains a strong suspicion at Bedford hospital that the uncovered body had been deliberately placed there by someone to sensationalise the photograph. I do not blame the press; they photographed what they were shown. However, it is strongly believed by most of the staff, and others, that the scene was set up by the Unison representative because, as he said, he felt vindictive about the handling of another union case involving a member of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union.
There are further worries in relation to that case. The Secretary of State is a member of, and is sponsored by MSF. There are fears in Bedford that what was seen as his personal over-reaction may have resulted from lobbying on the subject by Mr. Roger Kline, who
230WH
worked closely with him in the past and who, like Mr. Willie White in the first 48 hours after the story broke, was loudly demanding the dismissal of the chief executive.
I am asking the Secretary of State to have the matter looked at again by an impartial arbiter, perhaps a Queen's Counsel with experience in the national health service and employment law. There is a widespread feeling in Bedford hospital, at every level and regardless of party affiliation, that the full truth has not come out and that justice has not yet been done.
As I said at the outset, the practice of storing bodies in an unrefrigerated area, albeit a secure one next to the mortuary, is not appropriate to modern conditions. The fact remains that priorities for funding over the years—it is not only this Government's fault—have been elsewhere. There remain scores of hospitals where mortuary facilities are inadequate, as they are in Bedford. The suggestion of the Unison official in the press that the chief executive should simply have indented for a new mortuary was unrealistic. Indeed, such a request was made 10 years ago. He could not possibly have been expected to know what was deliberately not reported to him.
When such problems arise, it is essential that they should be corrected for the future, but it is also important that the response should be proportionate, or confidence will be destroyed and morale undermined. If a manager is to be scapegoated in these circumstances, it will permit injustice not only in this instance, but will fail the staff of the health service as a whole.
1.47 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) on securing the debate on Bedford hospital. I also acknowledge the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall).
We need to look at the outcome of the investigation into the circumstances that led to the storage of bodies on the floor of the chapel of rest, although as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the chapel at Bedford hospital is not consecrated. This is a matter of great concern locally—indeed, it was of great national concern at the time the photographs were published. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the incident and the continuing debate are of great concern to me, and I welcome the opportunity to explain the facts surrounding those distressing photographs and to reassure him of our commitment to in-patients at Bedford or other hospitals to ensuring that they are treated with respect and dignity at all times. That must continue in the inevitable number of cases that arise when people die in hospital. It was in the interests of patients that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked for a full report into the circumstances surrounding the incident. Patients need to be confident that, in a patient-centred NHS, what happens behind closed doors is of the same standard as that which can be seen on the wards.
Most people found the published photographs shocking and it caused anguish to many, not least the constituents of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire. It cannot be right for bodies

231WH
to be left lying on floors over a period of days, in some cases, when people believed that their relatives were being looked after in a dignified way. The pictures showed that the patient's dignity was not respected in a way that we all have a right to expect in today's modern NHS.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was as horrified as everyone else when he saw the photographs and he promised the House that a full report of the investigation would be placed in the House of Commons Library. The eastern regional office of the NHS executive had begun to carry out an investigation within hours of the photographs being published, and its preliminary findings confirmed that a fuller investigation was needed. It is worth saying that the investigation team included a non-executive director from Bedfordshire health authority; it was not solely a team put together from within the regional office. The team interviewed more than 60 people, ranging from the porters and managers at the hospital to the coroner and representatives from the newspaper who took the pictures. The investigation confirmed that those recently bereaved had been caused additional distress at the thought that their relative might have appeared in the photograph. It also became clear that a serious breach of hospital security had been committed.
In addition, the investigation established that some of the bodies had been there for some days, that this was not the first time that bodies had been stored in this way, that rules of patient confidentiality were broken, as one of the deceased could be identified from the photograph, and that the handling of coroner's cases was potentially compromised. The porters, it was established, were not involved in the purchase of the additional body storage facility and that had contributed to the problems with that facility.
It is worth reminding the Chamber that, by the time of the incident, trusts had received two sets of guidance—health service circulars 1999/239 and 2000/016—which detailed action to be taken in respect of mortuary facilities. HSC 2000/016, issued in May 2000, set out the arrangements required by NHS trusts to ensure that mortuary capacity was adequate to meet peaks in the number of winter deaths and to take steps to provide additional facilities where those were likely to be required. It also stressed that where temporary mortuaries were required, they should meet minimum standards to respect patients' dignity.
However, that guidance was not brought to the attention of staff involved in the handling of bodies, despite its having been reinforced at a regional meeting of chief executives in November 2000 and during winter planning meetings between the regional office and local health care systems. As a result, there was no recognition of the urgent need to repair a fault on the door of the additional mortuary facility. The report states:
"From the evidence provided it is clear that the practice of placing bodies on the floor of the chapel of rest had been custom and practice for more than five years. Consequently, the Trust failed to treat the deceased with dignity and respect".
It has been suggested that the root cause of this whole issue is one of funding. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made clear in the House,
232WH
that is not the case. Storage was available in the additional facility, which meant that the floor should never have had to be used. The floor was used because of a management failure to make it clear to all staff that the deceased should be treated with dignity. As the use of the floor had become custom and practice over a period of years, there was consequently no sense of urgency in getting a fairly minor problem with the doors resolved.
Things are changing in today's NHS and some of the practices common in the past are no longer acceptable. This is just such a case. Having pointed out that the alternative provision had been made, but there was a management failure to tackle the problems that arose in the additional facility, let me address the issue of funding.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: When one is considering fairness, would the Minister agree that the senior management can deal with a matter only if they are told about it? Is it not quite clear that they were not told?
Mr. Denham: Clear guidance set out in health service circulars was made available to chief executives right across the NHS. That guidance, in the eastern region, as elsewhere, was reinforced in the whole series of activities that now surround planning for the winter period. Everything was done to ensure that the chief executive of every trust understood the importance that was attached to the issue within the NHS, given the criticism that the NHS had received in previous years over the use of inappropriate temporary mortuary facilities. It is against that background that the events that I am describing should be seen. Indeed, it was when confronted by the findings of the preliminary investigation and public anger and concern that Mr. Williams felt it right to stand down from his post in the interests of the hospital.
On the funding issue, Bedfordshire has moved further from its weighted target allocation in recent years, but it is worth looking at what has been done with the resources. Bedfordshire will have received increased resources of £92 million, an increase of more than 30 per cent. since 1997, after taking account of the growth announced for 2001–02. Even after allowing for inflation, that has enabled more than £60 million to be invested in services. Bedfordshire has also benefited financially from the designation of Luton as a health action zone.
In recent years, the health authority has lived within its resources, and the trust has balanced its income and expenditure, so Bedfordshire has enjoyed a substantial real increase in NHS resources. Following a report in 1997 by the accrediting body, CPA, the trust upgraded its post mortem facilities. The report did not refer to the capacity of the mortuary, but since then, the trust has bid twice for pathology modernisation money without raising the expansion of the mortuary's capacity. The trust has never put forward a business case for a new mortuary; nor has the trust board raised the mortuary as a problem.
The investigation report acknowledged that the trust has less mortuary capacity than other, similar-sized hospitals and that it recently lost accreditation for its pathology services, including the mortuary, because of

233WH
core facilities. It is clearly in everyone's best interests that the problem is tackled as soon as possible. The regional office has been asked to work closely with the trust in developing plans for a modern and enlarged mortuary facility.
I return to the events that took place. The report states:
"On this occasion, additional mortuary capacity was available, but was not being used because of a door defect that was not rectified for four days. This was because of confusion about accountability at middle management level and poor communication between departments".
The failure of the door of the additional mortuary was never treated as an emergency, which is why it took four days to put right, and must be seen against a background in which it had been custom and practice to use the chapel of rest.
It has been suggested that the incident was the result of a conspiracy to discredit Ken Williams or to seek revenge against him. The investigation was not able to establish that that was the case, but irrespective of whether there had been action or activity of that sort, there was a management failure in respect of mortuary facilities and that would not be changed, whether or not people had acted with malicious intent or bad faith in the case.
The professional staff interviewed by the report team were unanimous in saying that there was an open policy in the trust and that they were confident that staff concerns would be listened to. That view was not shared by all the non-professional staff interviewed; some porters and union officials feared recriminations if they persisted in expressing their anxieties. It is clear that there have been difficulties in relationships following the
234WH
dismissal of a member of staff last year and the trust will need to address that matter over time. No one was prepared to admit to the investigation team that he or she had allowed Bedfordshire on Sunday access to the mortuary and there was no opportunity to question people about their motive in taking the course of action rather than raising their concerns with trust managers. Neither the editor nor the photographer from Bedfordshire on Sunday would say how they gained access to the mortuary, although they agreed to state the days on which the photographs were taken. That enabled the bodies in the photograph to be identified, as required within the investigation team's terms of reference, but it failed to open any other avenue of investigation to the team.
There were suggestions that parts of the final report were left out of the version placed in the Library. The report laid in the Library was that written by officials in my Department and the investigation team stands by that report. Before it was completed, an early draft was shown to the trust to ensure that there were no factual inaccuracies and it was amended accordingly. The draft report was added to and edited as the investigation team worked on completing the final document. I have been assured by the chairman of the investigating team, Kate Phipps, that nothing of relevance was removed or left out of the final report and it is therefore a true reflection of the findings of the investigation.
The investigation of the incident does not end here; the body that was clearly identified in a photograph was a coroner's case, which was the responsibility of his office until released to the family. The coroner—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS NATO

  NATO
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he discussed the structure, functions and membership of NATO when he met the US President and Secretary of State. [149700]

  Mr. Vaz
  When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Secretary of State Powell in Washington on 6 February both agreed that maintaining NATO as an effective transatlantic military alliance is fundamental to European security.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in his joint statement with President Bush on 23 February that this Government are committed to a stronger Transatlantic Alliance and that NATO will remain the essential foundation of transatlantic security.

  Middle East
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet the new Israeli administration to discuss the middle east peace process. [149710]

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet the new Israeli administration to discuss the Middle East peace process. [149735]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have seen the Israeli Ambassador several times since taking up my post. I hosted a lunch for Eitan Bentsur on 15 February.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [149725]

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the prospects for permanent peace in the middle east. [149734]

  Mr. Wilson
  The cycle of violence is undermining the confidence of both sides in the peace process. I am encouraged by Prime Minister Designate Sharon's statement that he plans to continue with the peace process and to ease the conditions for Palestinians. However, the closures in the Occupied Territories breed resentment and fuel violence. The UK continues to urge both sides to take the steps needed to restore calm and re-engage in whole-hearted peace efforts.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had with the Israeli Government and Palestinian authority since the Israeli prime ministerial electron. [149738]
  584W
  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the new Israeli Ambassador on 14 February and Prime Minister Sharon's special envoy, Eitan Bentsur, on 15 February. He also met with the Palestinian General Delegate on 15 February.

  Syria
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Syrian regime about the sheltering of Aloïs Brunner. [149714]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have not made representations to the Syrian Government about Aloïs Brunner. There is general agreement that he is almost certainly dead. Inquiries in recent years by the French and German Governments and by journalists have failed to produce evidence of his whereabouts.

  Guatemala and Belize
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent talks held in Miami on the border dispute between Guatemala and Belize. [149715]

  Mr. Battle
  We welcome the talks between Belize and Guatemala held under the auspices of the Organisation of American States (OAS). After a constructive meeting in Miami on 16 and 17 January they signed a Plan of Action to implement an Agreement on Confidence Building Measures which they had agreed in Washington on 8 November 2000.

  At further talks in Washington on 5–7 February they agreed a process for addressing the substantive aspects of their border dispute. They have agreed to hold a Ministerial meeting in Washington on 21–23 May.

  We welcome the constructive spirit in which these talks are being conducted.

  Turkey
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Government of Turkey. [149717]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a bilateral meeting with Foreign Minister Cem in the margins of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Vienna in November. They also met briefly at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels in December, and are both attending the North Atlantic Council in Brussels today. FCO Ministers are also in regular contact with the Turkish Ambassador in London.

  India (Export Licences)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's role in processing export licences for sales to India; and how many such applications are currently awaiting processing by his Department. [149718]

  Mr. Wilson
  As an adviser to the DTI, we consider all export licence applications on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national export licensing criteria. In 2000, the FCO processed over 1,200 export licence
  585W
  applications for India. As of 20 February, the FCO was considering 34 Standard Individual Export Licence applications for India and 23 Open Individual Export Licences which included India as a destination.

  Egypt
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the UK's relations with Egypt. [149719]

  Mr. Wilson
  The British Government have excellent relations with the Government of Egypt. UK/Egypt trade relations are also very strong and continue to grow; we are now the largest non-Arab investor in Egypt. I visited Egypt last month.

  Ecuador
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had regarding the political situation in Ecuador. [149720]

  Mr. Battle
  I spoke to the Ecuadorean Ambassador about the political situation in his country when he called on me on 1 February.

  The Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir John Kerr, also held wide-ranging discussions with Ministers and senior officials when he visited Ecuador on 14–15 January.

  We have been following recent events closely and are pleased to note that the recent disputes between the Government and protesters over the economic reform measures have been settled.

  Kashmir
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Kashmir. [149721]

  Mr. Wilson
  We have welcomed the recent developments in Kashmir, including the announcement by the Indian Prime Minister on 22 February to extend the ceasefire by Indian security forces until the end of May. We believe this indicates a commitment to finding a peaceful solution to the Kashmir conflict. We hope that the ceasefire, and the Pakistani Government's policy of maximum restraint, will help create the conditions for a settlement to be reached. We call on both Governments to continue to build on the desire for peace in Kashmir and resume their dialogue to find a solution. We also urge the militants to respond positively and end their violence.

  NHS Recruitment
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations his Department has received from other Governments regarding recruitment on behalf of the NHS of staff in their countries. [149722]

  Mr. Wilson
  The recruitment of staff for the NHS is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his Department. However, we have received a number of representations on the international recruitment of medical staff as part of our normal bilateral dialogues with other countries.
  586W
  Recruiting medical staff from around the world to help improve the NHS presents an opportunity further to encourage international co-operation and exchange. But we also need to ensure that this recruitment does not undermine local health care systems in developing countries. The 1999 NHS Guidance on International Recruitment states that NHS employers should not actively recruit from developing countries that are experiencing shortages of their own.

  Pollution and Contamination
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps(a) the UK and (b) the European Union are taking to tackle environmental pollution and nuclear contamination problems in the former Soviet central Asian republics. [149723]

  Mr. Battle
  We are aware that water quality is one of the major environmental problems in Central Asia. The UK, in co-operation with other international donors, is encouraging improved regional water co-operation. We will also be supporting a project in the Nura-Ishim river basin in Kazakhstan to reduce industrial pollution levels.

  We will be supporting a £600,000 project to produce a land use plan for the nuclear test site at Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan. We are also considering funding a decommissioning plan for the Aktau Nuclear Power Plant, and UK experts are transferring technical know-how to the plant.

  The EU is supporting various projects to tackle environmental problems in Central Asia, such as water management and air pollution. It is also helping to fund the safe enclosure of the Aktau plant.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he plans to have with his European counterparts regarding the status of the EU charter of fundamental rights. [149724]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Charter was proclaimed as a political declaration at Nice in December. It was agreed that the status of the Charter would be reviewed at the next Intergovernmental Conference in 2004.

  European Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Evants
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place on the agenda for the next IGC in respect of European integration. [149726]

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place concerning the agenda for the 2004 IGC in relation to institutional reform. [149728]

  Mr. Vaz
  A Declaration in the Treaty of Nice sets out four issues to be discussed by the next Intergovernmental Conference in 2004. These are a more precise delimitation of competencies between the European Union and member states, the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, simplification of the Treaties, and the role of national Parliaments in European architecture.
  587W
  The Declaration also called for a deeper and wider debate on the future of the European Union, and mandated the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies to initiate a wide-ranging discussion with all interested parties, including representatives of national Parliaments, members of civil society and the candidate states. The Swedish Presidency will report on this process to the Gothenburg European Council in June.

  Chile
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs it he will make a statement on the decision of Judge Guzman in Chile to bring charges against ex-President Pinochet in connection with the caravan of death. [149727]

  Mr. Battle
  On 31 January Judge Guzman charged ex-President Pinochet with being the co-author of 57 deaths and 18 kidnappings perpetrated by the so-called "Caravan of Death" in Chile. We believe that those responsible for such atrocities should be brought to justice and we support the Chilean authorities in their pursuit of the due process of Chilean law.

  East Timor
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the international community in East Timor, with particular reference to the international court it has set up there. [149729]

  Mr. Battle
  With the full support of the international community, the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNAET) is establishing institutions and preparing the ground for elections and independence later in the year.

  We welcome recent progress made by the UNAET Prosecutor General in bringing to account those responsible for committing crimes in Fast Timor. We call on the UN, the East Timorese leadership and the Indonesians to build on their achievements and to maintain momentum.

  Philippines
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Philippines. [149731]

  Mr. Battle
  We are pleased to see the recent political crisis resolved peacefully, in accordance with the Philippines' democratic traditions. We note President Arroyo's pledges for good governance and poverty alleviation. We welcome her resumption of peace negotiations with the rebel groups. We look forward to working closely with her Administration.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the United States Administration on proposed anti-missile defence systems. [149732]
  588W
  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently held discussions in Washington with Vice-President Cheney, National Security Adviser Rice and Secretary of State Powell on a range of issues including National Missile Defence.

  These discussions, and those my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had last week with President Bush, clearly demonstrated the constructive approach being taken by the Bush Administration. The US Administration reaffirmed their commitment to a National Missile defence system but stressed their willingness to take their time to consult Allies, Russia and others. They confirmed that no decision had yet been made on the development or deployment of a specific system. It is therefore too early to assess any implications for the UK.

  Burma
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the emerging dialogue between the Burmese regime and opposition figures. [149733]

  Mr. Battle
  We cautiously welcome reports that the Burmese regime have had a series of contacts with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. We hope that these will eventually be broadened to include the ethnic minorities and lead to a lasting peaceful solution to the political problems in Burma. But the UK will not soften its policy until there is real progress in Burma.

  Colombia
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the US Government regarding the implementation of Plan Colombia by the Colombian Government. [149736]

  Mr. Battle
  We have had regular discussions with the US Government regarding the implementation of Plan Colombia. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster intends to discuss developments in Colombia with the new US Administration in March, as well as development of the separate EU package.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the ambassador of the Democratic Republic of Congo; and what topics were discussed. [149737]

  Mr. Wilson
  My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) met the Chargé d'Affaires for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) when the DRC Foreign Minister visited the UK in December. The Special Representative for the Great Lakes met him on 2 February. On both occasions discussions focused on relaunching the Lusaka peace process.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Pakistani Government concerning
  589W
  the arrest, detention and beating of two Christian young men for distributing the video film "Jesus" in Jacobabad. [149739]

  Mr. Wilson
  We are aware that Khalid and Nasir Masih were arrested on 11 January for distributing videos and literature to the Christian community in Jacobabad. Our High Commission in Islamabad continues to raise our concerns over the position of religious minorities with the Pakistani authorities and maintains regular dialogue with Christian and human rights groups.

  Iraq (Exports)
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what goods subject to strategic export controls have recently been approved for export to Iraq. [151647]

  Mr. Battle
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a licence to export computer equipment, including 10 Fujitsu Siemens Scenic ED-1170A computers and two Fujitsu Siemens Lifebook C-6545 Notebook computers, controlled under the Dual Use Items (Export Control) Regulations 2000, to Iraq for the use by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in its humanitarian activities. The export of these goods to Iraq has been approved by the UN Sanctions Committee.

  Hong Kong
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the next report to Parliament on Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration. [151648]

  Mr. Battle
  The eighth report in this series, covering the period July-December 2000, was published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk). The report includes a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the report to the House.

  Council of the European Union
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for March and the major European Union events for the period between 31 March and August. [151649]

  Mr. Vaz
  The information is as follows.

  To date we have received the detailed agendas for the following Council meetings in March:

  8 March—Brussels—Environment Council

  Directive on type-approval of two and three wheeled motor vehicles (common position)

  6th Environment Action Programme (policy debate, public)

  Integration of environmental aspects into other policy areas, strategy for sustainable development (information from Presidency and Commission)

  World summit on sustainable development, 2002 (presentation by Commission, information by Presidency)

  White Paper on Chemicals strategy (policy debate)

  Climate Change (council conclusions, preparation for COP6)

  590W

  Commission Communication on Bathing Water policy (exchange of views)

  Commission Green paper on integrated product policy (presentation)

  Presidency reports on state of play on:

  Directive on public access to information

  Directive on public participation

  Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment, and draft directive on restriction of use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment

  Decision on the list of priority substances for water policy

  Directive on recreational craft

  Directive on non-road mobile machinery (auto-oils)

  Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management

  (possibly) Commission proposals on labelling and traceability of GMOs (Commission presentation)

  AOB, including a request from the Netherlands for information on measures to reduce emissions of VOCs, in line with the Council minutes statements in June 2000

  March—Brussels—Internal Market/Consumer Affairs/Tourism Council

  The Cardiff economic reform process—Internal Market aspects Council conclusions

  The European Council in Stockholm, 23–24 March—Internal Market aspects Policy debate

  Commission Strategy for removing barriers to trade in services Orientation debate

  Commission Strategy for Better Lawmaking—Simplification of Legislation Presentation by the Commission

  Strategy for integration of environmental protection and sustainable development into Internal Market policy Information by the Presidency

  (possibly) Parallel imports/Exhaustion of trademark rights Orientation debate

  Community patent Orientation debate/Progress report

  (possibly) Community Design Adoption

  (possibly) European Company Statute Adoption

  (possibly) Strategy for Customs Union Resolution

  Public procurement Orientation debate

  eEurope Action Plan Progress report Exchange of views

  (possibly) White Paper on Chemicals Strategy—internal market and consumer aspects Presentation by the Commission

  Food law and establishing the European Food Authority Orientation debate

  Proposal on food supplements Political agreement/Common position

  Distance marketing of consumer financial services Political agreement

  Other business

  591W

  1–3 March—Uppsala—Informal Research and Education Council

  6 March—Brussels—Employment and Social Affairs Council

  12 March—Brussels—ECOFIN Council

  15–16 March—Brussels—Justice and Home Affairs Council

  19 March—Brussels—Agriculture Council

  19–20 March—Brussels—General Affairs Council

  21 March—Brussels—Fisheries Council

  23–24 March—Stockholm—European Council

  31 March–1 April—Brussels—Informal Meeting of Ministers of the Environment.

  No Agendas for the above are available at present.

  The following are the principal events in the EU between 1 April and August 2001 (certain relevant events are also included: the list is based on the information available at the date of issue).

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  April

  5–6

  Brussels

  Transport/Telecommunication Council

  8–10

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  8–10

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council (Informal)

  24–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  May

  5–6

  Nykoping

  Gymnich

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  7

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Council (possible)

  14–15

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  Industry and Energy Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  28–29

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  28

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  31

  Brussels

  Development Council

  31

  Brussels

  Health Council

  June

  5

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  5

  Brussels

  Internal market/Consumer Council

  7–8

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  Accession Ministerial Conference

  11

  Brussels

  Employment/Social Affairs Council

  15–16

  Gothenburg

  European Council

  18

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council (possible)

  21

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  26

  Brussels

  Research Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Transport/Telecommunications Council

  592W

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  July

  6–7

  Brussels

  Informal Employment and Social Affairs Council

  10

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  13–14

  Brussels

  Regional Territories Council (Informal)?

  16–17

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  23–24

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  August

  There are no European Councils scheduled for August

  Death Penalty
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what stage it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to make representations against the use of the death penalty in cases of British nationals being tried overseas. [151836]

  Mr. Wilson
  Our overriding objective is to avoid the execution of British nationals. We will now express our opposition to the death penalty and its use on a British national at whatever stage and level is judged appropriate from the moment when the imposition of a death sentence on a British national becomes a possibility. Our previous policy was to make these representations only when the judicial process had been exhausted.

  We have already taken action under the new policy in the case of Krishna Maharaj. Baroness Scotland, the Minister responsible for Consular matters, has written to the Florida State Attorney setting out the UK's opposition to the death penalty and requesting that the death sentence not be pursued in his case.

PRIME MINISTER

  Chemical Industry
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he has had with representatives of the chemical industry in the last 12 months; and what future health and environment legislation was discussed at them. [151298]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations, it is not my practice to provide details of such meetings.

  Downing Street
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Prime Minister what the total expenditure on 10 Downing street and the Prime Minister's office was, in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; and what his estimate is for 2000–01. [151372]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 21 July 2000,Official Report, column 347W and on 2 November 2000, Official Report, column 575W. The cost for the full year 1997–98 was £7.3 million. The cost of my Office from 1 April 2000 to 31 December 2000 was £8.3 million.
  593W
  As a result of a change in accounting policy, figures before 1997–98 and after 1 April 1997 are not exactly comparable, but for completeness, the recorded cost of the Prime Minister's Office in 1996–97 was £7 million.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Policies (North-East Derbyshire)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the North-East Derbyshire constituency, the effect on North-East Derbyshire of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150885]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the North-East Derbyshire constituency and on Derbyshire LEA have been placed in the Library.

CABINET OFFICE

  Devolution
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent guidance has been offered to Government Departments on issues relating to devolution. [151646]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I am today placing in the Library two further Devolution Guidance Notes which have recently been completed: DGN5—"The Role of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Post-Devolution"—and DGN9—"Post-Devolution Primary Legislation Affecting Wales". These guidance notes will be made available on the Cabinet Office internet site at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to change the 2000–01 departmental expenditure limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office. [151199]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates:

  The Departmental Expenditure Limit for Cabinet Office (Class XVII. Vote 1, Vote 3, Vote 4) will be increased by £1,290,000 from £260,259,000 to £261,549,000 and the gross running costs limit will be increased by £6,440,000 from £113,754,000 to £120,194,000.

  This is mainly to take account of the following changes:

  (a) A transfer payment from Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Class x, Vote 2) (£470,000) for digital certificates; a payment from Home Office (Class IV, Vote 1) (£559,000) for the News Co-ordination Centre and associated contingency arrangements; a payment from Ministry of Defence (Class VI, Vote 1) (£4,000) and Foreign Office (Class VII, Vote 1) (£52,000) for BBC monitoring service; and a payment to Privy Council Office (Class XVII, Vote 5) (£20,000) towards 2 Carlton Gardens.
  594W
  (b) In addition to these changes additional income from the Confiscated Assets Fund towards the cost of setting a Unit to assist with anti-drugs co-ordination internationally (£225,000).

  The increase will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Pensions
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times in each of the last five years there have been claims for unpaid pension contributions to company pension funds from the redundancy fund set up under the Employment Rights Act 1996. [150698]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The table shows the numbers of workers for whom claims for pension scheme contributions have been made against the National Insurance Fund.

  Year

  Number

  1998

  367

  1999

  414

  2000

  387

  I regret that corresponding figures are not available for earlier years.

  Telehouse West Building
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when a decision will be taken on standby generation for the proposed Telehouse West building in the East India Docks. [151776]

  Mr. Hain
  I have today given clearance under Section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 to Telehouse Europe. Telehouse have been progressively developing their facilities at East India Docks. This standby facility, of around 30 MW, will supply the electricity needs of the proposed Telehouse West building in the event of a supply interruption. Such standby facilities are designed to ensure continuity of electricity supplies in the event of a partial of total it interruption.

  Copies of the press notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make appointments to the Chemical Weapons Convention National Authority Advisory Committee. [151779]

  Dr. Howells
  I have appointed Dr. T. D. Inch, formerly Secretary-General of the Royal Society of Chemistry, as chairman of this committee for a further period of four years.
  595W
  I have also re-appointed four members and appointed three new members to the committee, as follows:
  Mr. Ian Kenyon1—Formerly Executive Secretary, Preparatory Commission for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Dr. Colin Kinnear1—Health, Safety and Environmental Manager, Asahi Glass Fluoropolymers
  Mrs. Moira McMillan—Director, British Coatings Federation
  Dr. Kenneth Patterson1—Site Process Safely Manager, Hickson and Welch
  Mr. Julian Perry Robinson—Senior Follow, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex
  Dr. Peter Plant—Formerly Insecticides Manufacturing Manager, Astra Zeneca
  Dr. Richard Worswick—Chief Executive, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  1 New appointments

CULTURE, MEDIA AMD SPORT

  Local Radio Stations
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will relax ownership rules for local radio stations. [151550]

  Janet Anderson
  The White Paper "A New Future for Communications", which the Government published for consultation in December, states that we will consider, with the Radio Authority, the possibility of devising a new regime for radio ownership to replace the current rules. We will decide how to proceed in the light of responses to the White Paper.

  Channel 4
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the proceeds that would be realised from privatising Channel 4. [151547]

  Janet Anderson
  We have not estimated the proceeds that might be realised from privatising Channel 4.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people who were previously entitled to a £5 television licence have applied for the free television licence introduced in November 2000. [151447]

  Janet Anderson
  Applications for free television licences for people living in accommodation which qualifies for the Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) concessionary licence scheme are made by housing managers when existing ARC licences fall due for renewal, rather than by individual residents. Information provided by the BBC, which is responsible for the administration of both concessionary schemes, indicates that since November 2000 applications have been received from about 10,500 residential and nursing homes and sheltered housing schemes. A number of these applications have still to be processed but approximately 44,500 residents have so far benefited from a free TV licence. The renewal cycle for ARC licences is spread across the year, on a monthly basis, and the BBC expects approximately 500,000 residents to qualify in total.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to amend his Department's expenditure limit and running cost limit for 2000–01. [151777]

  Mr. Rooker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XII, Vote 3, the Department of Social Security Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £66,361,000 from £3,590,339,000 to £3,656,700,000.

  The increase is the net effect of additional Comprehensive Spending Review funding of £30,000,000 (running costs), and an increase of £20,000,000 (running costs) for the additional costs associated with the winter fuel payments. Other changes result from a net transfer of £14,315,000 (running costs), mainly for the administration costs of the ONE project, offset by a corresponding reduction on Class I, Vote 3 (Employment Service), a transfer of £1,334,000 (running costs) for expenditure on New Deal for Communities, offset by a corresponding reduction on Class III, Vote 1 (Housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy, planning and countryside and wildlife, England), a transfer of £1,065,000 (running costs) for the cost of collecting expenses associated with road traffic accidents, offset by a corresponding reduction on Class II, Vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England), a transfer of £200,000 (running costs) towards the administrative costs of the Teenage Pregnancy Unit, offset by a corresponding increase on Class II, Vote 2 (Department of Health administration, miscellaneous health and social services, England), a transfer of £99,000 (running costs) towards the administrative costs of making winter fuel payments, offset by a corresponding increase in Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) and an increase of £173,000 (running costs) for the cost of collecting expenses associated with road traffic accidents in Scotland and Wales. There is also an increase of £7,206,000 (running costs) associated with services provided to other Government Departments on a repayment basis, an increase of £7,178,000 (running costs) arising from increased payments of Value Added Tax on contracted out services, an increase of £500,000 (running costs) associated with expenditure on sub-let accommodation, a reduction of £1,289,000 (running costs) following a reclassification to other current expenditure and an increase of £1,081,000 (other current expenditure) arising from increased secondments. Appropriation in Aid increased by £32,389,000.

  Changes in the Welfare to Work provision arise from an increase of £1,276,000 in the administration costs of measures to help unemployed people move from Welfare to Work, of which £776,000 is under the End Year Flexibility Scheme as set out in Table 7 of the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper, Cm 4812, published on 18 July 2000, an increase of £1,212,000 in the administration costs of measures to help people with a disability or long term illness move into or remain in work, a transfer of £156,000 towards the cost of the innovative scheme lead by the Prince's Trust in respect of the New Deal for Disabled People, offset by a corresponding increase on Class 1, Vote 3 (Employment

  597W
  Service) and a transfer of £306,000 towards the administrative costs of New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People, offset by a corresponding reduction on Class I, Vote 3 Employment Service.

  As a result of these changes and the reclassification of £6,500,000 to running cost related receipts the running cost limit of this Department will be increased by £58,799,000 from £3,219,522,000 to £3,278,321,000 and the running costs limit of the Welfare to Work programme will be increased by £2,638,000 from £13,996,000 to £16,634,000.

  Increases will be offset by transfers or a charge to the DEL Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are claiming the minimum income guarantee in(a) Great Britain, (b) each region of Great Britain and (c) each parliamentary constituency. [151778]

  Mr. Darling
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Policies (Norwich, North)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Norwich, North constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [151141]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Norwich, North since May 1997.

  Measures in our first four Budgets will lift over 1 million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit and Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in Norwich, North 11,145 families benefit.
  598W
  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseekers' Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in Norwich, North the number has reduced from 2,800 to 1,700. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Norwich, North from 1,600 to 1,100.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Over 21,000 older people in Norwich, North have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 19,400 pensioners in Norwich, North will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 7,800 in Norwich, North. 2,700 pensioner families in Norwich, North are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings. the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints were made against the Benefits Agency in regard to Disability Living Allowance in each of the last three years; how many such cases have been investigated by the Ombudsman; in how many cases was compensation awarded; and what the(a) highest and (b) average level of compensation was. [150594]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 26 February 2001:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many complaints were made against the Benefits Agency in regard to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in each of the lat three years; how many such cases have been investigated by the Ombudsman; in how many cases was compensation awarded; and what the (a) highest and (b) average level of compensation was.

  The information yon requested is not available in exactly the format you want. The information that is available is as follows.
  599W
  1. Number of complaints made in respect of DLA by letter, telephone or in person:

  Number

  April 1998 to March 1999

  4,276

  April 1999 to March 2000

  10,656

  April 2000 to December 2000

  10,467

  These numbers include complaints about standards of service and cases in which dissatisfaction has been expressed with the outcome of benefit decisions.

  There has been a steady increase in the number of complaints throughout this period. Between April 1999 and June 2000, this can be attributed to an increase in work on hand before and after the introduction of DMA and it should be noted that the figures have steadily decreased each month since July 2000. Changes to DLA procedures led initially to a significant increase in the time taken to process each case, which created a temporary backlog of work. This was tackled as a priority and is now under control.

  The information about DLA Ombudsman cases and special payments is not kept separately from Attendance Allowance (AA) cases.

  2. Number of DLA and AA cases investigated by the Ombudsman:

  Number

  April 1998 to March 1999

  137

  April 1999 to March 2000

  119

  April 2000 to January 2001

  149

  3. The total number of DLA and AA Specia1 Payments made:

  Number

  April 1998 to March 1999

  535

  April 1999 to March 2000

  659

  April 2000 to January 2001

  869

  4. The value of DLA and AA Special Payments:

  £

  Highest award

  Average award

  April 1998 to March 1999

  10,000

  499.00

  April 1999 to March 2000

  7,134.50

  262.14

  April 2000 to January 2001

  14,556.50

  320.75

  I hope this is helpful.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Mr. Smith of Ferndown will receive his Winter Fuel Payment; and when Mrs. Smith will receive her Winter Fuel Payment for 1998 and 1999. [151433]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of Winter Fuel Payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 26 February 2001:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when Mr Smith of Ferndown will receive his winter fuel payment; and when Mrs Smith will receive her winter fuel payment for 1998 and 1999.
  600W
  Mr Smith requested his claim on 16 January 2001. His application has now been Processed and is awaiting a decision on entitlement. Mr Smith will receive notification of his entitlement and any payment due by the end of February.

  Mrs Smith's claim form was issued to her on 23 January 2001. Her application has been partially processed, however her date of birth has not been verified. Mrs Smith has been requested to submit her birth certificate so that her claim can be processed in full.

  I hope this reply is helpful.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  The hon. Member for Leicester, East
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor' s Department on how many occasions the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) discussed potential conflicts of interest with the Permanent Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he was the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. [150664]

  Mr. Lock
  It is the normal practice of the Permanent Secretary to discuss with Ministers, when they are appointed, whether they have any potential conflicts of interest. Such discussions took place with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) when he became Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. Chapter 9 of the Ministerial Code sets out the circumstances in which Ministers should take the advice of their Permanent Secretary if they identify a potential conflict of interest. Such matters are confidential between the Permanent Secretary and the Minister concerned.

  Tribunal Funding
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans there are to extend public funding for proceedings before the VAT and Duties Tribunal, the General and Special Commissioners of Income Tax and the Protection of Children Act Tribunal. [151775]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor has today issued for consultation a direction which extends publicly funded representation to some tribunals: certain proceedings before the VAT and Duties Tribunal, certain proceedings before the General and Special Commissioners of Income Tax and all proceedings before the Protection of Children Act Tribunal.

  The direction will authorise the Legal Services Commission to fund legal help and legal representation in these proceedings, subject to applications passing the statutory tests of an applicant's means and the merits of the case.

  The Commission will be able to fund representation in proceedings before the VAT and Duties Tribunal and the General and Special Commissioners of Income Tax, in the minority of those proceedings which concerns the imposition of penalties which may be considered criminal in ECHR terms. This will ensure that the Government's commitments under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights are met in full.

  Although the Protection of Children Act Tribunal does not impose financial penalties, we consider that the overwhelming importance of the proceedings to the

  601W
  individuals involved means that legal representation should be provided at public expense to those who cannot afford it.

  The consultation period will last one month. We intend to bring in the new arrangements with effect from 2 April 2001. Copies of the direction have been placed in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  lA Page Street, Westminster
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost of works carried out to the building at 1A Page street, Westminster, since his Department took occupation of it; and what proportion of these costs was met at public expense. [151463]

  Mr. Morley
  Works carried out by the Department at public expense since we took occupation total £615,883 (including fees for surveyors etc. and VAT). Of this, £228,376 will be recovered from the developer for remedial work which we have carried out on his behalf to minimise disturbance to staff in the building. The non-recoverable work was necessary to provide facilities for the workgroups in the building and to meet the changing needs.

  The developer and his contractor continue to be responsible for all external areas of the building (including the glazing) and are responsible for correcting defects. We have no details of the cost of this remedial work, which is not at public expense.

  £ million

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Grant and supplementary credit approvals for capital improvements, catchment plant ect,

  71

  96

  106

  114

  Emergency response and repair

  5

  7

  —

  —

  Other (including storm tide forecasting service)

  6

  6

  8

  8

  Total

  82

  109

  114

  122

  These increases provide evidence of the Government's commitment to sustaining flood and coastal defences.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reimburse local authorities for their expenditure on supporting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. [151650]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today laid before the House a Special Grant Report which sets out the arrangements for reimbursing local authorities in England for the costs of supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children as a result of their duties under the Children Act 1989.

  The Special Grant Report explains the areas of expenditure which will be eligible for the grant and the time scales for local authorities to make their claims.

  Beef Industry
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect on the British beef industry of the EU Commission proposals on beef to go before the Council of Ministers on 26 and 27 February; and if he will make a statement. [151122]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The Commission proposals are for a seven point plan to address the serious disruption of the beef and veal market resulting from the BSE crisis.

  The Commission's stated aim is to limit production in order to reflect the fall in demand for beef in many EU member states. The impact on the UK beef industry of these proposals is currently being evaluated, taking into account its special characteristics and the importance of safeguarding our extensively reared, grass fed production.

  Flood Prevention
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Minister of Apiculture, Fisheries and Food what the total expenditure by his Department on flood prevention was for(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02, (c) 2002–03 and (d) 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [150419]

  Mr. Morley
  Following increases in both of the last two spending reviews and the announcements of an additional £51 million in November and a further £6.6 million in January, the current MAFF spending plans for flood defence and coast protection are as follows:

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reasons maternity grants for asylum seekers are issued in the form of vouchers; [150964]

  (2) for what reasons maternity grants in the form of vouchers for asylum seekers are deemed to expire after one month. [150965]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 ends asylum seekers' entitlement to all social security benefits and is replaced by a system of support in kind, with small cash payments. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has on a phase basis assumed responsibility for supporting all new eligible asylum seekers and this support is provided mainly by way of vouchers. The maternity payment is provided in the same way.

  The maternity payment vouchers have a four week expiry date because the maternity grant is provided to assist with the initial costs of provision for a new baby.

  Policy and Strategy Units
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his strategic policy team was established; which of its reports are placed in the public domain; how many departmental or non-departmental special advisers participate in its work; how many regular(a) non-departmental and (b) departmental staff participate in its work; and how many of these work for the unit on a full-time basis. [150369]

  Mr. Straw
  The Head of the Strategic Policy Team took up post in April 2000. The rest of the team was then recruited, the last member joining in October 2000.

  The team is an integral part of the Home Department, producing research and advice for Ministers. Its first major piece of work has been co-ordinating the production of "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead", which was laid before Parliament on 26 February.

  The team comprises eight departmental members of staff, seven of whom are full time. It employs one full time agency secretary. Where it examines issues cutting across more than one Department, it may involve staff from other Departments or from outside Government on secondment for the length of the project in question. For example, in its current work on criminal justice, it has received secondments for short periods of two officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department and one from the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Special advisers contribute to the team's work as necessary in the same way as to that of other parts of the Department, and consistent with the Model Contract for Special Advisers.

  Naturalisation Application
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that time spent considering a previous unsuccessful application for naturalisation should be deducted from the average waiting time for a decision in a subsequent naturalisation application. [150376]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 15 February 2001]: Where the normal criteria for granting priority are met, a subsequent application would normally be started ahead of its turn in the queue. In some instances the work done on the initial application may facilitate determination of a second application.

  Departmental Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total gross running cost to his Department was in the last 12 months of entertaining by(a) Ministers and (b) officials. [149046]

  Mr. Straw
  The provisional total gross running cost to my Department in the last 12 months to 31 January 2001 of entertainment by Ministers was £6,234 and by officials was £160,095. Modest hospitality is Provided for official visitors and guests, for example overseas delegations, in circumstances which are beneficial to the interests of the Department and in discharge of my responsibilities as a Cabinet Minister.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported cases involving domestic violence there were in England and Wales during the last 12 months. [151013]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Domestic violence is not separately identified in recorded crime statistics collected by the Home Office. However, estimates for the numbers of domestic violence offences in 1999 are available from the 2000 British Crime Survey (BCS). Figures are also available from returns submitted to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary relating to domestic violence "incidents' notified by police forces in England and Wales (whether or not they are subsequently recorded as crimes).

  The best estimate from the BCS is that there were 761,000 offences of domestic violence in 1999. Returns from the police indicate that there were 398,670 incidents notified to the police in 1999–2000. The BCS figure is higher than that from police 'incident' returns because not all victims will report what happened to the police. The BCS figure is an estimate only. As it is derived from a sample, it is subject to sampling error. Also, some respondents may be unwilling to reveal experience of domestic violence to interviewers. A different—more confidential—approach to measuring domestic violence in the 1996 sweep of the BCS produced higher estimates than from the conventional approach, as used to derive the 761,000 incidents in 1999.

  The BCS and police figures cover incidents against men and women. In the BCS, 74 per cent. of the offences involved women as victims (around 560,000 incidents). This information is not available from the police "incident' returns.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent reports he has received from Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary on the cost-effectiveness of police trawling investigations relating to child abuse allegations. [151277]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There have been no reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary on the cost-effectiveness of child abuse investigations. The police have a duty to investigate all allegations of child abuse fully and thoroughly, and in accordance with the law. It is for individual Chief Constables to decide on the most appropriate methods of investigation in each case.

  I have been in discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary about what more can be done to ensure that the procedures in place for conducting these very difficult investigations are fair and robust.

  ACPO are currently drawing up a manual for Senior Investigating Officers working in child abuse cases, which will include a section on good practice in tracing potential witnesses and obtaining corroborative evidence. This will provide detailed operational guidance on how to conduct such investigations, while recognising that investigators must follow emerging evidence and treat each case on its merits. In parallel with this, an inter-agency working group is currently reviewing the procedures for investigating the abuse of children in care or looked

  605W
  after children in the context of taking forward the Government's response to the Waterhouse Report "Lost in Care". This review will lead to the development of practical, procedural guidance to the police and social services on the handling of complex abuse investigations.

  Both sets of best practice guidance should be completed by the end of March. Together they will provide a coherent policy framework for how to conduct child abuse investigations, building on best practice drawn from around the country and ensuring that the necessary procedures are in place to safeguard against the risk of false allegations

  Prison Visits
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Boards of Visitors which have published their annual report in each of the last five years. [151495]

  Mr. Boateng
  Boards of Visitors annual reports are not published documents. They are made to the Secretary of State who permits the Board to publish their annual report, if they wish, subject to the removal of any material which is confidential. Boards are, however, encouraged to publish their reports and the Boards which have done so over the past five years are shown in the table.

  Board

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Acklington

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Albany

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Aldington

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  3—

  Altcourse

  2—

  2—

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Ashfield

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Yes

  Ashwell

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Askham Grange

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Aylesbury

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Bedford

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Belmarsh

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Birmingham

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Blakenhurst

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Blantyre House

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Blundeston

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Brinsford

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Bristol

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Brixton

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Brockhill

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Buckley Hall

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Bullingdon

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Bullwood Hall

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Camp Hill

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Canterbury

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Cardiff

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Castington

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Channings Wood

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Chelmsford

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Colchester

  2—

  Yes

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Coldingley

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Cookham Wood

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Dartmoor

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Deerbolt

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Doncaster

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Dorchester

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Dover

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Downview

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Drake Hall

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Durham

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  East Sutton Park

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Eastwood Park

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Elmley

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Erlestoke

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  606W

  Board

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Everthorpe

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Exeter

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Featherstone

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Feltham

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Ford

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Forest Bank

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Yes

  FostonHall

  2—

  2—

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Frankland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Full Sutton

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Garth

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Gartree

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Glen Parva

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Gloucester

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Guys Marsh

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Haslar

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Hatfield

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Haverigg

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Hewell Grange

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  High Down

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Highpoint

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Hindley

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Hollesley Bay

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Holloway

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Holme House

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Hull

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Huntercombe

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Kingston

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Kirkham

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Kirklevington Grange

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Lancaster Castle

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Lancaster Farms

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Latchmere House

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Leeds

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Leicester

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Lewes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Leyhill

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Lincoln

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Lindholme

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Littlehey

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Liverpool

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Long Lartin

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Lowdham Grange

  2—

  2—

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Low Newton

  No

  No

  No

  1—

  1—

  Maidstone

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Manchester

  No

  No

  No

  No

  1—

  Moorland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Morton Hall

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  The Mount

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  New Hall

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  1—

  Northallerton

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  North Sea Camp

  No

  No

  No

  No

  1—

  Norwich

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Nottingham

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Onley

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Pare

  2—

  2—

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Parkhurst

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Pentonville

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Portland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Preston

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Ranby

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Reading

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Risley

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Rochester

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Send

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Shepton Mallet

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Shrewsbury

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Stafford

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Standford Hill

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Stocken

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  1—

  Stoke Heath

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Styal

  No

  No

  No

  No

  1—

  Sudbury

  No

  No

  No

  No

  1—

  Swaleside

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  1—

  607W

  Board

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Swansea

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Swinfen Hall

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Thorn Cross

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  1—

  Usk/Prescoed

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  1—

  The Verne

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Wakefield

  No

  No

  No

  No

  1—

  Wandsworth

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Wayland

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Wealstun

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  1—

  Weare

  —2

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Wellingborough

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  1—

  Werringlon

  No

  No

  Yes

  No Report

  1—

  Wetherby

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  1—

  Whatton

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  1—

  Whitemoor

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Winchester

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Wolds

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  Woodhill

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  1—

  Wormwood Scrubs

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Wymott

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  1—

  1Not yet received

  2Prison not open

  3Prison closed

  Note:

  For some of the 2000 reports indicated above the date of publication will be after the disclosure of this information.

  Opposition Policies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to the answer of the Minister for the Cabinet Office of 1 December 2000,Official Report, columns 47–48W, what costings of (a) Liberal Democrat and (b) Conservative Party policies his Department has (i) undertaken and (ii) co-ordinated in the previous 12 months; and if he will place copies of such costings in the Library; [146673]

  (2) if special advisers in his Department have been involved in (a) co-ordinating, (b) costing and (c) presenting costings of policies of opposition parties; and if he will make a statement; [146672]

  (3) pursuant to the answer of the Minister for the Cabinet Office of 11 December 2000, Official Report, columns 47–48W, what costings of (a) Liberal Democrat and (b) Conservative Party policies his Department has (i) undertaken and (ii) advised upon in the previous 12 months; and if he will place copies of such costings and relevant background documents in the Library. [146664]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), on 14 February 2001,Official Report, column 183W.

DEFENCE

  Serco Contracts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts that exist between Serco and the Department, its executive agencies and associated public bodies; and if he will list those which have existed in the last three years. [151350]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. However, since 1 April 1998, the Ministry of Defence has placed 107 contracts with Serco 608W
  companies, of which 69 are extant. I will write separately to my hon. Friend with a list of such contracts and will place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House. The information sought on the number of contracts placed by the Department's executive agencies and associated public bodies with Serco companies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mustard Gas
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence his Department has(a) collated and (b) evaluated regarding the burning of mustard gas at military establishments and its effect upon neighbouring civilian populations. [148906]

  Dr. Moonie
  Following the decision by the United Kingdom to abandon its offensive chemical weapons capability in 1956 there was a requirement to dispose of the stockpile of the chemical blister agent mustard which had been built up at the time of World War II.

  In accordance with the practice of the day these stockpiles were burnt in either open pits or incinerators. No evaluations were made at the time of the effects on neighbouring civilian populations. However, the RAF has conducted extensive research into its historical disposal of chemical weapons.

  Today any historical chemical weapons which are recovered are taken to CBD Porton Down for safe disposal. Part of the disposal process of any of these weapons which contain mustard includes incineration. This is undertaken in an on-site incinerator which meets all the standards set by the Environment Agency.

  Depleted Uranium
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what checks are carried out on(a) batches of depleted uranium raw material and finished ammunition and (b) imported ammunition; [150081]

  (2) what checks are undertaken to ensure that depleted uranium used for ammunition manufacture is not contaminated with other radioactive materials. [150080]

  Mr. Spellar
  It has long been known in the scientific community, the nuclear industry and by the Ministry of Defence that depleted uranium (DU) might contain minute traces of isotopes other than U-238, U-235 and U-234.

  Two types of DU based ammunition are in-service with British Forces: the UK manufactured 120mm anti-armour round and the US manufactured 20mm RN Phalanx round.

  My Department procures all ammunition to given specifications. It is the manufacturers' responsibility to establish the suitability of raw materials used in manufacture.

  Phalanx ammunition is sold to the UK via the US Department of Defence (DOD). All of DOD's DU comes from three Department of Energy (DOE) gaseous diffusion plants: Paducah, Kentucky; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Portsmouth, Ohio. All three of these plants received recycled uranium that contained trace amounts of transuranics.
  609W
  RO buy their DU from Starmet Corporation who in turn buy it from DOE. They have no practical way of determining exactly where the input material came from. They believe that it was mostly from Paducah, Kentucky, but it was all produced at their plants at Concord and Barnwell in the US.

  Starmet have found traces of transuranic elements in their DU. However, the amounts were so small that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission simply amended Starmet's licence to accommodate the traces. Given that the amounts of contaminates are so small, and pose no additional risk to health, it is not considered worthwhile to try to remove them.

  On receipt by my Department, and periodically thereafter, all ammunition, including that containing DU, is subject to inspection in accordance with stringent guidelines. Where appropriate, in-service surveillance, proof and maintenance firing is undertaken to ensure that the ammunition continues to meet the required quality standards throughout its life. Before issue for use, DU ammunition is inspected, and the radiation dose rates are monitored to ensure that it meets transportation criteria. DU ammunition is also subject to regular dose rate monitoring in accordance with Departmental procedures while in storage depots.

  There are no specific checks undertaken which determine whether or not the DU contained in UK in-service ammunition is contaminated with other radioactive materials. However, any significant increase in the quantity of high activity radionuclides would be detected by our routine radiation monitoring.

  In view of the recent public interest in DU contamination by other radioactive materials, my Department intends to confirm the data provided by the manufacturer which was published on 7 February 2001, Official Report, columns 519–22W. We will analyse the composition of CHARM 3 ammunition using an independent laboratory, and publish the results.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the personnel who have contracted malaria as a result of deployment to Sierra Leone did not receive anti-malarial treatment until they were in Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [150672]

  Dr. Moonie
  As of 21 February, there were 113 confirmed cases of malaria among Service personnel who deployed to Sierra Leone. On the basis of the investigations undertaken by my Department, of these 113 cases, there are no more than 10 personnel who did not receive their anti-malarial treatment until after arriving in Sierra Leone. In all but one case this was as a result of their deploying at very short notice. Within 24 hours of these personnel arriving in theatre, however, the French drug Savarine was procured locally and distributed. Steps were immediately taken to procure Mefloquine, the preferred anti-malarial treatment, from the UK and all personnel taking Savarine transferred to Mefloquine within four days. The other individual was temporarily absent from his unit on duty just prior to deploying and missed the issue of Mefloquine. He was issued with Mefloquine as soon as the problem came to light between two to five days after his arrival in theatre.
  610W
  No anti-malarial drug is 100 per cent. effective and the degree of protection can be subject to a wide range of factors; for example, the geographical location, the season, and the activities undertaken by the individuals concerned. Therefore, as well as anti-malarial drugs, other types of protection and environmental controls are used. Even with such precautions, however, malaria is not wholly preventable.

  Tank Fleets
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2001,Official Report, column 631W and his subsequent letter, (1) if he will list the serviceability targets for each year from 1995 to 2001 inclusive for (a) Warrior variants, (b) Challenger 1, (c) Challenger 2, (d) Saxon variants, (e) AVF 430 variants, (f) Sabre, (g) Striker, (h) Scimitar, (i) Spartan, (j) Sultan, (k) Samaritan and (l) Samson; and if he will make a statement; [151037]

  (2) on what date the decision was made to change the system of fully operational serviceability targets for the Army tank fleet from readiness in 24 hours to immediate availability; for what operational reasons; and if he will make a statement. [151038]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The decision to change the system of reporting equipment availability was taken in May last year. The change was made following the adoption of the Formation Readiness Cycle which places different units in the Army at different readiness states. Some of these states require equipment to be available immediately (ie capable of undertaking the task to which it has been allocated), while for others a much longer lead time will be acceptable.

  The serviceability targets for the equipment types listed by the right hon. and learned Member, which reflect this change in the reporting system, are shown in the table.

  Percentage

  Vehicle type

  Serviceability target 1995–2000

  Immediate availability target 2000 to date1

  Warrior Variants

  75

  75

  Challenger 12

  80

  80

  Challenger 23

  80

  80

  Saxon Variants

  70

  70

  AFV430

  70

  70

  Sabre

  70

  70

  Striker

  70

  70

  Scimitar

  70

  70

  Spartan

  70

  70

  Sultan

  70

  70

  Samaritan

  70

  70

  Samson

  70

  70

  1This target is set by the Equipment Managers and applies to all vehicles regardless of the readiness state of the Unit to which they are allocated.

  2Challenger I withdrawal programme is almost complete.

  3Challenger 2 was introduced into service in 1998.

  BAE (Redundancies)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning planned job redundancies at BAE military manufacturing plants in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [150724]
  611W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Since the announcement by BAE Systems concerning restructuring was made on 10 January 2001, my Department has received a number of representations. At the time of the announcement the company said that it was not in a position to state how their cost reduction measures would effect each site within their business or impact upon employment. We have asked the company to keep us informed, and are monitoring the situation closely.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary Of State for Defence when he will announce the conclusions of the Review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. [151044]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have concluded the internal phase of our Review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme and I hope to make an announcement shortly on arrangements for public consultation on the resulting proposals.

  RAF Fylingdales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the annual expenditure incurred at RAF Fylingdales has been in each year since 1997; and if he will indicate under which budget heading in his Department's expenditure plans the investment in Fylingdales is listed. [151597]

  Mr. Hoon
  The annual expenditure incurred at RAF Fylingdales for each year since 1997 was some
  £12 million for 1997–98, £11 million for 1998–99 and £13 million for 1999–2000. It was charged to the Strike Command Top Level Budget, detail, of which can be found in the relevant year's Supply Estimates for the Ministry of Defence, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  French Beef
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will take steps to suspend the import of French beef until French herds are proved to be BSE-free; and if he will make a statement; [144101]

  (2) if the Government will impose a precautionary ban on French beef imports until an assessment can be made of the risks to the consumer. [144390]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Government are advised on matters of food safety by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

  The FSA has examined the issue of the safety of beef from France. Dr Christl Donnelly cf Imperial College, London has made an assessment of the risks to the consumer from BSE arising from imports of French beef. The results were published in "Nature" on 14 December 2000. The study concluded that if the United Kingdom's over-thirty-month (OTM) rule is fully enforced there is virtually no risk from BSE in French beef imported into the UK. If the OTM rule is only 75 per cent. enforced, then risks posed by British and French meat sold in the UK would be the same. The FSA estimates that OTM enforcement levels in the UK are above 75 per cent.
  612W
  In these circumstances, the FSA concluded that a ban on the importation of beef from France would not be proportionate to the risk and could not therefore be justified. Nevertheless, the FSA is keeping the position under constant review, taking account of the latest available scientific and other information. The FSA will issue revised advice whenever necessary.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigation the Food Standards Agency has undertaken concerning the scientific grounds for banning French beef imports. [144336]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Government are advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that its decision not to recommend a ban on the importation of beef from France is based on two key regulatory requirements, namely the controls on specified risk materials (SRM), and the over-thirty-month (OTM) rule, and on a scientific assessment of the risks of BSE associated with French beef.

  European Union rules, which took effect from 1 October 2000, now require the removal of SRM from beef carcases in the country of origin, and United Kingdom legislation prohibits the import of beef containing SRM. The OTM rule prohibits the sale for human consumption of beef from animals over the age of thirty months at time of slaughter. This rule applies equally to beef from cattle that are slaughtered in the UK (with minor exceptions) and to imported beef (again with minor exceptions).

  The scientific assessment of the risks of BSE to consumers in the UK arising from French beef was given in a study by Dr. Christl Donnelly of Imperial College London. The results of that study were published in "Nature" on 14 December 2000. The study concluded that if the OTM rule is fully enforced there is virtually no risk from French beef imported into the UK. If the OTM rule is only 75 per cent. enforced, then risks posed by British and French meat sold in the UK would be the same. The FSA estimates that OTM enforcement levels in the UK are above 75 per cent.

  The FSA continues to keep the position under constant review, taking account of the latest available scientific and other information. The FSA will issue revised advice whenever necessary.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) membership, (b) duration, (c) itinerary and (d) cost were of the recent Food Standards Agency mission to France to investigate BSE controls. [144342]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Food Standards Agency has advised that the delegation from the agency which met officials of the French Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to discuss BSE controls in France comprised David Statham (Director of Enforcement), David Noble (then Director of Legal Services), Chris Lawson (then Head of Meat Hygiene Division), Peter Hewson (Head of HQ Veterinary Team), Leone Austin (then Head of Media Relations), Jane Downes (Acting Director of Veterinary Services, Meat Hygiene Service) and David Carruthers (Head of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy food safety branch). The delegation was accompanied by David Barnes (First Secretary (Agriculture)) from the British Embassy in Paris and an interpreter.
  613W
  The delegation arrived in Paris on the evening of 28 November 2000, stayed overnight at the Hotel Saint James and Albany, and then travelled to the Agriculture Ministry at 251, rue de Vaugirard, arriving at 8.30 am. After the conclusion of the meeting at about 11.30 am, the delegation returned to the British Embassy and from there departed from Paris that afternoon.

  The total cost of the visit, including travel expenses, hotel accommodation and the services of the interpreter, was £3,860.

  BSE
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those animals besides cattle and sheep, which are being investigated by the Food Standards Agency for the presence of BSE and TSEs. [144871]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that it does not carry out any surveillance for BSE or other Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies in any animals, apart from cattle aged over thirty months entering the food chain. The testing of any other animals for the presence of these diseases is a matter for the Agriculture Departments.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to stop the import of BSE-contaminated meat; and if he will make a statement. [149471]

  Ms Stuart
  The Government are advised on matters of food safety by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

  British consumers are protected against the dangers of BSE in beef by two key measures: the controls on specified risk materials (SRM), and the over-thirty-month (OTM) rule.

  It is illegal to import beef with any SRM attached. Where imported beef with SRM attached is discovered, it is seized by the relevant enforcement authorities and either destroyed or returned to the supplier, depending on the circumstances involved. Following the discovery of remnants of spinal cord in a number of consignments of beef imported recently from Germany, the FSA has instructed the Meat Hygiene Service and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland to ensure that all consignments of beef imported from Germany are now inspected in licensed meat plants. The FSA has also written to local authorities to advise them that all meat plants under local authority supervision which are likely to receive consignments of German beef should be subject to further random checks, in which any beef from Germany should be inspected.

  The OTM rule prohibits the sale for human consumption of beef from animals over the age of thirty months at time of slaughter. This rule applies equally to home produced and imported beef, with the exception of beef from 14 specified non-EU countries with no history of BSE. In November 2000 the FSA instructed local authorities and the Meat Hygiene Service to step up their OTM rule enforcement checks in respect of imported beef. The responses from the enforcement authorities show a high level of compliance with the OTM rule.

  Wheelchairs
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the numbers of wheelchairs(a) supplied and (b) kept in storage in Cornwall in the last year for which figures are available. [147835]

  Mr. Hutton
  5,523 residents in Cornwall have a wheelchair issued by the Disablement Services Centre at Derriford Hospital. In 2000, 1,680 wheelchairs were issued of which 50 per cent. were new and 50 per cent. reconditioned. A number of wheelchairs are held in store at any one time, in the course of transfer to new users, or during repair.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of beef imports from Germany are subject to BSE checks of the kind that resulted in the recent discovery of specified risk material contamination in Northern Ireland. [147860]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: As a general rule, fresh meat imported into the United Kingdom from other European Union member states is subject only to random spot checks at places of destination. The responsibility for ensuring that only meat which complies with EU hygiene and BSE controls is exported to other member States rests with the competent authorities in each member state.

  However, following the discovery of remnants of spinal cord in a numbei of consignments of beef imported recently from Germany. the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has instructed the Meat Hygiene Service and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland to ensure that all consignments of beef imported from Germany are now inspected in licensed meat plants. The FSA has also written to local authorities to advise them that all meat plants under local authority supervision which are likely to receive consignments of German beef should be subject to further random checks, in which any beef from Germany should be inspected.

  In addition, the FSA has also vigorously taken up the problem of the contaminated beef with both the European Commission and the relevant German authorities.

  Blackpoql Victoria Hospital Trust
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Blackpool Victoria Hospital Trust will receive the capital investment to develop its new cardio-thoracic facilities. 147240]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 31 January 2001 The recommendations for developing cardiac services across the north-west have been accepted in full. Discussions are now progressing well with a view to developing the business case for the Specialist Cardio-Thoracic Centre which will be based at the Blackpool Victoria Hospital. It is hoped that the nrw unit will be operational by 2005, subject to the availability of capital.

  Sight Impairment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many laser treatments took place to correct sight impairment in each health authority in England in each year since 1995. [150199]
  615W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information about laser eye surgery in National Health Service hospitals in England for the years 1995–96 to 1999–2000 has been placed in the Library.

  School Dental Service
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many school pupils by health authority were both inspected and reinspected by the school dental service in each year since 1990; and it he will make a statement. [150393]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information for England has been placed in the Library.

  The tables show, for children aged five to 15, the number of screenings by the Community Dental Service (CDS) and the number of episodes of care in the CDS following screening programmes and following recall by the CDS. The number of episodes of care is not available before 1992–93. The information is shown by district health authority up to 1995–96 and by health authority thereafter.

  As part of the Dental Strategy we will work with the dental profession to clarify the aims and objectives for school dental screening, so that current best practice in encouraging treatment where necessary after screening becomes routine for all CDS and school dental screening programmes.

  Misoprostol
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals which(a) have been, (b) are and (c) plan to be involved in trials of Misoprostol; what evidence he has collated concerning the drug's effects during the first stages of labour; what representations have been made to the Government on the subject of Misoprostal; if he will review the Government's policy on the use of Misoprostol; and if he will make a statement. [150386]

  Ms Stuart
  Misoprostol is not currently licensed for the induction of labour. The Department has asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to provide clinical guidelines on the induction of labour and their report is expected this summer.

  Our view is that until such time as the NICE guidelines are issued, use of misoprostol for the induction of labour should only be administered under properly managed clinical trials where the risks and benefits of the drug are fully explained and understood by women.

  Since March 1998, the Medicines Control Agency has received and approved 22 notifications for clinical trials of misoprostol in the United Kingdom from consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists. These notifications have been made under the provisions of the Doctors and Dentists Exemption Scheme. Details of clinical trials, including data collated during trials, are not normally released, without the consent of the parties concerned, as there are legitimate commercial and other confidential interests which cannot be disclosed. Such interests are recognised in the current administrative Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and also in the Freedom of information legislation.

  Medicine Ingredients
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to review their policy concerning the listing of ingredients of animal origin on medicine labels; and if he will make a statement. [150430]

  Ms Stuart
  The labelling of medicinal products for human and animal use is governed by European law, which requires all labels to show certain information including a qualitative and quantitative statement of active ingredients and a list of other key ingredients. It is not possible to introduce a requirement for labels to identify those ingredients of an animal origin without an amendment to European law.

  ICD Implants
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provision he is making to implement the NICE recommendation to increase the use of ICDs from 17 per million population to 50 per million; [150860]

  (2) if he will list the number of ICD implants per million population by (a) health authority and (b) regional health authority. [150859]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on the appropriate use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has been circulated very widely: copies were sent to health authorities, National Health Service trusts, general practitioners and many other health professionals, as well as to community health councils and patients' groups. Additional resources have been made available within health authority unified allocations to support the implementation of NICE recommendations generally. Implementation of this NICE guidance on the use of ICDs will lead to an increase in the number of ICDs implanted but, as NICE acknowledge, we will need to develop the capacity to achieve this increase in implantation rates. This will be taken forward within the overall programme of work to improve and expand services for coronary heart disease (CHD) in line with the CHD National Service Framework.

  Comprehensive data about implantation rates by region or health authority are not available. The most recent national figures relate to 1998 and show the rate then, as stated in the question, as 17 per million population.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 49W, on the Medicines Control Agency, if he will state for each request for information made under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information since 1997 which was not met under the specified 20 days (a) the specific number of days taken for each request, (b) the reasons each request was not met under the specified time and (c) what steps are being taken to ensure that requests for information are routinely met within the specified time limit. [150455]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 February 2001]: The information requested is in the table.
  617W

  Reference Number

  Number of days taken to reply

  Reason request was not met within 20 working days

  OG/97/05

  23

  Resource priorities

  OG/97/12

  38

  Request required searches of all relevant MCA databases

  OG/98/18

  38

  Request raised 10 separate issues requiring input from across MCA. Also raised policy issues as per 98/24

  OG/98/22

  38

  An MCA internal procedures document required updating before copy could be provided as requested

  OG/98/23

  127

  Request raised five separate issues, some spanning 1987 to early March 1998, which needed search of archived papers. Also raised policy issues as per 98/24

  OG/98/24

  123

  Raised issues of policy which needed to be resolved before reply could be sent

  OG/98/30

  24

  Resource priorities

  OG/98/37

  83

  As per OG/98/24

  OG/98/44

  66

  As per OG/98/24

  OG/98/49

  35

  Request raised four separate issues requiring search of third party papers

  OG/98/51

  128

  Request raised six separate issues requiring search of third party papers

  OG/98/55

  29

  Resource priorities

  OG/98/64

  1—

  Reply subsumed into action re: OG/98/24

  OG/98/67

  30

  Reply subsumed into separate correspondence outwith the Code

  OG/98/69

  21

  Resource priorities

  OG/98/73

  align="right">23

  Resource priorities

  OG/98/76

  2—

  Request cleared by telephone but no record of data made at time

  OG/98/78

  31

  Request raised 13 separate issues requiring search of archive papers

  OG/98/79

  33

  Resource priorities

  OG/99/03

  169

  Request sought replies to consultation exercise. The consultation period had been extended beyond the expiry of the 20 days and then large number of replies had to be checked for confidentiality, copied and collated before reply could be sent

  OG/99/04

  175

  As OG/99/03

  OG/99/09

  86

  Request raised 24 separate issues requiring search of archived papers

  OG/99/11

  23

  Information sought not held centrally by the MCA

  OG/99/13

  31

  Resource priorities

  OG/99/24

  26

  Request sought replies to consultation exercise and replies had to be checked for confidentiality, copied and collated before reply could be sent

  OG/99/31

  35

  Resource priorities

  OG/99/37

  28

  Resource priorities

  OG/99/45

  33

  Partial reply sent within 20 days but supplementary information required to complete reply

  OG/99/46

  62

  Involved correspondence with third parties to determine material to be disclosed

  OG/99/48

  64

  Request raised 11 separate issues requiring search of archived papers

  OG/99/50

  43

  Request raised several separate issues requiring search of archived papers

  OG/00/02

  64

  Resource priorities

  OG/00/05

  38

  Resource priorities

  OG/00/20

  71

  Multiple queries requiring advice from third parties

  OG/00/22

  129

  Multiple queries requiring advice from third parties

  OG/00/23

  1—

  Involves large amount of data and correspondence with third parties to determine material to be disclosed

  OG/00/25

  3—

  Involves large amount of data and correspondence with third parties to determine material to be disclosed

  OG/00/27

  3—

  Involves correspondence with third parties to determine material to be disclosed

  1Not applicable

  2Not known

  3Outstanding

  Following a recommendation from the Ombudsman, the Medicines Control Agency is currently reviewing its procedures for handling requests under the Code. In addition the Agency is examining the information held by the MCA (which currently totals around 400 different types) to determine, for example, what can be routinely published or what could be pre-prepared in anticipation of requests. This work will intensify over the coming months in preparation for the implementation of the Freedom of information legislation. These initiatives will streamline arrangements for dealing with requests for information and enable a greater number of inquiries to be answered within 20 working days.

  Pharmaceuticals
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the cost of pharmaceuticals in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and other European Union countries; and if he will make a statement. [150666]
  618W
  Ms Stuart
  Regular comparisons are made between the prices of medicines in these countries and the results published in "The Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme: Report to Parliament". The most recent edition of this (the fourth report) was published in December 2000. Copies are in the Library and the text is also on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/pprs/ pprs-reports.htm.

  The medicines compared (which are those with the highest sales to the National Health Service) are branded rather than generic, because in many countries unbranded generic medicines are not available.

  Haemophilia
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the additional cost to the NHS of treating all adults with haemophilia in England who are receiving plasma treatment products with recombinant genetically engineered products; [150862]
  619W
  (2) how many adults with haemophilia in England are receiving (a) plasma-derived haemophilia treatment products and (b) recombinant treatment products. [150864]

  Mr. Denham
  Based on figures provided by the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation, we estimate that approximately 13 per cent. of adult haemophilia A patients and 4 per cent of haemophilia B patients in England are currently receiving recombinant clotting factors. We estimate the additional cost of providing all adult haemophilia patients with recombinant clotting factors at around £50 million per annum.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what differences there are between the provision of recombinant genetically engineered haemophilia treatment products for(a) adults and (b) children in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland. [150865]

  Mr. Denham
  In England, all new haemophilia patients and children under 16 are treated with recombinant clotting factors. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland provide, or are in the process of providing, recombinant clotting factors for all haemophilia patients.

  Project Name

  Expected Completion Date

  Estimated Cost (£000)

  Children In Need 3

  August-2001

  174

  Children Looked After 4

  April-2001

  182

  DH Communications Unit Resource Management System

  March-2002

  393

  Care and Health Information Portfolio 4

  May-2001

  289

  Computer Aided Facilities Management System

  June-2001

  122

  Computerisation of Medical Benefits System

  June-2001

  380

  Food Standards Agency (IT Infrastructure set-up & Relocation)

  May-2001

  1952

  Financial Infromation Management System (Phase 1)

  October-2001

  870

  Interim NHS Benchmarking System

  February-2001

  301

  Internet Data Collection for Local Authorities

  March-2001

  114

  NHS Estates Knowledge Database

  February-2001

  206

  NHS Estates Business Systems

  April-2001

  720

  Research and Development Programme Management System

  April-2002

  426

  Management of Electronic Documents Strategy

  April-2003

  2500

  Regional Office Historic Data Project

  November-2001

  234

  Remote Working Improvements Project

  December-2001

  150

  National Care Standards Commission IS Infrastructure

  April-2002

  19600

  National Care Standards Commission Registration and Inspection Package

  April-2002

  1500

  National Care Standards Commission Finance Package

  April-2002

  1000

  National Care Standards Commission Pay and Personnel System

  April-2002

  250

  Medical Devices Agency Integrated System for Information Sharing

  March-2001

  191

  NHS Pension Agency E-Pensions Zone

  June-2001

  493

  Public Health Laboratory Service CoSurv/lablink

  March-2002

  112

  There are many smaller projects where the total project costs are less than £100,000. A full-list of these could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the IT projects his Department plans to undertake in the next year; and if he will state in each case the(a) expected date of commencement and completion and (b) cost. [151478]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The Department's programme for 2001–02 has not yet been finalised but priority will be given to projects that support the NHS Plan.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued to nurses about
  620W
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what counselling and advice his Department has made available to haemophilia patients who have received treatment products which are traced to a blood donor who has died of vCJD. [150861]

  Mr. Denham
  The United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation, in consultation with the Department, has agreed a policy of giving all haemophilia patients information about such incidents and offering them a choice to know if they or their children received implicated clotting factors. Counselling and advice to patients will be provided by haemophilia centres.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the IT projects currently undertaken in his Department; and if he will state the(a) expected completion date and (b) cost of each project. [151506]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  reporting to the police cases where, in the course of their duty, a nurse strongly suspects a child of being a victim of sexual abuse. [151355]

  Mr. Hutton
  Nurses are well placed to identify when a child may be suffering, or be at risk of significant harm. Like any other professional, a nurse must take appropriate action in accordance with locally agreed procedures, if he or she believes that a child is at such risk. This may involve a referral to local child protection services, which may include the police who then inquire as appropriate into the circumstances of the case.

  The "Working Together to Safeguard Children" guidance, published by the Government in 1999, and "Child Protection—Guidance for Senior Nurses, Health Visitors and Midwives and their Managers", a report of the Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee, published in 1997, together set out in detail the crucial role that nurses play in child protection.
  621W
  We are currently developing supplementary guidance to "Working Together" which will focus on the role of all health professionals in child protection.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if full multidisciplinary investigations are carried out in accident and emergency departments of all cases where babies have been shaken. [151374]

  Mr. Hutton
  If a member of staff working in a hospital accident and emergency department believes that a child may be suffering, or may be at risk of suffering, significant harm appropriate action must be taken immediately in accordance with local procedures. This may involve a referral to local child protection services, which may include the police who then inquire as appropriate into the circumstances of the case.

  The "Working Together to Safeguard Children" guidance, published by the Government in 1999, sets out how all agencies with child protection responsibilities should work together to safeguard children and promote their welfare. We are currently developing supplementary guidance to "Working Together" which will focus on the role of all health professionals in child protection.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information on specific treatment services provided to children at risk of abusing other children within the Quality Protects Programme is available. [151378]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not seek from local authorities specific information on what services are made available under the Quality Protects Programme to children at risk of abusing other children.

  However, children at risk of abusing other children are likely to have considerable, and often complex, needs. Local authorities are expected to work closely with their partner agencies to ensure that such children receive support and treatment based on their assessed needs.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future programme for research into the incidence and prevalence of child maltreatment in the UK. [151380]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to researching into the nature and extent of child abuse and its causes. Development of policy aimed at tackling child maltreatment is informed and influenced by published research in this complex field such as that carried out by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The revised "Working Together to Safeguard Children" (1999) guidance on child protection reflects the key messages from a programme of research studies into child protection issues commissioned by the Department of Health, "Child Protection: messages from research" (1995).

  We regularly commission research into the needs of children and the impact of services which aim to promote and safeguard the welfare of children. The total cost of this programme for the current financial year is approximately £2.5 million. Projects considering the causes, directly or in part, of child abuse include: a study of the onset of sexually abusive behaviour in boys who were sexually abused in early childhood; a study aimed at advancing knowledge about the psychological maltreatment of a specific group of children: those singled
  622W
  out from their siblings and rejected by their birth parents and the comparative costs and outcomes of different interventions for sexually abused children.

  Meat Cutting Services
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions exist on butchers to provide meat cutting services to other outlets; and if he will make a statement. [151358]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: In order to provide cutting services to other outlets, butchers need to have their premise licensed as cutting plants under the red meat or poultry meat hygiene and inspection Regulations, which implement European Union Directives. The Regulations only exempt butchers who cut meat for sale from their own premises directly to the final consumer.

  However, under guidance originally issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to cater for trading practices in Great Britain, exempt butchers may supply their other branches or mobile shops with up to 50 per cent. or 1 tonne (whichever is the lesser) of their production per week, provided the rest is sold from the premises where the meat is cut. In England and Wales, exempt butchers may also use shops not in their ownership as subsidiary outlets, provided they retain ownership of the meat until its sale to the final consumer, subject to the overall 50 per cent. or 1 tonne weekly limit.

  Physical Punishment (Children)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish a response to the submissions received on his consultation document on the physical punishment of children. [151377]

  Mr. Hutton
  We will publish our response to the consultation on the physical punishment of children later this year.

  Prescription Costs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of prescriptions in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [151524]

  Ms Stuart
  The table gives details of the net ingredient cost of prescriptions dispensed in the community in England. The majority of these will have been prescribed by general practitioners.

  Net ingredient cost of Prescriptions dispensed in the community in England, 1979 to 1999

  £million

  Year

  Community pharmacists and appliance contractors

  Community pharmacists and appliance contractors dispensing doctors and personal administration

  1979

  592

  n/a

  1980

  716

  n/a

  1981

  834

  n/a

  1982

  977

  1,035

  1983

  1,096

  1,162

  1984

  1,181

  1,257

  1985

  1,250

  1,333

  1986

  1,366

  1,459

  1987

  1,537

  1,644

  1988

  1,737

  1,865

  1989

  1,882

  2,027

  623W

  Net ingredient cost of Prescriptions dispensed in the community in England, 1979 to 1999

  £million

  Year

  Community pharmacists and appliance contractors

  Community pharmacists and appliance contractors dispensing doctors and personal administration

  1990

  2.079

  2,243

  1991

  2,334

  2,520

  1992

  2,639

  2,858

  1993

  2,903

  3,159

  1994

  3,115

  3,405

  1995

  3,362

  3,681

  1996

  3,654

  4,007

  1997

  3,976

  4,367

  1998

  4,285

  4,701

  1999

  4,836

  5,291

  Notes:

  1. 1979 to 1990 data are from the Prescription Pricing Authority PD1 series of forms.

  2. 1991 to 1999 data are from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system.

  3. 1979 to 1981data for dispensing doctors and personal administration are not available.

  4. Net ingredient cost (NIC) refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs of fees. It does not include any adjustment for income obtained where a prescription charge is paid at the time the prescription is dispensed or where the patient has purchased a pre-payment certificate.

  Asylum Seekers (Unaccompanied Children)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if unaccompanied asylum seeking children are supported in the same way as children ordinarily resident in the UK under the Children Act 1989. [151379]

  Mr. Hutton
  Local authorities have the same duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of unaccompanied asylum seeking children as they do for the indigenous population of children in need. All local authorities have a duty under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to provide services for all children in need in Chair area, including accommodation and support. There are currently approximately 6,000 unaccompanied asylum seeking children in the United Kingdom, the riajority of whom are aged 16 and 17. They are generally provided with support under Section 17 of the Children Act, with those aged under 16 being formally looked after under Section 20 of the Act.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were awaiting NHS treatment on 1 January in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [151521]

  Mr. Denham
  Hospital waiting list information collected centrally shows the position at the end of each quarter. The table shows the number of people waiting for admission to hospital, either as an ordinary or day case, on 31 December each year since 1989.

  Patients awaiting admission to hospital

  As at 31 December

  Number

  1989

  971,845

  1990

  965,520

  1991

  950,098

  1992

  977,189

  624W

  Patients awaiting admission to hospital

  As at 31 December

  Number

  1993

  1,065,782

  1994

  1,070,492

  1995

  1,054,948

  1996

  1,104,983

  1997

  1,261,915

  1998

  1,173,598

  1999

  1,108,006

  2000

  1,034,381

  Source

  Trust based KHO7 returns

  We promised to reduce NHS waiting lists and this we have done. At the end of December 2000 the waiting list was 123,600 below the March 1997 level we inherited.

  Post-natal Depression
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what systems are in place to ensure early detection of post-natal depression in mothers of young babies; and what support is given to such mothers. [151376]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Service Framework for mental health sets out at standards two and three the action needed to deliver better primary mental health care, and to ensure consistent advice and help for people with mental health needs, including primary care services for individuals with severe mental illness. The NSF requires health authorities to have protocols agreed and implemented between primary care and specialised services for the management of post-natal depression by April 2001. Work is being taken forward following publication of the NHS Plan and through the Workforce Action Team, to agree the workforce and education requirements to deliver the NSF, and to strengthen mental health in primary care.

  Compensation
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS paid in compensation payments in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [151287]

  Ms Stuart
  Figures on the amounts included in the National Audit Summarised Accounts for clinical negligence payments for the last five years are as follows:

  £million

  1994–95

  160

  1995–96

  173

  1996–97

  235

  1997–98

  144

  1998–99

  221

  Figures for 1999–2000 are not yet available.

  Because of changes to accounting practice required by the National Audit Office these data are not directly comparable.

  Information on the non-clinical schemes is not available.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many accident and emergency units there were in the NHS in each year since 1991–92; [150387]
  625W
  (2) how many accident and emergency units were in operation in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [151531]

  Ms Stuart
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The Department collects information centrally on the number of National Health Service trusts with one or more accident and emergency service. Information for 1996–97 to 1999–2000 is available via the annual Korner return KHO3 "bed availability and occupancy". Copies are available in the Library.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of eye tests was in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [151528]

  Mr. Denham
  National Health Service sight tests are provided by community opticians at no charge to the patient. Prior to 1989 there was universal entitlement but, from 1 April 1989, eligibility was restricted to children, people on low incomes and people suffering from or predisposed to certain eye diseases. With effect from 1 April 1999 we restored eligibility to everyone aged 60 or over so that less than 50 per cent. of the population now has to pay for private sight tests. The cost of a private sight test varies between optical practices.

  Dental Costs
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of a session of dental treatment was in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [151530]

  Mr. Hutton
  The average gross cost per course of treatment in the General Dental Service is shown separately for children and adults in the table for England for each of the years 1979 to 1999–2000.

  General Dental Service: Average gross cost in £ per course of treatment from 1979 to 1999/2000—England

  Year

  Children

  Adults

  1979

  6.60

  13.78

  1980

  7.59

  16.88

  1981

  8.63

  19.38

  1982

  9.13

  21.16

  1983

  9.73

  22.32

  1984

  10.15

  24.07

  1985

  10.52

  24.79

  1986–87

  11.75

  27.11

  1987–88

  13.01

  29.41

  1988–89

  14.96

  31.82

  1989–90

  16.49

  33.30

  1990–91

  17.40

  35.13

  1991–92

  18.81

  36.11

  1992–93

  23.32

  34.77

  1993–94

  25.32

  31.93

  1994–95

  26.39

  33.16

  1995–96

  28.07

  33.26

  1996–97

  28.44

  33.58

  1997–98

  26.05

  32.52

  1998–99

  28.52

  33.53

  1999–2000

  29.88

  34.82

  The figures from 1990–91 onwards are affected by the introduction of the new dental contract in October 1990. Under the contract, part of dentist's remuneration come
  626W
  from registration payments rather than from treatment fees. For children, certain treatments were covered by these registration payments and no longer claimed for separately in courses of treatment. Since 1996–97, some of these children's items are again claimed for separately.

  Nurse Recruitment
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were recruited in each year since 1983; and if he will make a statement. [151529]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the total number of nurses recruited into the National Health Service is not collected centrally.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Highways Expenditure
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the levels of spending on highways per head of population in(a) Staffordshire and (b) each other county of England (i) in the current year and (ii) in each of the last three years. [150017]

  Mr. Hill
  The tables showing capital and current expenditure figures by Highways Authorities for the current year available have been placed in the Library of the House. Both tables include Staffordshire. The figures are derived from DENR/Government Office for London capital and revenue estimated outturn figures.

  Figures for the three previous years were included in my reply to the hon. Member on 10 November 1999, Official Report, column 601W.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the levels of spending on highways per head of population in(a) Staffordshire and (b) each other county of England (i) in the current year and (ii) in each of the last three years, distinguishing in each case the element represented by standard spending assessment. [148292]

  Mr. Hill
  The tables showing capital and current expenditure figures for the current year available have been placed in the Library of the House. Both tables include Staffordshire. The figures are derived from DETR/Government Office for London capital and revenue estimated outturn figures.

  Figures for the three previous years were included in my answer of 10 November 1999, Official Report, column 601W.

  Standard Spending Assessment

  Funding for current expenditure on local authority highways is provided by central Government through the Revenue Support Grant (RSG). RSG covers routine maintenance on all local authority roads, part of the structural maintenance on non-principal roads, and an element for capital replacement of street lighting.

  Highways Maintenance Standard Spending Assessment (HMSSA) is the figure used to calculate the highways element of the Revenue Support Grant (RSG). The largest single factor used in the calculation of HMSSA is the

  627W
  length and class of roads in each local authority's network. Other factors include average winter weather, levels of traffic volume, and population.

  RSG provides the financial basis for local authorities to provide essentially similar levels of service. However, it is for local authorities to prioritise their use of the money available to them, and authorities may use part of the highways maintenance element for other services.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money was allocated to local authorities for road maintenance in each of the past five years in(a) North Somerset and (b) England. [150069]

  Mr. Hill
  The table shows capital allocation figures for highway maintenance, and figures for Highway Maintenance Standard Spending Assessment, for North Somerset and England, for the years in question.

  Highway maintenance allocation for North Somerset and England

  £ million

  Highway maintenance (capital allocation)

  Highway maintenance SSA

  North Somerset

  England (total)

  North Somerset

  England (total)

  1996–97

  0.591

  186

  6.416

  1,759

  1997–98

  0.668

  200

  6.316

  1,759

  1998–99

  0.594

  180

  6.281

  1,767

  1999–2000

  0.686

  240

  6.295

  1,813

  2000–01

  0.895

  301

  6.576

  1,858

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what monitoring his Department carries out of local authorities in their provision of best value regarding road maintenance; and if he will make a statement. [150028]

  Mr. Hill
  We introduced a number of Best Value Indicators in 2000–01 which measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the highway maintenance function, including the condition of principal and non-principal roads, efficiency of street lighting, cost of highway maintenance, duration of temporary traffic controls caused by local authority road works on traffic sensitive roads, and time taken to respond to dangerous defects, in each highway authority.

  Local authorities are required to publish details of their performance against these indicators it their annual Best Value Performance Plan (BVPP). They are also required to set realistic targets for all their services. These plans and targets are subject to scrutiny by the District Auditor.

  The Government have set specific targets in the 10-Year Plan for Transport for halting the decline in road condition, and have made provision for this in the Local Transport Plan settlement. Best Value Indicators are one method by which the performance of highway authorities will be monitored.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that there are sufficient personnel 628W
  available in NATS to maintain necessary service levels while training occurs for the new en route centre at Swanwick. [149849]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  It is essential that air traffic controllers are trained to a high standard to operate the system at the Swanwick centre.

  NATS have told us that the staffing situation with regard to manning of West Drayton while at the same time training for the Swanwick centre is tight but manageable. The training of controllers for the New En Route Centre commenced on 2 January 2001 and will be complete in January 2002. NATS has some 360 air traffic controllers available to meet a budgeted requirement for 300 controllers in the Area Control operation at the London Area and Control Centre at West Drayton and the surplus is participating in the training programme on a rotating basis. By June of this year, the actual number of West Drayton controllers is expected to increase to 374.

  A3, Hindhead
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information he has collated about accident rates on the A3 in the Hindhead area in the past three years. [150302]

  Mr. Hill
  As part of the recently completed road based study of the A3 at Hindhead, accident data were collected for a three-year period from late 1996 to late 1999. There are clusters of accidents on the single-carriageway sections and at the Hindhead crossroads but they are not markedly different from clusters elsewhere on similar roads. The number of accidents along the A3 between the scheme over the past three years is as follows:

  Year/location

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  1996–97

  Single-carriageway section

  1

  5

  24

  Hindhead

  0

  2

  1

  Total

  1

  7

  25

  1997–98

  Single-carriageway section

  1

  5

  30

  Hindhead

  0

  0

  4

  Total

  1

  5

  34

  1998–99

  Single-carriageway section

  0

  3

  22

  Hindhead

  0

  0

  2

  Total

  0

  3

  24

  Diabetes
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from Phil Gallie MSP about licence restrictions for people with diabetes. [150815]

  Mr. Hill
  We have received no representations from Phil Gallie MSP on this issue.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his
  629W
  estimate is of the length of time that a vessel could maintain traces of radiation having been used to dump nuclear waste at sea. [150797]

  Mr. Meacher
  Vessels used for sea dump in the North Atlantic were subject to licence under the Dumping at Sea Act 1974. Such licences contained a provision requiring the ships, on completion of sea dump operations, to be monitored and, if necessary, cleaned by a qualified person until free from significant radioactive contamination to ensure the ships could be returned to unrestricted use with other cargoes. The statutory limits of residual non-fixed radioactive contamination and radiation levels applicable at the time remain essentially the same to date, ie non-fixed contamination limits of 4 Bq/cm2 (10-4 µCi/cm2) for beta/gamma and low toxicity alpha emitters, 0.4 Bq/cm2 (10-5 µCi/cm2) for all other alpha emitters, and a surface radiation limit of µ5 Sv/h (0.5 mrem/h).

  Sea dump operations ceased in 1982 with the last operation of the MV Gem, which was certified free from significant radioactive contamination on 15 August 1982 by observers from the UK Atomic Energy Authority and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD.

  Council Housing (Birmingham)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the resources available to Birmingham city council to improve its council housing stock. [150675]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Capital investment by local authorities is financed by support from central government and from their own resources. The size of their overall programme, the total for housing and the proportion of this spent on the council housing stock are for authorities to decide.

  Government support for housing investment by Birmingham for 2001–02 totals £90.2 million, which is two and a half times the allocation for 1997–98. Around half of the 2001–02 allocation is being provided through new Major Repairs Allowance, which provides resources to meet the on-going capital costs of maintaining the council housing stock.

  Birmingham are working on proposals for stock transfer. If this proceeds it should secure resources to enable catch-up repair work and modernisation work to be completed in 10 years.

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he expects the decision on the refranchising of the East Coast main line to be taken; [151252]

  (2) what steps he is taking to investigate the reasons for the delay in the refranchising of the East Coast main line; and if he will make a statement. [151251]

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if bidding for the East Coast main line franchise has been suspended; and if he will make a statement. [151328]
  630W
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: On 14 February the Strategic Rail Authority announced a pause in the franchise replacement process for the East Coast main line as a result of the increased cost estimates for upgrading the line that Railtrack has now provided.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has asked the Chairman of the SRA, Sir Alastair Morton, to advise him urgently of the reasons for the increase in Railtrack's cost estimates and why this information has only become available at this late stage.

  It would be inappropriate to speculate on any implications for the replacement process for the East Coast main line franchise until the SRA has discussed the cost estimates with Railtrack.

  A27
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much public money was spent on work relating to(a) possible improvements to the A27 Lewes to Polegate and (b) the A27 Polegate bypass between 1 January 1989 and 30 April 1997. [150833]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Kerman to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 27 February 2001:

  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked the Highways Agency's Chief Executive, Tim Matthews, to reply to your question about the amount of public money which was spent on work relating to (a) possible improvements to the A27 Lewes to Polegate and (b) the A27 Polegate bypass between 1 January 1989 and 30 April 1997. Mr. Matthews is currently on leave and I am replying on his behalf.

  I am afraid that the financial records kept before the Agency was established in April 1994 do not allow us to disaggregate expenditure on these two schemes. The amount spent on work on them from 1 April 1994 to 30 April 1997 is:

  (a) the possible improvements to the A27 Lewes to Polegate—£935,545

  (b) the A27 Polegate bypass—£1,445,572.

  Traffic Movements
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his Department's policy to encourage heavy traffic to use local roads as a diversion from trunk roads. [151329]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Trunk roads are intended as through routes for heavy traffic. It is not the Department's policy to encourage heavy traffic to divert to local roads, although in the event of an incident these can be used as a temporary diversion.

  Rail Services (Penalties)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been levied in fines and penalties for late performance on Railtrack and the train operating companies by the Rail Regulator since May 1997; and if he will set out the date and amount of each fine. [151330]
  631W
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: On 24 November 1999, the Rail Regulator made an enforcement order imposing a penalty of £10.8 million on Railtrack. Railtrack has sought mitigation and is to provide the Regulator with further information to enable him to make a final decision. The imposition of penalties on train operators for late performance is a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority, not the Regulator.

  Cycle Storage Lockers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to remove cycle storage lockers from main railway stations; and if he will make a statement. [151324]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: No. The provision of cycle storage facilities at their 14 main railway stations is a matter for Railtrack. I understand that their policy is to provide for such facilities wherever possible. Railtrack is currently carrying out an audit of cycle facilities at all their stations to determine whether greater provision is needed.

  A36(T)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason he has decided to de-trunk the A36(T); and how much he estimates this will save his Department in the first three years of de-trunking. [150460]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The A36/A46 route was identified as a non-core route for de-trunking in the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport", which set out the factors taken into account in defining the core trunk road network (paragraph 3.130). Following consultation with regional planning bodies on the proposed core/non-core split a further study of the role of the A36/A46 was carried out. This. study concluded that the proportion of core route traffic on the route is low although it recognised that the A46/A36 met to some degree the criteria for core route status. In view of the short journey length of the majority of the traffic and in particular the need for local initiatives to manage the impact of heavy goods vehicles on the route the Secretary of State decided to confirm its status as a non-core route.

  De-trunking is not an exercise to save money. We are committed to a fair transfer of resources to local highway authorities taking over de-trunked routes and arrangements for ensuring this have ben discussed and agreed with the Local Government Association.

  Furthermore, in the light of the major study which we commissioned to look at alternative ways of dealing with the city's transport problems following the cancellation of the A36 Salisbury Bypass in 1997, we announced in the local transport settlement last December £13.7 million to be spent over the next five years on integrated transport measures from the Salisbury Package included in Wiltshire County Council's local transport plan. We also provisionally accepted the proposals for the Brunel Link and Harnham Relief Road, estimated to cost £13 million, which are also part of the Package.

  Partnership Programme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the funds allocated to the Powershift cleaner fuels programme has been spent to date in the 2000–01 financial year, broken down by fuel type of conversion. [150643]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: My Department is providing Powershift with a total of £9.9 million this financial year. In the period 1 April 2000 to 16 February 2001 grants totalling £7.2 million towards the cost of purchasing cleaner fuel vehicles had been offered and accepted with £2.1 million so far actually paid. Information on the detailed breakdown by fuel type is being prepared and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many road traffic accidents which have given rise to(a) fatalities and (b) personal injury occurred in each of the past five years for which figures are available; how many of each of the above categories of road traffic accidents occurred in areas subject to (i) a 30 mph speed limit, (ii) a 40 mph speed limit, (iii) a 50 mph speed limit, (iv) subject only to national speed limits for the relevant category of road and (v) on motorways subject only to the 70 mph speed limit; and in how many of each of the above categories of accident excessive speed was a significant cause of the accident. [151283]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is shown in the table. It is not known in how many of the accidents in each category excessive speed was a significant cause.

  Road accidents in Great Britain: 1999

  Speed limit (mph)

  Fatal accidents

  Other injury

  All personal injury1

  30

  1,077

  151,638

  152,715

  40

  267

  18,284

  18,551

  50

  91

  3,901

  3,992

  60 or 70

  Non-motorways

  1,526

  48,812

  50,338

  Motorways

  176

  8,942

  9,118

  All roads2

  3,138

  231.910

  235.048

  1 Includes fatal accidents

  2 Includes unknown and other speed limits

  Farm Vehicles
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if farm vehicles exempt from vehicle excise licences will be required to display a number plate; and if he will make a statement. [151158]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the pre-Budget statement his intention to exempt tractors and certain other agricultural vehicles from the payment of vehicle excise duty, subject to consultation. There is already a wide range of vehicles exempted from the payment of vehicle excise duty, including vehicles operated by the emergency services and those constructed before 1 January 1973. Generally, the requirement to display a licence, (including, in
  633W
  the case of exempt vehicles, a "nil licence") and the requirement to display number plates are quite separate and there are no plans to alter these arrangements.

  Flood Prevention
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the total expenditure of his Department on flood prevention work was(a) through local authority finance, (b) through all forms of central Government finance for (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02, (iii) 2002–03 and (iv) 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [150418]

  Ms Armstrong
  The funding allocated by the Flood Defence and Coast Protection SSA blocks for 2000–01 and 2001–02 is set out in the table. Decisions about the level of the Flood Defence and Coast Protection SSA blocks for subsequent years have not yet been taken; therefore no figures can be provided for 2002–03 or 2003–04.

  £ million

  Year

  Flood defence SSA

  Coast protection SSA

  2000–01

  246.825

  10.275

  2001–02

  257.700

  10.700

  2002–03

  n/a

  n/a

  2003–04

  n/a

  n/a

  DETR does not provide any other funding for flood prevention work. All other central Government support for flood prevention work is provided by MAFF as set out in an answer to PQ 150419 given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food today, Official Report, column 602W.

  Highways Agency
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Highways Agency Business Plan will be published; and what targets he has set for the Highways Agency for 2000–02. [151738]

  Mr. Hill
  Key targets set for the Highways Agency are included in the Agency's Business Plan which will be published tomorrow. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  These targets are:
  to maintain the network so that the proportion requiring maintenance within the next year is held between 7 and 8 per cent.;
  to upgrade, and have operational with agents, the Highways Agency Pavement Management System;
  to put in place a computer based road structures asset management system (Structures Management Information System);
  to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on motorways and trunk roads by 416 to 4,575 (compared with the 1994–98 average of 4,991);
  to reduce the slight casualty rate to 21.59 slight casualties per hundred million-vehicle km (compared with the 1994–98 average of 22.14);
  634W
  to complete at least 10 early action schemes aimed at improving safety;
  to complete at lea it 11 early action schemes aimed at tackling congestion;
  Install at least 68 motorway Close Circuit TV cameras;
  to achieve an average annual target of 90 per cent. across the six environment programme sub-indicators;
  to install automatic hold up warning systems on at least 128km of motorway length; and
  to achieve at least 13 of the 15 Targeted Programme of Improvements scheme milestones listed in the Business Plan;
  to put the Agency s property to economic use ensuring that the percentage of vacant residential properties at the end of the year does not exceed 15 per cent. of the residential portfolio, and the percentage of vacant habitable properties empty for more than six months at the end of the year does not exceed 3 per cent. of the residential portfolio.

  2001–02 is the first full year of the implementation of the Government's 10-Year Plan for Transport. These targets reflect the progress which the Highways Agency will deliver in contributing to the objectives of providing a safe, well maintained and less congested strategic road network.

  National Bus Company (Pensions)
  Ms Rosie Winlerton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the legal proceedings initiated by the National Bus Company pension trustees to determine eligibility of the different categories of beneficiary for a share of the settlement sum paid over by the Government in July 1999. [151739]

  Mr. Hill
  As I reported to the House in replying to the Adjournment debate held on 25 January, these proceedings were commenced in October 2000. I understand that a case conference was held on 9 February. As a result, the patties concerned are required to participate in discussions during March with a view to agreeing a settlement of the outstanding issues and to report back to the court. I urge all those involved to do their utmost to reach agreement within that time scale.

  I also understand that, if—as I hope very much will not be the case—agreement is not reached and a full trial is necessary, a timetable has been set for this to commence in the autumn and to last around five weeks. it would obviously involve significant legal costs which could amount to several million pounds and this, combined with the further potential delay, underlines the need for every effort to be made to reach an early agreement in the forthcoming discussions.

  Bus Subsidies
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 2001,Official Report, column 220W, if he will make a statement on the results of the latest round of the rural bus challenge competition, and on the allocations to local authorities. [151774]

  Mr. Hill
  Following careful consideration of the 137 bids submitted by local authorities to the Rural Bus Challenge 2000, on 19 February we announced approval for the 51 projects as listed. Funding for the successful bids will total up to £21.2 million.
  635W
  That announcement also detailed increased Local Authority Rural Bus Subsidy Grant allocations for 200–02, totalling £41.5 million and indicative allocations

  Rural bus challenge 2000

  Authority

  Project name

  Award total (£)

  Bedfordshire

  The Potton Area 'Countryside Link' Project

  555,575

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridgeshire Rural Links

  260,000

  City of York

  Enhanced Connexions

  235,858

  Cornwall

  The DIRECT Project

  845,000

  Cumbria (North West Partnership)

  Clubcard—Smartcard Vision

  Up to 800,000

  Derbyshire

  Southern Derbyshire Rural Access Initiative (continuation)

  600,000

  Devon

  Life in the Bus Lane—North Devon (Buses are Cool)

  300,000

  Dorset

  Blackmore Vale Accessible Community Transport Scheme

  462,000

  East Riding

  Howdenshire Community Transport Partnership

  400,000

  East Sussex

  Moving Forward—Community Buses for Rural Transport Partnership

  773,820

  Essex

  Dengie Plus: Building on Success

  1,113,805

  Greater Manchester

  Expansion of Rural Shared Taxi

  288,000

  Hampshire

  Testbed

  990,165

  Herefordshire

  Transport Co-ordination Project

  129,452

  Hertfordshire

  HAD—"Out of Hours Transport Services"

  209,781

  Kent

  Deal Area Responsive Transport (DART)

  453,000

  Lancashire

  Carnforth Connect

  660,500

  Leicestershire and Rutland

  Leicestershire and Rutland Cross County

  1,619,000

  Lincolnshire

  Tardis

  547,000

  Milton Keynes

  Nippa Service

  160,154

  Norfolk

  North Walsham "Bitternlink"

  276,528

  Leisure and Learning Links

  250,825

  North Lincolnshire

  A1077 Villages, Bus Service Route 350

  114,313

  North Yorkshire

  Travelinks

  602,000

  South Selby Taxibus

  267,000

  Stationlink and Sherburn area village bus

  253,000

  Northamptonshire

  Corby Rural Dial-a-Ride

  50,900

  Northumberland

  Phone and Go

  731,700

  Nottinghamshire

  Renew Retford—NEWark

  492,000

  Plymouth

  Enhanced Rural Service Access and Quality

  214,800

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Improving Access Arrangements to Housing in Skelton

  20,000

  Shropshire

  Rural Real-Time bus passenger information project

  282,697

  Somerset

  South Somerset

  182,344

  South Gloucestershire

  Rural Community Transport

  348,000

  South Yorkshire

  Bradfield and Worrell

  611,714

  Clayton-with-Frickley Taxibus

  62,705

  Staffordshire

  Moorlands Traveller East Project

  118,000

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Thorpe Thewles-Stillington Taxi

  12,000

  Suffolk

  Bike and Bus Butty

  275,424

  Surrey

  Waverley Transport Solutions

  404,025

  Telford and Wrekin

  Wiekin Connect—The Lawley Express Partnership

  184,000

  Thurrock

  The Rural Bus Club

  288,270

  Torbay

  Continued Development of the 'Hospital Hopper' Project

  81,800

  Tyne and Wear

  Regional Communication Infrastructure/TransStop

  560,150

  Warwickshire

  Stratford on Avon Accessible Community Buses

  159,792

  West Berkshire

  Demand responsive services—Extension to Taxibus Service

  101,500

  West Midlands

  The Heart of England Project

  417,000

  West Sussex

  One Step Beyond

  313,388

  West Yorkshire

  The Hebden Bridger

  917,320

  Wiltshire

  Bradenstoke and Bradford on Avon A2B

  213,076

  Worcestershire

  Worcester Easylink

  994,000

  Up to 21,203,381

  Rural bus subsidy grant

  £

  Local authority

  Amount allocated 2000–01

  2001–02 allocation

  Indicative allocation 2002–03

  Indicative allocation 2003–04

  Counties

  Bedfordshire

  442,974

  565,644

  647,424

  661,054

  Buckinghamshire

  561,112

  716,497

  820,087

  837,352

  Cambridgeshire

  790,268

  1,009,112

  1,155,007

  1,179,323

  Cheshire

  612,812

  782,514

  895,648

  914,504

  Cornwall

  1,221,068

  1,559,210

  1,784,638

  1,822,209

  Cumbria

  957,384

  1,222,506

  1,399,254

  1,428,712

  Derbyshire

  714,122

  911,879

  1,043,717

  1,065,690

  Devon

  1,409,020

  1,799,210

  2,059,337

  2,102,692

  636W
  totalling £47.5 million for 2002–03 and £48.5 million for 2003–04. The full list is as follows:
  637W

  Rural bus subsidy grant

  £

  Local authority

  Amount allocated in 2000–01

  2001–02 allocation

  Indicative allocation 2002–03

  Indicative allocation 2002–03

  Dorset

  579,362

  739,801

  846,760

  864,586

  Durham

  604,510

  771,913

  883,515

  902,115

  East Sussex

  559,229

  714,092

  817,335

  834,542

  Essex

  1,050,249

  1,341,087

  1,534,979

  1,567,295

  Gloucestershire

  794,084

  1,013,984

  1,160,584

  1,185,018

  Hampshire

  894,468

  1,142,167

  1,307,299

  1,334,822

  Hertfordshire

  443,714

  566,589

  648,505

  662,158

  Kent

  1,289,989

  1,647,217

  1,885,369

  1,925,061

  Lancashire

  751,438

  959,529

  1,098,256

  1,121,377

  Leicestershire

  556,163

  710,177

  812,854

  829,966

  Lincolnshire

  1,194,385

  1,525,138

  1,745,640

  1,782,390

  Norfolk

  1,594,337

  2,035,846

  2,330,185

  2,379,242

  North Yorkshire

  1,380,246

  1,762,468

  2,017,283

  2,059,752

  Northamptonshire

  696,765

  889,715

  1,018,349

  1,039,788

  Northumberland

  476,343

  608,253

  696,194

  710,850

  Nottinghamshire

  522,686

  667,430

  763,926

  780,008

  Oxfordshire

  926,906

  1,183,588

  1,354,709

  1,383,229

  Shropshire

  630,354

  804,914

  921,287

  940,682

  Somerset

  1,017,790

  1,299,640

  1,487,539

  1,518,856

  Staffordshire

  809,149

  1,033,221

  1,182,602

  1,207,499

  Suffolk

  1,201,593

  1,534,342

  1,756,174

  1,793,147

  Surrey

  610,684

  779,797

  892,538

  911,328

  Warwickshire

  596,387

  761,540

  871,643

  889,993

  West Sussex

  579,324

  739,752

  846,704

  864,530

  Wiltshire

  786,146

  1,003,848

  1,148,983

  1,173,172

  Worcestershire

  675,505

  862,568

  987,277

  1,008,061

  Metropolitan areas

  Greater Manchester

  132,321

  168,964

  193,392

  197,464

  Merseyside

  83,474

  106,590

  122,000

  124,569

  South Yorkshire

  338,768

  432,581

  495,122

  505,546

  Tyne and Wear

  82,047

  104,768

  119,915

  122,439

  West Midlands

  86,800

  110,837

  126,862

  129,532

  West Yorkshire

  555,733

  709,628

  812,225

  829,325

  Unitaries

  Bath and North East Somerset

  139,970

  178,731

  204,572

  208,878

  Blackburn with Darwen

  39,026

  49,833

  57,038

  58,239

  Bracknell Forest

  40,038

  51,125

  58,517

  59,749

  Bristol

  6,522

  8,328

  9,532

  9,733

  Darlington

  48,352

  61,742

  70,668

  72,156

  East Riding

  534,364

  682,342

  780,994

  797,436

  Halton

  12,685

  16,198

  18,540

  18,930

  Hartlepool

  16,872

  21,544

  24,659

  25,178

  Herefordshire

  522,462

  667,144

  763,598

  779,674

  Isle of Wight

  159,271

  203,377

  232,781

  237,681

  Medway

  87,475

  111,699

  127,848

  130,540

  Middlesbrough

  11,542

  14,738

  16,869

  17,224

  Milton Keynes

  71,496

  91,295

  104,494

  106,694

  North East Lincolnshire

  42,652

  54,463

  62,338

  63,650

  North Lincolnshire

  257,450

  328,744

  376,273

  384,195

  North Somerset

  132,855

  169,646

  194,173

  198,261

  Peterborough

  84,040

  107,313

  122,828

  125,414

  Plymouth

  9,756

  12,458

  14,259

  14,559

  Poole

  7,421

  9,476

  10,846

  11,074

  Redcar and Cleveland

  56,497

  72,142

  82,573

  84,311

  Rutland

  107,010

  136,644

  156,399

  159,692

  South Gloucestershire

  191,415

  244,422

  279,760

  285,650

  Stockton-on-Tees

  33,832

  43,201

  49,447

  50,488

  Stoke-on-Trent

  5,423

  6,925

  7,926

  8,093

  Swindon

  55,773

  71,218

  81,514

  83,230

  Telford and The Wrekin

  76,048

  97,107

  111,147

  113,487

  Thurrock

  38,176

  48,748

  55,796

  56,970

  Torbay

  8,384

  10,706

  12,254

  12,512

  Warrington

  59,644

  76,161

  87,172

  89,007

  West Berkshire

  232,602

  297,015

  339,957

  347,114

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  50,584

  64,592

  73,930

  75,487

  Wokingham

  77,436

  98,880

  113,176

  115,558

  York

  73,216

  93,491

  107,008

  109,261

  Total

  32,499.998

  41,500,000

  47,500,000

  48,500,000

  638W

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many environmental statements have been submitted under the(a) Environmental Assessment (Salmon Farming in Marine Waters) Regulations 1988 and (b) Environmental Impact Assessment (Fish Farming in Marine Waters) Regulations 1999. [149201]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  Between the regulations coming into force and 1 July 1999 no environmental statements were received. Since July 1999 this has been a matter for the Scottish Executive.

TREASURY

  Budget
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many in-year amendments were made to the UK Budget in the latest year for which figures are available, broken down by(a) transfers between Departments, (b) new resources, (c) transfers from reserve and (d) other transfers, across all Departments. [151227]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Changes made to published plans for 1999–2000 are explained in Chapter 2 of "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2000–01", Cm 4601, April 2000.

  Departmental Underspends
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the underspend in each financial year in the total budget of UK Departments as a percentage of the UK Budget; and what the equivalent figures are for the Scottish DEL for each year for which figures are available since 1971. [151223]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Given changes in the system of public expenditure control, comparison of outturn against budgetary measures over time are not meaningful. Under the current system, detailed breakdown of outturn against provision is given in July in "Public Expenditure Provisional Outturn", last published in July 2000 for financial year 1999–2000. There are equivalent tables in previous editions of the same publication for each financial year since 1994–95.

  UK Reserve
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) the total amount of the UK reserve in cash and real terms, (b) the annual draw on the reserve in cash and real terms and (c) the annual draw by the Scottish Office and Scotland Office in cash and real terms was in each year since 1971. [151230]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government do not publish figures for allocations from the Reserve overall as it is an administrative tool in controlling overall spending, rather than a budget in its own right. Individual allocations to the Scotland Office and the Scottish Office will be apparent from Estimates laid at the time to draw down those allocations.

  Finance Act 1997
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cost/benefit analysis he has undertaken of the effect of section 42 of the Finance Act 1997; and if he will make a statement. [150541]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 2001]: No such analysis has been undertaken since this was a measure to counter potential tax avoidance.

  Labour Costs
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total share of the annual budget of each of the UK departments accounted for by labour costs. [151224]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury publishes aggregate paybill figures which are set out in "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2000–01" (Cm 4601), a copy of which is in the Library. However, each Department publishes details of its own expenditure in the departmental annual reports, which are also held in the Library.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the basis is for the calculation of the allocation of resource placed at the disposal of the Scottish Executive for meeting capital charges under the new system of resource account budgeting; and how this sum will be accommodated in future years. [151229]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The treatment of capital charges is described in the Statement of Funding Policy published in July 2000.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the public sector capital projects involving private finance(a) completed, (b) planned and (c) under way, indicating the start dates and estimated completion dates of each; what total estimated capital investment is included in these projects; what annual public expenditure is required to service these projects in cash terms for each year of their life; and what the total lifetime cost is of (i) each project, (ii) each sector's projects and (iii) in total in cash terms. [151225]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information sought is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, in line with our normal practice, we shall be publishing in the Budget information on private sector capital deployed in support of PFI signed deals and deals about to be signed, broken down by Department, and on the Government's aggregate service payment commitments under signed PFI contracts.

  Earnings (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of taxpayers in Scotland earned income over(a) £30,000, (b) £40,000, (c) £35,000, (d) £45,000, (e) £50,000, (f) £60,000, (g) £70,000, (h) £80,000, (i) £90,000 and (j) £100,000 in the most recent year for which figures are available. [151222]
  641W
  Dawn Primarolo
  A distribution of taxpayers in Scotland is published in Inland Revenue Statistics table 3.11. A copy is in the Library of this House.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the categories are of comparable expenditure by English and other UK Departments used in the calculation of the Barnett formula; what the total expenditure is in each of these categories; what share of that spending is allocated to Scotland; what the spending from each category is allocated to Scotland; and what the total amount in each category is in cash terms in each year for which figures are available. [151221]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Information on categories of comparable spending in UK Departments, expenditure in each category, and the Scotland comparability percentages were set out in Annexe C of the Statement of Funding Policy published in July 2000. Spending is allocated to Scotland in the form of the aggregate Departmental Expenditure Limit, which the Scottish Executive then allocates to programmes according to its own priorities. The Scotland Departmental Expenditure Limits, along with the Departmental Expenditure Limits for UK Departments, were published in the Government's 2000 Spending Review in July 2000.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated percentage reduction will be in the total tax bill for an individual earning(a) £10,000, (b) £15,000, (c) £20,000, (d) £25,000, (e) £30,000 and (f) £35,000 as a result of the proposed children's tax credit. [151226]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A children's tax credit worth up to £8.50 per week will be equivalent to reductions in an individual's income tax as set out in the table.

  Earnings

  Percentage tax cut

  £10,000

  44

  £15,000

  21

  £20,000

  14

  £25,000

  10

  £30,000

  8

  £35,000

  6

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost of administering family credit and the Working Families Tax Credit was in each year since 1988 broken down, where appropriate, into the costs to central Government and the cost to businesses. [151461]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) was introduced in October 1999. For information on costs from that date, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 103W.
  642W
  I understand from the Department of Social Security that the estimated annual costs for Family Credit in Great Britain are given in successive DSS Departmental Reports; and that no estimates are available of the cost to businesses.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are expected to receive the new children's tax credit in the Glasgow parliamentary constituencies in the next financial year. [151619]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An estimate of the number of families in Glasgow constituencies who will be eligible to claim the children's tax credit (CTC) is unavailable, but an estimate of the number of families in Scotland who will be eligible to claim CTC is 400,000.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases he has been informed of in which an employer has charged employees for the payment of tax credits; and what action he has taken against the companies involved. [151458]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Unauthorised deductions from wages are prohibited by general employment law. The January 2001 edition of the Inland Revenue's "Employer's Bulletin" reminded all employers that they must not charge their employees for paying tax credits through the payroll.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the change in revenue resulting from a reduction in the NIC rate by 1 per cent. assuming(a) the upper earnings limit remains as it is, (b) the upper earnings limit is set at the threshold of the higher rate of income tax at £575 per week and (c) the upper earnings limit is abolished. [151424]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year effects in 2001–02 of making the changes are set out in the table.

  Full-year effect in 2001–02 of a 1% reduction in the employee rate of National Insurance Contributions

  Cost (£ billion)

  (a)

  With the upper earnings limit at £575 per week

  2.80

  (b)

  With upper earnings limit set at the income tax higher rate threshold (equivalent to £652.60 per week)

  2.90

  (c)

  With no upper earnings limit

  3.25

  The estimates show the reduction in gross employee contributions only—rebate rates have not been affected.

  Widows and Widowers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards the taxation of, and benefits available to, widows and widowers. [150856]

  Dawn Primarolo
  From 9 April 2001, the Government are introducing a new system of bereavement benefits which for the first time will be available to men as well as women. The new benefits are a lump-sum bereavement
  643W
  payment, bereavement allowance and a widowed parents allowance. Bereavement benefits are payable so long as the deceased spouse has paid enough National Insurance contributions and other conditions are met. Women currently receiving widows' benefits will not be affected by these changes.
  644W
  Bereavement allowance and widowed parents allowance will be taxable as are the current widows' benefits. The Bereavement Payment is not taxable. Widows and widowers who have children can also be eligible for the Children's Tax Credit and the Working Families Tax Credit.

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

Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to modify the present programme for the control of badgers with respect to the increasing incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, TB in cattle is an extremely serious animal health problem. The Government are dealing with the disease on a broad front and on the basis of sound science. Bovine TB is, however, continuing to increase while our research, including the badger culling trial, is in progress. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has made clear that the Government are keeping the possibility of taking additional measures under review and will not hesitate to act if necessary.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. The Question was tabled some weeks before the present emergency. I apologise to the Minister if, for want of ministerial back-up, it places her in a difficult position. With regard to tuberculosis and badgers, does she agree that it will be some years before the Krebs-Bourne trials are completed? In the meantime, farmers—especially dairy farmers—and veterinarians are somewhat dissatisfied with the progress in the Krebs-Bourne trials. Indeed, the National Farmers Union has pulled out of the TB Forum set up in 1999. Does the Minister agree that it would be a good time, following the present emergency, to re-assess the Government's approach to badger control and tuberculosis in cattle?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government's approach to badger control and tuberculosis in cattle does not rely only on the Krebs-Bourne trials. We are making progress with those trials. All 10 trial areas are involved. In seven of them there has been proactive culling. Reactive culling and survey work has taken place in the other three areas. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, will be aware that the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place looked at the issue recently. The Government will shortly be responding to its report. The committee concluded that notwithstanding its support for the trials, carrying them through and getting the evidence we need, it was
1066
also important that we assess policy options so that we have policies ready as and when results come out of the trials.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I follow up the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, by asking the question which he so carefully did not ask: can badgers in fact spread foot and mouth disease?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, badgers are not a susceptible species for foot and mouth. Therefore, they cannot get it. Just as the noble Lord could spread foot and mouth on his shoes or anywhere else, badgers could do the same on their fur. But it is the movement of susceptible species that is the greatest danger.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, has the Minister any information about the possibility that an AIDS-type virus in cattle, which is prevalent in the South West, may be weakening cattle and making them more liable to tuberculosis? Might not that be more of a nuisance than badgers?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have a wide research programme in place looking at husbandry issues, cattle to cattle transmission and other possible wildlife sectors. In any disease situation the issue of potential susceptibility to disease is one matter we have to take into account. Therefore, the survey work that comes out of TB99, which is being done on affected herds, will be important in that respect.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it has been known for a long time that TB, both in humans and in animals, is a disease of malnutrition? There is a known selenium deficiency in the soils in this country. Selenium is closely associated with the immune system function. Dairy cattle, which seem to be most prone to TB, are under huge stresses with the amount of milk that they are expected to produce. Therefore, can she say what research is being done in this field?
Furthermore, I understand that there is a child in Scotland who is suffering from bovine TB which is resistant to all antibiotics. I do not expect an immediate answer to this question, but is the immune status of that child compromised by his diet?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is correct. I cannot answer that question immediately. There is close liaison between ourselves and the Department of Health. A liaison group is looking at the health implications of M. bovis. I stress that the number of cases of M. bovis in humans has remained constant for many years. It is not increasing. It is predominantly a disease among older people and is thought to be a recurrence of a disease that was contracted pre-pasteurisation. That is the current advice. The matter is being kept under review. So far as concerns the Scottish dimension, the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health sits on that liaison group.

1067
In relation to selenium deficiency, I am aware that that is one of the issues that has been raised as a potential factor in TB. We have vastly different incidences of TB in different parts of the country. There is a wide programme of research which has been extended. Details of that are available on our website. I hesitate to say that, but I am afraid that it is true.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is 28 years since I took the Badgers Act through the House of Commons? The connection was known then and the measure took account of it. However, since that time, vast sums of money have been spent and large numbers of badgers have been destroyed. Perhaps it would have been wiser to have pursued a medical or veterinary alternative. Can my noble friend assure the House and make it clear that, in many parts of the country, this problem does not apply? In those areas, badgers ought not to be persecuted.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not think that badgers are persecuted in any area. We are trying to find out what are the necessary and appropriate disease control measures if it is clear that we have a wildlife vector such as the badger involved in the spread of bovine TB. I must remind my noble friend—although I know that he is aware of this—that 8,000 cattle are slaughtered every year because of bovine TB. It is a welfare issue for cattle as well as for wildlife. However, my noble friend is absolutely right to remind the House of what I said earlier in my remarks; namely, that different patterns of disease are seen in different parts of the country. The whole thrust of our work seeks to establish solutions and policy options that will allow badgers and cattle to coexist in good health.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether a vaccine is available for bovine TB and also a vaccine for foot and mouth disease, which is causing such concern at the moment?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall respond first to the second question put to me by the noble Baroness. A vaccine is available for foot and mouth disease. It is not used in this country or throughout the European Union because use of that vaccine would result in compromising fatally our disease-free status. It is then impossible to distinguish between animals with antibodies through vaccination and animals with antibodies through disease. For that reason, there are enormous trade ramifications. The advice of the Chief Veterinary Officer has been not to pursue a vaccination policy. However, obviously at this time we are taking every option into account, including vaccination.
No effective vaccination exists against bovine TB. A great deal of research is being carried out and considerable resources are being invested internationally to try to develop such a vaccine.

Victoria and Albert Museum
2.45 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it was appropriate for the trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum to announce to the press the appointment of a new director without first informing the present director and before the appointment had been confirmed by the Prime Minister.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum have acted wholly appropriately in this matter. At no time before receipt of the Prime Minister's approval did the trustees make an announcement about the new director. An error, not committed by the trustees, resulted in the name of the new director becoming known to museum staff and the press. The current director knew that, at the expiry of his five-year term, he would be succeeded at the end of an extended term running until his 60th birthday. The recruitment campaign for his successor was also public knowledge.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I should first declare an interest, in that the present director, Dr Borg, is a friend of mine. I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I should like to press him as regards this error. Does he think that it is right that a public body—that is, the chairman and trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum—should send, without thought, an open fax to the museum giving the name of the new director before informing the present incumbent? He learned the name of his successor from his staff. Surely that is not the behaviour that we expect from a public body. The chairman and trustees should be censured. The matter demonstrates the height of discourtesy. To describe this as a mere error made at the end of a long professional career is not something that I have ever seen happen before.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has thought fit to ask that question. I shall answer it. The error occurred because a fax sent from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, which concerned the subject of the press release and included the name of the new director, was sent to Dr Borg himself. It was sent to him in error instead of the person to whom it was intended to be sent. It was sent to no one else. Subsequent to that, the name of the new director became known to museum staff and the press.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, as someone who has worked very closely with the present director, Dr Borg, when he was director-general of the Imperial War Museum—I had the highest opinion of him—does the Minister agree that, whatever interpretation is put on this rather odd sequence of events, it reflects the

1069
extremely cavalier way in which this very distinguished public servant has been treated by the trustees and, to some extent, by the department?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble and gallant Lord on the distinguished service given by Dr Borg. During his time as the director of the V&A he has overseen a number of successes. Recent highlights include the development of new audiences through critically acclaimed exhibitions such as the art of the Sikh kingdom last year, the introduction of an experimental contemporary programme, the opening of the new Canon photography gallery, the £31 million refurbishment of the British galleries, which will be completed and the galleries reopened by November of this year, along with others. So far as concerns that point, I go along entirely with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. However, my answer has made it clear that Dr Borg has not been treated in a cavalier manner.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is not the noble Lord in danger of defending the indefensible here? A great deal of ill feeling, disappointment and hurt have been generated by this series of events. Does the noble Lord agree that, in the circumstances, it would be sensible if Ministers, when appointing chairmen—in this case it was the Prime Minister—were to be careful and to advise the chairmen whom they appoint to behave towards those who serve them in a manner reflecting a high degree of courtesy and concern?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wholly reject both the implicit and the explicit criticisms made in the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us why it took so long to decide this appointment? Surely the little spat taking place in the Chamber this afternoon might not have taken place had it not been for the fact that it took eight months to reach a decision. Can the Minister confirm whether it was the decision itself or the approval of the decision which took so long?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no delay occurred in the approval of the decision. The recruitment process was conducted entirely properly. Interviews for the post were held in two stages: the first interviews of seven candidates were conducted in December; second interviews of four of those candidates were conducted in January 2001. This process was carried out after public advertisement of the post and the appointment of recruitment consultants. This is not a quick process, but it is a correct process.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have taken an interest in the process since before the events just described by the Minister because I, too, am a friend of Dr Borg. May I ask how it was that the intention that his contract should not be renewed beyond his 60th birthday
1070
became public knowledge so very far in advance of that event? Has this not in fact reduced his ability to run the establishment even more effectively than the noble Lord has already rightly outlined?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there was no question of Dr Borg's contract of appointment being renewed beyond his 60th birthday. His five-year contract expired in autumn 2000. At that time he was informed that his contract would be extended until January 2002, which would coincide with his 60th birthday. That had to become public knowledge because action had to be taken to recruit his successor.

Debt Relief and Poverty Reduction
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will ensure that civil society organisations can monitor and evaluate progress in poverty reduction strategies in the poorest countries.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative (HIPC) makes a direct link between debt relief and poverty reduction. As a result, all countries that are eligible for World Bank or IMF concessional adjustment lending are producing national poverty reduction strategies. These strategies are being developed by national governments in wide consultation with civil society. Progress will be judged through the normal processes of democratic accountability.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I think we all agree that civil society has to be supported and I welcome the emphasis on that in the Government's White Paper. However, these are very large aid and debt relief funds coming into the different countries. How can nongovernmental organisations, especially the smaller ones, be expected to be equipped to monitor their government's progress as regards poverty strategies; and how can we expect those governments to tolerate their doing so?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are three different initiatives which will assist that process. First, we are mainstreaming work on poverty reduction and the monitoring of governments engaged in poverty reduction strategies through our work with the international financial institutions, governments and civil society. As part of that, we are working on a proposal with the World Bank to develop the capacity of southern civil society to engage governments in budgetary processes so that they will be able to monitor what their governments are doing with the money. We also contribute to the Paris 21 initiative, which aims to co-ordinate work on capacity building for poverty monitoring from a country-led perspective. As part of that, we are building the capacity of civil society to demand and use poverty

1071
information. The UN Development Group is producing new country reports focused on international development targets. The aim is to provide key information and indicators. Yesterday, at the international conference on child poverty, the first of the reports—on Tanzania—was launched.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, why has further lending or debt relief been extended to countries such as Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Zambia, which have not satisfied the criteria of economic and political reform?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Zambia qualified for debt relief under the HIPC initiative in December last year. It secured new IMF/World Bank lending last year following the sale of the copper mine and renewed commitments to privatisation and macro-economic stabilisation. In all HIPC cases, including that of Zambia, debt relief at the decision point is on "flow" terms. That means that it can be suspended if the Government of Zambia fail to maintain an economic programme designed to restore growth and reduce poverty. Zimbabwe is not eligible for HIPC assistance and is not receiving any new lending or debt relief. In August last year, Nigeria entered into a one-year standby agreement with the IMF. This paves the way for a debt rescheduling agreement, not debt reduction.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, with reference to civil society, how can the Government ensure that northern NGOs do not dominate over southern NGOs, thus further disempowering them?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have what is called a civil society challenge fund: £11 million pounds has been allocated to the fund in the coming year. The criterion for funding is that UK-based non-profit making groups must have established links with civil society groups overseas. Those links must be more than merely a channel for transferring money; they must demonstrably add value in terms of the activity to be funded. As I mentioned in my reply to the noble Earl, the Paris 21 initiative aims to build the capacity of civil society to demand and use poverty information.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, some of the poorest people in the world live under dictatorships. Will the Minister help us in thinking about how such people may be able to participate in programmes of aid and debt relief, which depend on economic reform, good governance and strong civil society?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree that it is difficult to deliver aid which benefits the poor in countries where the government are not committed to poverty reduction. We recognise that, and we have been trying to look at ways in which we can reduce poverty in such difficult circumstances. Debt relief is provided only to countries that have a programme of economic management funded by the IMF. That must be focused on economic growth and poverty
1072
reduction. For HIPC countries which are in conflict or which have a governance problem, the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged that from 1st December last year all debt payments to the UK will be held in trust and will be returned to fund poverty reduction programmes when the country is able to enter the HIPC process.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister mentioned democratic accountability. Does she agree that democratic accountability relies on strong opposition? Will the Government provide further funding for organisations such as the Westminster Foundation which promote democratic opposition?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that it is important to have strong, democratic processes in-country. The Westminster Foundation has made a strong commitment and carried out good work in countries by way of promoting democratic processes. I shall write to the noble Lord with respect to the specific question on funding.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that these poorest countries have received funds either from governments or from charities in more prosperous countries, can the noble Baroness say to what extent those funds have been fully used for the relief of poverty?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should tell the noble Lord that in 1997 we made it absolutely clear in our White Paper that our development programme would be totally focused on the international development targets and the relief of poverty. We have been working with the international financial institutions, with the European Union and with others to try to ensure that they adopt a similar attitude in the programmes that they develop. We have been somewhat successful, especially with the EU, and through the HIPC process with the World Bank and the IMF.
In addition, given what happened last year at the millennium assembly when the countries of the UN agreed not only five of the seven international development targets but also another five targets to create the millennium development goals, the whole world community is coming together in terms of saying very clearly that the international development targets and the achievement of poverty reduction across the world is a priority.

Climate Change Objectives
3.1 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that they will achieve their climate change objectives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the UK climate change programme that was published last November sets out in detail how we plan to deliver our climate change targets. We estimate that the policies in the programme could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 23 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010, and our carbon dioxide emissions by 19 per cent. We remain on course to meet these objectives, and we shall continue to evaluate our progress regularly.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is the noble Lord aware that in an independent survey published earlier this month it was estimated that a reduction of CO2 emissions compared with 1990 by the year 2010 would amount to only 6.5 per cent, compared with the 20 per cent targeted, unless further urgent action is taken? Will the noble Lord comment on that estimate? Can the noble Lord also tell the House when the suspended international talks in the Hague are likely to be resumed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall deal first with the noble Lord's latter point. At the request of the incoming United States Administration the resumption of these talks, which was scheduled for May, has now been postponed to some time between the middle of June and the end of July. Intensive negotiations are in train to establish that outcome.
Secondly, the estimate in the study to which the noble Lord referred, which, I believe, relates to Cambridge Econometrics, was based on policies already in train. We do not seriously disagree with that estimate. However, it did not include all of the policies to which this Government are committed. It included only the price effect of the climate change levy, not the effect of the establishment of the carbon trust or of the reaching of agreements with the high-energy user sectors. Moreover, it did not include emissions trading effects, the effects of new building regulations on energy requirements, or the effect of the voluntary agreement between the European car manufacturers on reducing CO2 emissions from transport. There are several other policies to which we are committed at national or European level that will contribute towards achieving the 20 per cent target.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if Her Majesty's Government gave full support to a new British bio-diesel industry this would go a long way towards supporting their aims as regards climate change?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will know, in response to his "green challenge" the Chancellor of the Exchequer is currently considering a number of proposals for favouring alternative fuels. However, the full benefit involved is likely to be felt to the back-end of this period and beyond 2010.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, are the Government satisfied with the availability of low sulphur petrol supplies and the current pricing at petrol pumps?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the Treasury indicated on Friday, the presumption is that there will not be full availability of ULSP at the time of the Budget and that, therefore, some transitional arrangements have to be engaged in as regards pricing. However, by the end of that transitional period we are confident that ULSP will be available throughout the United Kingdom.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the positive relations that we understand have been created between the Prime Minister and the new President of the United States, can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government will use every possible opportunity between now and next June to persuade the US of the importance of coming on board with regard to the Kyoto protocol, as they are in many ways the key in reducing the dangers of global warming at the present time?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is important that we impress upon the new US Administration the importance that we in the United Kingdom—and, indeed, in Europe—place on reaching agreement on climate change. There was a lengthy and positive discussion between the Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State Powell a few days ago.
Lord Carver: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most effective way of reducing our CO2 emissions would be to build some more nuclear power stations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the target takes into account a reduction in the contributions made by nuclear power for the period to 2010. Beyond that, some assessment of the various sources of energy will need to be made in order to sustain the reduction in CO2 emissions that we are confident of achieving by 2010.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, although I accept the Government's wish to achieve their objectives, can the noble Lord comment on the whole position of the climate change levy, especially on horticulture? I realise that the Government have already given a 50 per cent reduction, but this obviously places those concerned at a disadvantage as regards their overseas competitors.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the position of the horticultural industry was addressed by the 50 per cent reduction in the effect. We believe that the kind of competitive anxieties expressed by the industry at that time have largely been met. We recognise that the climate change levy will impose some costs on several sectors in industry. The high-energy users are, of course, now subject to discussion and conclusion of sector agreements. We believe that the anxieties of the

1075
horticulture sector have largely been met. The contribution of industry as a whole to the climate change levy will be a very positive one to reduction of the industrial emissions of CO2.

Transport Act 2000 (Designation of Transferee) Order 2001
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are here today to consider a draft order that it is proposed to make under Section 51(2) of the Transport Act 2000. Under Section 103(6), a draft of the order must be laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. As your Lordships will no doubt be aware, the draft has already been approved in another place.
Those of your Lordships who took part in the many debates on Part I of the Transport Act 2000 will no doubt recall that Parliament took some time to persuade itself of the benefits of the provisions that it contains, which relate to air traffic services. However, Parliament did give its approval and in doing so gave government the authority in principle to proceed with the establishment of the public private partnership (PPP) for National Air Traffic Services Limited.
Noble Lords will also recall that the Government accepted amendments to defer the final stages of the preparations for the PPP for a period of three months after Royal Assent. We agreed to use that period for further discussion with stakeholders, not to re-open the principle of the PPP but to ensure that progress was as smooth as possible and addressed the many legitimate concerns that have been expressed. I undertook that at the end of that period I would come back to your Lordships' House and provide a further opportunity for debating the issues. I am happy to confirm that we shall honour that commitment in due course.
That debate will no doubt provide the opportunity for noble Lords to raise many aspects of this subject. Today's business is much narrower and more technical. In passing the Transport Act, Parliament was clear that it wanted the PPP to proceed hand in hand with a number of safeguards. The instrument that we are considering today is intended to give effect to those protections.
The draft order itself is a relatively simple document. It seeks to designate, for the purposes of Section 51 of the Act, a company named National Air Traffic Services (No 2) Ltd, which, for convenience, I shall call "NATS No 2". This company is a government-owned company that has been established for the purposes of holding the Secretary of State's shares in National Air Traffic Services Limited (NATS). It will be the vehicle for the NATS Public
1076
Private Partnership (PPP)—in other words, 46 per cent of the company's shareholding will be sold to the strategic partner; 5 per cent will be made available to employees and the Government will retain a 49 per cent stake.
For a company to be designated under this section, it must be in receipt of assets under a transfer scheme made under Section 43 of the Act. The shares in NATS, which are currently owned by the Civil Aviation Authority, are to be transferred to NATS No. 2 under a transfer scheme to be made on 31st March, the date on which it is proposed this order will come into effect.
A further requirement relates to public ownership of the transferee company. NATS No. 2 will meet this requirement, as at the time of the transfer it will continue to be wholly owned by the Government. I hope that that provides your Lordships with an explanation of the technical side of the order. I will now deal in a little more detail with its effects.
The designation of the company will apply the various protections in Section 51 to NATS No. 2, and I will look at each of these in turn. The first protection is one that was widely welcomed when it was first proposed. The Secretary of State must ensure that he does not dispose of any shares in NATS No. 2 unless he is satisfied that a scheme is in place to ensure the completion of major projects relating to the provision of air traffic services. The projects falling within this category are the New Scottish Centre at Prestwick and the New En Route Centre at Swanwick. Designation of the company will ensure that the Government's commitment to complete these projects will be honoured.
There are also further protections relating to the limits of the Government's shareholding in the PPP. They come in two forms—one relates to the Government's ability to sell shares and the other to what the Government may allow to happen to their shareholding in a situation where new shares are being issued, for example to fund a capital investment.
I will start with the Government's ability to sell shares. Any sale of shares in the designated company must not reduce the Crown's shareholding in that company below 49 per cent. As I have already explained, the Government do indeed intend to retain a 49 per cent stake. This level of government shareholding reflects the ongoing public interest in NATS, which we believe is essential for the future of the provision of air traffic services in this country. It will ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money, and the taxpayer will share in any dividends. Again, the introduction of these protections was widely welcomed in Parliament.
The second type of protection (enshrined in subsection (5) of Section 51) relates to a situation where, for whatever reason, the Government agreed with the chosen strategic partner that new shares should be issued, for example so as to allow a major capital investment or project to go ahead. In that case, there is a protection as to the minimum level of government shareholding; namely, that the Secretary

1077
of State is required to hold at least 25 per cent of the designated company's share capital at any given time. This limit has given rise to much discussion in previous debates. I am aware that concerns have been expressed that this limit gives the Government a free hand to reduce their shareholding, and consequently is a stepping stone to full privatisation. We dealt fully with those matters when the Bill was being considered, but I can again reassure your Lordships that this is not the case. The protections we have allow the Government only to sell 51 per cent of the shares in NATS—with the fall-back that if, at some time in the future, the Government were to agree to new shares being issued, they must not allow the effect of this to be that the Crown owns less than 25 per cent of the larger pool of shares. These are important protections and reassurances of the continuing role for the Government in this PPP.
The next protection contained in this order is that the Secretary of State must continue to hold a special share in the designated company. That requirement will be entrenched in the company's articles of association and will, along with the shareholders' agreement, be used to protect the Government's rights in certain key areas such as the issue of new shares and the company's dividend policy. In essence, it will enable the Government to maintain the public interest while allowing the private sector the freedom to run the business.
Noble Lords on the Benches opposite attached importance to the special share during our debates on the Bill for the protection it would afford for national security. They were quite right to do so. They also suggested that the European Commission might challenge the special share. However, the Government remain firmly of the view that our powers to hold such a share are robust in this case.
The final protection is that the company's articles of association must not be amended without the Secretary of State's consent. However, the Secretary of State cannot consent to any such alteration unless a statement of the proposed consent is approved by both Houses of Parliament. This is intended as a safeguard to ensure that the Secretary of State would not be able to consent, without parliamentary approval, to a reduction in the rights attaching to the special share.
I hope that I have explained to your Lordships with sufficient clarity the protections that this very short order will introduce. In passing the Transport Act, Parliament has given its approval to the Government's proposal to establish the PPP, subject to certain safeguards. I trust that your Lordships will now endorse this technical measure to give them effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order, which, as he said, is not in itself controversial, dealing, as he
1078
explained, with the setting up of NATS No. 2 Ltd, as I suppose we must now get used to calling it. Indeed, I welcome the protections that the order gives to the special share and other measures. However, it also gives us the opportunity to question the Minister on the selection of the strategic partner for NATS No. 2.
Like no doubt other noble Lords, I have seen press reports of the progress, or rather lack of it, of choosing the preferred bidder for the PPP. Last week it was reported in the press that the Government had abandoned plans to select a preferred bidder. What does that mean? Originally the timetable was for the preferred bidder to be announced by the end of February; that is, tomorrow. What does it mean that there is now to be no preferred bidder? Further, press reports yesterday stated that one of the key partners of SERCO, one of the bidders, had pulled out under pressure from members of the airline group, another bidder. I hope that the Minister can clarify exactly what is going on and what now is the timetable for a decision and, indeed, how many runners are still in the frame.
I remind the Minister—the Minister has already referred to this—of the amendment that we made in this House that called for a three-month delay to any transfer and the undertaking from the Minister to make a report at the end of that time. Those three months were supposed to give the Government, among other things, time to select the strategic partner and announce it. That clearly will not now happen.
Whoever the bidder is, it is clear that safety must come first. I am sure that we are all agreed upon that. Can the Minister say what the views of the aviation safety group of the Civil Aviation Authority are? Is it true that it has serious doubts about at least one of the potential bidders? If that is so, will the Government not hesitate to take a lower bid for the sake of a safer bidder? Does the Minister want to take the opportunity now to revise downward the likely proceeds of the part sale from the figure of £350 million which was originally announced? Is it true that the Secretary of State only agreed to the PPP on the promise from the Chancellor that he could spend the proceeds on transport? Does the Minister now wonder whether that was in fact a worthwhile trade-off?
There are two other matters. First, when NATS No. 2 goes into the PPP will there be any mechanism for a clawback of any excess profits made by the strategic partner? In previous privatisations the Government were criticised for not having made such an arrangement. Secondly, I am puzzled as to the status of the employees' 5 per cent shareholding. When this order was discussed in another place the Minister stated that,
"When people retire, they will have to put their shares back into the pot so as to maintain the availability of the 5 per cent pot for the employee share issue".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 12/2/01; col. 20.]
If the employees cannot trade their shares and have to return them when they retire, and if they do not receive any dividends, which I presume would be the case if the not-for-profit partner was chosen, then what

1079
value is there to the employees' shareholding at all? I hope that the Minister can answer some of these questions today and that he can tell us when the fuller statement and report will be made and the form that it will take. The Minister has already referred to this and he said "in due course". Can the Minister be a little more specific it than that?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I believe that everyone agrees with the Minister that this order is not of itself of any great debatable value, but simply implements the Bill. I do not propose to go back on all the arguments that we have had. Neither do I believe that it would be very profitable to try to seek a great deal of detailed information about each of the bids. Efforts were made in Standing Committee in the other place, but achieved very little result. I shall not follow that line.
However, I support and add my queries to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. They are extremely relevant and pertinent questions. We all look forward to a full answer from the Minister.
As the noble Lord said, there have been suggestions in the press that one or other of the three bidders left is no longer a favoured bidder. However, reports vary as to who that might be. Can the Minister tell the House whether they are still three, two or only one bidder? In the final resort I do not expect the Minister to tell us who it is because he has already said that when matters reach that stage he will return to the House. If there are only two bidders left perhaps he will be able to tell us their names. That will also help to concentrate our minds.
There is the question of the timetable. There is the mythical or magical date of 31st March. At some point there will be a debate in this House, which the Minister has confirmed. At the same time we are expecting the announcement of a preferred bidder. So at what point in the subsequent process will we have the debate? Shall we have it between the announcement of the name of the preferred bidder and the final signing of the contract or shall we not be able to discuss the matter until the contract has been signed?
As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said, there are legitimate concerns about the safety aspects of the bid. I am sure that I do not need to remind the Minister of the amendment to the Bill which gave priority to the Secretary of State's duty to maintain a high standard of safety and the identical provision relating to the CAA and everything that it does as regards NATS. I do not in the least doubt the Secretary of State's commitment, but I would like to be assured that the Treasury is also under the same limitation, or is there a conflict between the requirement on the Secretary of State to put safety first in everything that he does and the natural tendency of the Treasury in these circumstances to wish to allocate the contract to the lowest bidder?
I hope that we shall receive a little more clarification about employee shares. As I understand it, any current employee of NATS will have to sell back, give back or
1080
get rid of their allocation of shares on leaving the company. However, that 5 per cent was a percentage of the total shareholding. One can appreciate that if each new employee were given a shareholding its amount would increase. But what if the number of shares in the company is increased? Does that automatically result in an increase in the number of shares allocated to the employees? At that point which employees are we talking about; those who were engaged at the beginning of the company or those in current employment?
Finally, as regards the special share, in this House and in another place we have received frequent reassurances, almost in the same words, that the share is robust. I ask the Minister to tell the House on what evidence the assurance of robustness is based? Have the Government been to the Commission and actually discussed the validity and the sound legal basis for the share before coming to this House and to the other place to reassure Parliament about the robustness of the share?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, once again, the NATS PPP has provided us with a topical and interesting debate. I am grateful for the contributions that have been made, which have ensured that these very important matters relating to the PPP have been aired once more. Following this debate, I am sure that your Lordships will be aware of the importance of the issues that this order raises. The Government continue to believe that it provides some essential protection that will contribute to the success of the PPP.
I now deal with some of the particular points that have been made. As regards the identity of the bidders, the Government have received and evaluated three bids for the NATS PPP, as scheduled. The Government's objective remains to implement the PPP in the spring. The Government have not selected one preferred bidder at this stage, but they are in continuing discussions with the Nimbus consortium and the Airline Group. The third bidder, Novares, has not been eliminated from the process, but is being held in reserve. We expect the preferred bidder to be selected within the next month. We shall try to ensure that we drive that timetable through on time and that the PPP will come into effect as soon as possible thereafter.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, asked about the agenda that we are working to as regards the delay period when we promised to hold discussions with the trade unions, the users, pension trustees and other stakeholders about the process for establishing the PPP. We have been doing that. Recently, we had the latest in a series of constructive meeting with the unions. We met representatives of the users, including General Aviation interests, last month, and we are in continuing dialogue with the pension trustees. We have received written comments from a range of other interested parties. My honourable friend, the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, and his predecessor, have both been to see the NATS operation at the London Centre at West Drayton at

1081
first hand. He and I have been to Swanwick to see the new en-route centre. At both locations we took the opportunity to have discussions with staff as well as with managers. I believe, therefore, that the discussion process is constructive. It will help, as has been suggested by noble Lords opposite, to ensure a smooth transition to the PPP. As promised, I shall make a full report to the House in due course. Noble Lords may recall that I said that we will report back by the end of February or early March.
As regards other questions which were raised and the clawback arrangements, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon inquired whether the Government would be introducing such arrangements and how they would be consistent with the partner's incentive to increase NATS business. The PPP is structured to protect the taxpayer against an early sale of the assets leading to excessive profits, first, by retaining a 49 per cent equity stake in NATS. The taxpayer will share in the potential upside benefits created through the introduction of a strategic partner. Secondly, the strategic partnership agreement does not allow the partner to exit until the new Scottish centre is complete. That is presently scheduled to be around the year 2007. That would prevent a quick and profitable sale.
One of the Government's primary objective for the PPP has been to select a partner who will be committed to NATS for the long term. The Government believe that the PPP's structure will provide the right incentives for the partner to grow and develop NATS business while providing the appropriate protection for the taxpayer against excessive profits and windfall gains.
Another question was raised about the status of the opinion supposedly expressed by safety experts. I understand that the safety experts cited in one newspaper article were acting in an advisory capacity to the chairman of NATS and were not formally connected with the Civil Aviation Authority. I am sure that any concerns will be fed into the bidding process through the office of the chairman of NATS.
I was also asked about the relative priorities of the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I assure noble Lords that those imperatives are in close alignment and there is no threat that different priorities might put safety at risk. As your Lordships ensured in your amendment to the Transport Bill in its final stages, safety is paramount. That now has the force of legislation.
We are still in discussions about the arrangements for the 5 per cent of equity that will go to employees. It will depend on the nature of the equity structures of the successful bidder, whoever that is. If other relevant details emerge, I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, as soon as possible.
We believe that the special share is robust. It is only one part of a comprehensive range of safeguards. We believe that we have taken appropriate advice and that the special share proposals are consistent with the UK's obligations under the Treaty of Rome. Should
1082
any different interpretation emerge—although none has in all our discussions—I shall tell the noble Baroness.
I hope that I have responded to the most important points made in the debate. The debate has not been about the principle of the PPP. Parliament has already given its blessing to the Government's proposals to create a PPP by approving the necessary powers in the Transport Act 2000. The real subject of the debate is the activation of the safeguards that Parliament wanted. I invite your Lordships to approve the order.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, the Minister did not answer the point made by my noble friend Lady Thomas on what stage will be reached before he reports back to the House. Can we have a clear undertaking that he will report back to the House before entering into any binding commitment with a so-called preferred bidder—a commitment that could lay the taxpayer open to substantial damages? If he is not prepared to give that commitment, surely at makes a mockery of the reporting back process. Can we have a clear answer on that, please?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, let me be clear. The relationship of the report back was never for an approval of the bidder. If the noble Lord checks what I said in the debate, he will find that that is clear. We said that we would undertake the process that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, strongly encouraged to try to spread a broader understanding of what we were trying to achieve and to give the Government time to listen and make any amendments that might be beneficial to the operation of the PPP as we went forward. We are doing that. Were the timing to be such that the selection of a preferred bidder came before my report back, of course I would welcome that, but it has never been conditional.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Fraud Bill [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Additional powers to obtain information]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 13, leave out from ("service") to end of line 15.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 20 and 21. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to accept the amendments, which would enable investigators to obtain information about the identity of a person solely by reference to their telephone number or electronic address.
Our area benefit reviews show that fraud involving working and claiming cost nearly £300 million 1999–2000. It is the largest cause of fraud against the social security system. Working and claiming is most likely to

1083
occur in areas of employment where the hours are sufficiently flexible for a person to be able to attend the job centre to sign on, where a person is in and out of work over short periods, where work is seasonal, where earnings are erratic and where compliance with requirements such as VAT and income tax regulations is also erratic.
As we said in Committee, we already conduct investigations from time to time to flush out people who are committing fraud in such employment. For example, we have teams investigating gangmasters, who organise the employment of casual workers in the agricultural industry, such as pickers and packers. Almost 20 per cent of the agricultural workers investigated in the fraud drives in Lincolnshire had been committing benefit fraud. That is one in five.
Some groups of casual and self-employed workers advertise their services in newspapers and shop windows quoting only a telephone number. They include window cleaners, gardeners, hairdressers and builders. I am mindful that, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, says, if I keep referring to window cleaners, there will not be any left in the country, so I have tried to find others with similarly erratic modes of employment.
By advertising by telephone number only, such people are able to evade inquiries under existing powers. We have no way of identifying them. We do not have the power to ask a telecommunications provider to tell us who owns a particular telephone number, yet we know from the evidence that we have picked up that quite a high proportion of those people are likely to be committing some form of benefit fraud.
Amendment No. 16 would allow us to do that. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Grabiner, who first highlighted the value of obtaining such information in his report on the informal economy. In chapter 5, he said that giving fraud investigators the right to reverse search telephone number databases would be a valuable extension of their powers. It would be a valuable tool for Inland Revenue investigators in particular, who would be able to follow up advertisements for goods and services that gave a contact number but no personal details, for example in local newspapers and newsagents. They could check whether a person who subscribed to a given number was registered for tax or was claiming benefit.
We are not talking about fishing trips. We would still need reasonable grounds for making the inquiries. Although the provisions in new Section 2C would not apply to the amendment, the provisions that already govern inquiries to employers would still apply. The provisions would be inserted in Section 109B of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which provides that the powers may be used only when it is reasonable in relation to explicitly set out purposes, which can cover whether the benefit is paid, investigating and detecting benefit offences and contravening social security legislation. The Bill would not allow us to check a telephone number simply because it appeared in an advertisement. It would have to be an advertisement for a service that is at risk of
1084
fraud. To establish that, we would consider the issues that I mentioned earlier, such as seasonal factors or whether the service provides opportunities to nip out and sign on.
I emphasise that the powers would not allow us to obtain information on the content of communications. They are only reverse search powers to establish the name of the owner of the phone number. Obtaining information on the content of communications would be very intrusive and would not be reasonable, although, given the changing nature of the communications world and the sensitivities around the content of communications, we thought that it would be inappropriate to rely only on the test of reasonableness.
We wish to make it unequivocally clear that the powers could never be used to obtain information about the content of a communication. Amendment No. 15 would achieve that by limiting us to communications data, except for traffic data. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that we are honourably limiting the point to which the powers can be taken. I refer noble Lords to Section 21(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, in which the definition of "communications data" contains the words,
"which includes none of the contents of a communication".
The other amendments—Amendments Nos. 20 and 21—tidy up the references in the Bill to telecommunications.
In conclusion, these amendments will enable us to obtain the identity of persons who advertise their services by telephone. That will enable us to detect and prevent people working and claiming benefit, which constitutes the largest area of fraud. The powers could be used only where we had reasonable grounds. They are akin to the powers which we already have to obtain information from employers. They could not be used to obtain information about the content of telephone calls or about the person to whom a call is made. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will welcome the amendments, which, as I say, are strictly circumscribed. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining so clearly this group of amendments. We welcome the amendments, which tidy up the definition of the telecommunications services. We believe them to be practical and useful. However, we wonder whether the Government's zeal for clarity has made the insertion of new subsection (2F) somewhat redundant, given that the phrase "communications data but not traffic data" in new subsection (2E) would in any case provide for new subsection (2F). This is not an important point, but I mention it in passing.
We are pleased that the definition has made it clear that only communications data and not traffic data are to be requested by the DSS for its inquiries. Dispensation of traffic data seems to be an excessive invasion of privacy when evidence of fraud could be obtained in other ways. This new definition assists the

1085
balancing act between the privacy of the individual and the need to access information as part of official inquiries.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that Amendment No. 16 has great elegance. It meets a real and genuine need and, so far as I can see at present, it appears to attempt to do so in a constructive way. Next time the Minister has to defend it, she may see fit to quote Sherlock Holmes's maxim that,
"Honest men do not conceal their place of business".
If she wants to give window cleaners a rest, she might try tree fellers.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that hint, but I am not sure whether tree fellers will be. However, I appreciate it. I am grateful to the House for welcoming the amendment and the reassurances that I have been able to give.
With regard to the algebra quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, I am assured that those words are both appropriate and necessary. However, if he wishes to follow up the matter, that can be done through correspondence. With that, I ask the House to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out lines 22 and 23.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever. As your Lordships will see, the amendment seeks to eliminate from the list of people from whom the Government can ask for information,
"any servant or agent of any person mentioned in any of the preceding paragraphs".
We had a brief discussion about this in Committee. As on previous occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, was extremely helpful in providing us with definitions of what "servants" or "agents" might be. Indeed, in subsequent correspondence, the noble Baroness gave rather more pedantic definitions which, none the less, are helpful. We are grateful to her for those.
I believe that it may be helpful if at this stage in the proceedings I say a word or two about the other extremely helpful action which the noble Baroness has taken; namely, to provide the House not only with an amendment which incorporates into the Bill the code of practice which will govern many of these clauses but also a draft of the code itself.
We shall come to a later amendment on which we shall be able to debate the code of practice. However, it may be helpful to refer to it at various points during the course of our deliberations this afternoon. I certainly do not intend to weary the House by referring to it both on an amendment to which it is relevant and when we come to debate the code as a whole, but I believe that it will be helpful to proceed in that way.
So far as concerns this amendment, paragraph 4.4 on pages 12 and 13 of the code of practice deals with this particular point. It is a question not only of whether it is appropriate for the Government to be able to ask the principal involved in any transaction for information about an individual who is suspected of fraud but also whether it is appropriate for them to ask for such information from the person's servant or agent.
The only reason that I return to this point at this stage is that I am a little puzzled as to what in practice the Government have in mind. The code of practice states that authorised officers should only address inquiries to an individual directly—that is, to either a servant or an agent—where it is not possible to identify the corporate body. I am not sure whether the officers are clear as to who the corporate body is, how they will know who the agent is or, in particular, who the servant is. If they are clear that the person in question is a servant, presumably they must know who employs that person.
In a helpful letter the noble Baroness said that the person may be an agent; for example, a newsagent may deal with money transactions and would be the agent of another financial organisation. However, again, I should have thought that it would be possible simply to return to the principal. I have a vague feeling at the back of my mind that, given that presumably a relationship of confidentiality exists between the agent and the principal, it would be undesirable for the Government to go to the individual concerned. Certainly, so far as concerns employees, if an employee were being awkward in not providing information, it would seem very odd for the Government to take action against him directly rather than against the company, which they can in any case ask to provide the information. I beg to move.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one matter in direct response to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Sometimes it is not possible to detect whether or not a business is a corporate person. A partnership is not a corporate body in English law. Almost certainly a local newsagent is not a corporate body; it is a one-person business. I believe that in a case of that kind. not only may it not be possible to identify the corporate body but a corporate body may simply not exist. Therefore, one can only talk to someone who may be the principal of the business or who may be an agent or servant of the principal.
Thus, the corner newsagent may simply operate under the rubric of a personal business without having any corporate structure. He may have an employee who works in the shop. That person will be an employee or agent for the purposes of the type of inquiry which we are now discussing. I suggest that that would be an appropriate case to come within the language of the paragraph of the code of practice to which the noble Lord drew attention a moment ago.

1087
In a case where the corporate body exists and can be identified, then, according to the draft of the code, in most circumstances it would not be appropriate to approach the individual; it would be appropriate to go direct to the corporate body.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I could, if noble Lords wish, present a full argument about the amendment. However, in an effort to save time I shall home in on the concerns that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and add to the helpful points that were made by my noble friend.
The code states that we shall address an inquiry to an individual only when we cannot identify a corporate body. The noble Lord asked about the circumstances in which that would be the case. Some possibilities were outlined by my noble friend, but I shall give a couple of examples that may clarify the situation with regard to possible servants and possible agents. We will need to address a request for information to a servant only when we cannot identify a corporation to which to address the inquiry. For example, a language school operating in the UK may be a small part of a large international organisation and we may have difficulty establishing the legal identity of the UK part of the organisation. If the language school could not or would not provide sufficient information to enable us to address our inquiry to the corporate body, we should address it to the most senior appropriate person in the language school, such as the head of the school in the UK.
In another example, we may want to obtain information from a cheque shop because we believe that a claimant is cashing girocheques but reporting them as stolen. If the cheque shop was not a limited company—this point was made by my noble friend—there would be no corporate body to which to address the inquiry. If the staff in the cheque shop could not or would not provide sufficient information to enable us to identify the person carrying out the business, we would have to address the inquiry to the most senior appropriate person in the cheque shop, such as the manager. One could complicate the example further by suggesting that the manager might tell us that the owner of the company lived abroad.
Similar provisions apply to agents. For example, a large university might contract out its record-keeping duties to a commercial data management company and ask us to direct our inquiries about whether a claimant was one of its students to that company. The data management company would be the university's agent.
I could give other examples but the significant point is that we should go to an individual only when we cannot identify a corporate body. We do not expect that to happen often; it usually happens when complicated histories are associated with an organisation, perhaps because the owners are abroad or responsibilities have been delegated to a body to act as its agent. In such cases, it would be helpful to have those powers. The issue has been raised in discussions
1088
on the draft code of practice between business representatives and officials. Businesses generally want corporate liability rather than liability for individual employers and we are confident that our provisions will meet their concerns in that regard. We are happy to continue talking and if we need to strengthen the draft code in that respect, we should be happy to look at the matter. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we shall certainly need to consider the matter carefully. With the Minister's undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) Any authorised officer wishing to obtain information under this section shall make an application to the person holding it through that section of the Department of Social Security responsible for the investigation of fraud:).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend, is, in a way, the mirror image of Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 3 relates to the way in which the department or local authorities will make inquiries of the kind that are described in the Bill. There is a strong case throughout for that being done through a centralised system rather than through a system that allows an authorised person to make a request for information from a bank or other body. Amendment No. 4 relates to what happens at the receiving end of the request, although it is helpful to consider Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 separately.
The provisions in the code of practice relating to structure are helpful in several respects. As we proceed, it may be helpful to try to establish how the code will operate. Paragraph 1.4 of the code, for example, states that people asking for information will be trained and will work either in one of the department's area intelligence units or in the national intelligence unit. I take that to mean that inquires will come from those working in the area intelligence unit or the national intelligence unit. If so, the point that we seek to establish in the amendment—there was some confusion about drafting at an earlier stage of the Bill's passage through the House—would not be pressing. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that all inquiries will be made, as the draft code states in paragraph 1.4, through the area intelligence unit or the national intelligence unit.
Paragraph 4.19 states that all inquiries will be conducted through centralised intelligence units—I emphasise that that is in the plural. If I understand the situation correctly, the system will be centralised only to the extent that a request comes through a series of units rather than from a single unit. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the situation.
Another point arises in relation to paragraph 4.3, which sets out the information that may be asked for. It seems to suggest that, although the request for information will be made through a relatively—

1089
perhaps completely—centralised system, there may be a request to send the information back to a more diffused position, from which the inquiry originated. Later we shall discuss questions arising from the rather complicated structure that the Government seem to have in mind for the relationship between the various classes of official. At this stage, is it the intention that, even though a request has been channelled through a centralised organisation, it may be asked of a request, "Please send back the reply"—that is implied in paragraph 4.3—and that that should be sent to the individual who asked for the information in the first place? If that is the situation, it raises questions that we need to consider. Requests should come from the centralised system and the reply should be channelled back through the same system. When one views together the two paragraphs to which I referred, it is not clear whether that is the Government's intention. It would be helpful if the Minister would clarify exactly what the Government have in mind. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that I can be relatively brief. The code will be statutory and inquiries can come from only the 14 central points—there is one point in each of our 13 area directorates and one in our national intelligence unit. I confirm the noble Lord's expectations. The provision is in the code, which is statutory, and its provisions will be binding. Business need have no concerns about that.
The address to which the request will be sent back will be that from which it was sent. In other words, it will be sent back to one of the 14 units. We may need to clarify the wording in the code to make it clear that that is our intention. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister is probably right; perhaps we should look at the second of the two paragraphs to which I referred. It gives the impression that replies may go back in a way that is different from that through which it was received. It was good of the Minister to provide the code in the first place. It will be helpful to pick up various points as we proceed, and although doing so may delay our proceedings a little, I hope that it will not do so by very much. No doubt later there will be wide-ranging consultations. The sooner that one picks up points, the earlier they can be corrected. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) Requests for information made to any of the persons specified in subsection (2A)(a) to (m) above shall be made to a central department in the organisation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is a mirror image of the previous amendment. We are now told that inquiries will be made on a relatively centralised basis, albeit there are some 14 centres. But the question then arises whether they will be directed
1090
in some shotgun way to some given organisation—for example, a bank—or whether they will be concentrated on a single point.
This matter was discussed briefly in Committee and the Government were able to say that it will be possible for it to be done through a single part of the organisation from whom the information is being requested. We see again in paragraphs 422 and 423 of the code of practice that that will be done. The noble Baroness pointed out that my original amendment would have been too restrictive; it could only have been done through a single access point. However, she has fulfilled what she said in Committee and the code reflects that. However, perhaps she will once again confirm it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to give that confirmation. I agree with the noble Lord that it is helpful to cross-read amendments against the draft code in order to clarify any possible misunderstandings. We will go to the point to which businesses wish us to go, which will normally be a central department. That is what many organisations request when dealing with the police. Where an organisation does not wish to set up a central point—for example, a school—which may be too elaborate when dealing with a very occasional inquiry, we shall not force them to do so. Were this amendment to be carried, as the noble Lord admitted, the British Bankers' Association said that its effect would be to make the workings potentially inflexible.
I am happy to give the assurances that the noble Lord. Lord Higgins, seeks. We are working very positively with businesses to that effect. We shall do what business wishes. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, in the light of that response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("subsections (2C) and (2D) below") and insert ("the following provisions of this section")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 13 and the grouped amendments that stand in my name. They refer to the circumstances in which authorised officers may obtain information—new subsections (2B) and (2C).
My noble friend Lord Grabiner led an extremely helpful debate on these provisions in Committee. During that debate concerns were expressed in the Chamber about the implications of these "unamended" phrases. Your Lordships expressed two concerns. The first was on the provisions to obtain information on persons falling within groups who are more likely than others to commit fraud. The second concern—particularly identified by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—was the concept of obtaining

1091
information on an individual who "is likely to" contravene social security legislation or commit a benefit offence. I agreed to consider how we could address those concerns.
Amendment No. 8 is the substantive amendment. It is a rather elegant piece of drafting. On the first of your Lordships' concerns, the amendment removes the provision regarding those in groups more likely than others to commit fraud—the old Section (2C)(c) which now goes. During Committee, I explained that through research we are finding out the characteristics of those people who commit fraud. I took heed of your Lordships' views. We felt that, given the reverse search of the telephone directories—the first amendment that we discussed today—some of our concerns about groups of people that we may wish to pursue (for example, tree fellers) can be met without the possible infringements that subsection (2C) might have opened up. We felt that we could meet the concern of the House and remove subsection (2C)(c).
I turn to the second area of concern and the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which replaces the words, "is likely to" with the words, "intended to". I agreed to consider that amendment. As I indicated in Committee, the words "is likely to" were meant to cover circumstances where fraud was intended because we believe it is better to prevent fraud rather than to let it into the system and then have to set about detecting it. I accepted that the words "is likely to" had a more common meaning which might be unacceptable.
The suggestions of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, more or less retain the policy intention while addressing the concerns expressed by the House. Consequently, with the addition of the present tense to the provision—"is committing"—I have returned with an amendment along the lines suggested by the noble Earl. I decided that the suggestion regarding provisions relating to contraventions of social security legislation was in line with our policy intention. I felt that the fact that we could remove those provisions relating to contravention because they were subsumed in the broader category was in line with those statements.
Finally, I was able to go beyond what we agreed in Committee because, in talking subsequently with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I was asked to consider removing the words "or may be" from the test of reasonableness that an authorised officer has to satisfy when considering whether or not to make an inquiry. Thus, an authorised officer would only be able to make an inquiry if it appeared to him that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person "is" a person, as opposed to "may be", who has committed, is committing or intends to commit a benefit offence. It represents a slightly higher test of reasonableness for authorised officers to attain.
That would be sensible and prudent in the light of some of the concerns expressed by your Lordships that there could be ultimately the potential for abuse despite our checks. As a result of that, I accepted the suggestion that we should remove the words—"or may be"—thus tightening the clause even more.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 13 are consequential. So I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government have listened to the concerns expressed—led by my noble friend Lord Grabiner in Committee—and, as promised, I have brought forward amendments not only to address those concerns but to go slightly further than I promised. I shall be deeply upset if your Lordships feel unable to support my amendments today. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on a previous occasion—although not for some years—have heard me quote a dictum by the late lain Macleod that we do not shoot Santa Claus. What he meant was that, if one had a concession from a government in response to representations, one did not then proceed to make a speech for three hours saying what it was all about in the first place. I intend to follow that practice. I learnt my trade at his feet and it always seemed a good dictum.
The Minister has fulfilled the commitment she gave in Committee to consider this matter, both with regard to the objectionable word "likely" and the extremely objectionable part in relation to groups of persons said to be in danger of committing fraud, even window cleaners. The noble Baroness met both those points admirably. I agree that the amendment is elegantly drafted. We are pleased that these amendments have been moved. It is entirely appropriate to leave unasked how the second of them ever entered the Bill in the first place. None the less, it is a great improvement and we are grateful for it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we have here a model of the way Parliament ought to work—it sometimes does, and it is nice when it happens. I do not think that the Minister expected to be disappointed in this quarter. The Minister will have observed that I put my name to her amendments. The only reason why I have not put my name to the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Astor of Hever—to which I had my name at the previous stage—is that the Minister's amendments have now rendered them redundant.
I thank noble Lords for what has come about; the Minister for master-minding the whole thing and for seeing an opportunity and taking it. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, offered more helpful contributions than we are ever likely to know. My noble friend Lord Goodhart makes me rather pleased I was not able to be present previously because he saw an opportunity and took it with his consummate skill. He produced a great improvement as a result. I thank the Minister's officials. We have a model of proceedings as envisaged in the committees chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and Lord Rippon of Hexham in which a great deal of the work is done before we come into the Chamber. That work is vital. They played a vital part in it and the Bill is very much improved as a result. I welcome it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert ("and shall be exercisable only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the information is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the inquiry and does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5A, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to the consequential Amendment No. 20A.
Amendment No. 5A ensures that an authorised officer can only require information which is likely to be of substantial value to the inquiry, and does not consist of items subject to legal privilege. Sufficient safeguards should be put in place to ensure that the new powers are proportionate to the intended outcome. Amendment No. 5A recognises the importance of an individual's right to privacy by ensuring that information will only be disclosed in circumstances where the information sought will be of substantial value to the investigation and does not consist of or include items which are subject to legal professional privilege. That will ensure that the same criteria as must be fulfilled before a court will grant production orders under other measures, will apply before a notice can be issued.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrines the right to privacy. The law has shown a willingness to acknowledge that right through, inter alia, the doctrine of legal, professional privilege. To preserve that doctrine and ensure that communications between a solicitor and client are privileged, provision should be made on the face of the Bill to the effect that the power to require information under these provisions will not extend to disclosure of information subject to legal privilege. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, these amendments cover similar ground to Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Goodhart.
The underlying issue here is that of privilege; under what circumstances privilege may justify the withholding of information and under what circumstances, without any government recognition that it so justifies, it may nevertheless be allowed quietly to do so.
People need professional advice of many kinds. That is not always recognised in law. For example, there is, I believe, no legal privilege attaching to confession to a Roman Catholic confessor. Yet I cannot in all my political experience recall a case of a confessor being subpoenaed to give evidence on the confessions of his penitent. Were such a case ever to arise, I might be found here standing shoulder to shoulder with Cardinal Winning in defence of the liberties of the Church. While that may be of great entertainment to the House, I doubt it would be quite so entertaining to the Minister. So if the Minister could indicate whether or not there are some cases where a government may be prepared to hold its hand—such indication of the most imprecise kind, as is the nature of the case—it may assist us.
1094
However, the question arises whether, as one is entitled to take advice from a lawyer with privilege, one may be entitled to take advice under some circumstances from a financial expert with perhaps some qualified form of privilege. The way the financial services industry is developing now, the boundary between those two categories is not quite as definite as it used to be. Where exactly the boundary comes between a tax lawyer and a tax adviser is something on which I do not believe there is any clear legal ruling. People even of the greatest innocence—in fact, most often people of the greatest innocence—may wish to ask their financial adviser, "Am I legally entitled to do this or will I be accidentally evading some obligation to which I am subject?"
I am sure very few of us are aware of all the obligations to which we are subject. We try, but success is not particularly common. So were we to discourage people from taking expert advice, we might, as with being faced with litigants in person in court, be letting ourselves in for a great deal of extra work.
A problem certainly exists. I do not pretend to see my way through it to a solution, but were we by any miracle able to bring to it the same sort of constructive thought we brought to the last group of amendments, we might possibly do some good.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 5A, 17, 18, 19 and 20A, all seek to place restrictions on the types and sources of information available to authorised officers. They seek to prevent us adding people that provide advice or professional assistance to the list of organisations that could be required to provide information.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 first. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, accepts that the broader amendment—I shall come to the narrower one in relation to legal privilege in a moment—contains a grey area of difficulty. Advice and professional assistance are rather wide terms. Their use in this amendment would restrict our power to add new organisations to the list at new subsection (2A). I shall not seek to provide examples because we do not intend to add anything further to the list; in any case, such additions would have to come before your Lordships' House. However, I can give the House examples of why that might be difficult.
As drafted, the amendment would cover the information given in order to receive advice from a building society in response to a mortgage application. Information given in respect of mortgage applications could include details of income and capital. It could also include information on properties already held and, of course, the property for which the mortgage was requested. A frequent source of social security fraud is that people claim housing benefit as though they were renting, whilst actually owning the property, and they mislead about their income and capital. I am sure the House can see therefore that information

1095
given to a building society in order to receive mortgage advice would be extremely pertinent to that area of crime.
As I say, there are grey areas. The term "advice" could also include advice that a bank might provide on investing income or transferring it overseas. We would similarly want to be able to obtain details of the information that somebody had supplied to receive that advice as that information might include details of money stolen from the benefit system, or income that was being hidden from the benefit system.
So following the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, if banks and building societies were not already on the list, they could not be added to it because, under certain circumstances, those organisations could be in the position of giving advice, even though the bulk of their activity relates to the giving of straightforward information.
Those are hypothetical examples. My point is that organisations which give advice to their customers may also have information which could assist us to detect fraud. But I share some of the noble Earl's concerns. There is a difference between asking an adviser what to do to avoid tax and asking a lawyer what is legally acceptable. I shall come to that in a moment.
I have already given an assurance in Committee; I am happy to give it again. We will not add organisations such as the CAB or lawyers to the list of those from whom we may require information. Should we seek to add any other organisations to that list, we shall of course bring them back before the House in any case and the House can decide whether or not it is appropriate to proceed.
I return to the core of the amendments. Since Committee I have been wondering whether we could do anything further to meet the concerns expressed, particularly those in relation to legal privilege, which is perhaps the one that really matters. Information subject to legal privilege can be argued to be a special case. We have made clear in paragraph 2.9 of the code that no information will be requested that is the subject of legal privilege. However, I am willing to consider tabling a government amendment at Third Reading specifically to exclude information subject to legal privilege from that which can be obtained under these powers because I accept that it is a particular case. I hope that that meets the issue.
Amendment No. 18 seeks to limit the organisations that we can add to the list of those required to provide information to those organisations that collect and store only financial information. The Bill does not restrict itself to only financial information. If we did that, again we would be unreasonably narrowing our ability to combat fraud. Much of the information that we seek is financial, but not all. The composition of a household is not financial information. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, will know that above all we need to have that information. The details of where the claimant lives is not financial information. The details of any employment may not be wholly financial
1096
information. The information provided to substantiate a person's identity is not financial. Whether or not someone is in education is relevant to benefit but it is not financial information. We need all that information and more in order to combat fraud.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to pursue his amendment. I hope that my response to Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 addresses the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, on legal privilege embodied in Amendment No. 5A. In the expectation that I shall table an amendment at Third Reading to meet a concern which I accept may need more belt and braces than just the code of guidance, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I take the point she makes about Amendment No. 18 and give a limited but warm welcome to her comments on the forthcoming government amendment. She knows that it does not meet the whole problem. I suspect that it is all any of us could do in her shoes and I shall welcome it.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful for the positive way in which the Minister reacted to this group of amendments and specifically to Amendment No. 5A. We feel that the issue of legal privilege is a special case. We look forward to seeing the amendment that she proposes to table at Third Reading. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) No investigation or inquiry under this section shall be made until the validity of the National Insurance number held by the individual concerned has been checked.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6 it may be helpful if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 46 and 49 which, in effect, seek to impose penalties for those who have an invalid or fraudulent national insurance number. This is an important area of the Bill, which we have not previously debated in Committee. The figures for national insurance numbers are, indeed, remarkable. I understand from a Written Answer on 13th March 2000 to a Question asked by my right honourable friend Mr Willetts in another place, that the number of national insurance numbers currently in issue is over 81 million, whereas the population is around 60 million.
There is a huge surplus of national insurance numbers floating round the system. Part of the reason for that is the fact that the number which are withdrawn as a result of death is relatively small. Clearly, there must be an initial assumption that if someone is using a false national insurance number, that in itself is a matter for concern and should be

1097
subject to penalties. Moreover, it is likely that the individual concerned will be engaging in fraud of one sort of another.
The amendment suggests, therefore, that the first step should be to check whether the national insurance number held by an individual is genuine. We think that that would be an efficient way to do it because at present the return which the department gets from carrying out investigations into fraud is far in excess of the cost. The Government have not pushed to the point where the cut in fraud is equal to the cost of ensuring that fraud does not take place. This would seem, therefore, to be an easy way to begin the search. Long before one gets to all the other questions of taking information from the whole list of bodies set out in Clause 1, the first step should be to check on the national insurance number.
Part of the situation is shrouded in mystery. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify a number of points. I understand that information is held on two different computers, NIRS2 and the DSS computer, but no doubt she can clarify where the information is held. None the less, I assume that somewhere in government—she will no doubt tell us where—there is a list of national insurance numbers and against that list the name of the person to whom they were issued.
There seems to be some doubt as to the stage at which a national insurance number comes into existence. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, in his report, to which I shall shortly refer in detail, thought that it happened at the age of 16. Others say that it happens at birth. No doubt the noble Baroness can help, but I believe that the child benefit number is converted into a national insurance number at a later stage. However, at all events the number should have a clear relationship to a specific name. That should give us a lead.
The overall situation is rather confused, but all one must ask is whether the national insurance number which a given individual has is one which is related to the name. It may well be that there is extensive organised fraud in this area where people can have tailor-made national insurance numbers which fit their name precisely. However, I suspect that some such transactions in themselves may be somewhat fraudulent and perhaps the fit is not as good, as reference to the Government's records would immediately reveal. That is the first point that we need to clarify.
The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, states in his summary of recommendations at (ii) that to combat identity fraud, which is the way he conveniently describes it, the procedures for issuing national insurance numbers should be tightened up in line with the regime already piloted by the Benefits Agency. He does not concern himself with tightening up those existing numbers. He is concerned in that summary with the issuance of new numbers.
The previous Conservative government introduced a series of measures to cut down on the prevalence of national insurance records, the most important of which was the data cleaning project, which was
1098
designed to identify anomalies and duplicate records. It began in November 1995 and will apparently end in March 2001, which is now. Can the Government confirm that that is the intention? It would seem to be a strange thing to do at this time, given that the Bill is now going through the House. Perhaps the Government can tell us exactly what their intentions are.
The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, in his normal thorough way, goes into these matters of national insurance fraud in rather more detail. Indeed. he refers to the pilot study carried out in Balham—nothing to do with the late Tony Hancock who is, alas, no longer with us—and I believe an extremely high percentage of false national insurance numbers are located in the greater London area. At all events, the Balham study would seem to help in dealing with this. Again, before we get to Clause 1 of this Bill and from the point of view of rights and data protection measures, these measures would seem to be a better way, in the first instance, of dealing with the problem. That is what this amendment seeks to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, goes into more elaborate matters. For instance, The Day of the Jackal fraud system is perpetrated by means of false birth certificates of people who have died, and so on. This needs to be cleaned up. Outsiders can go and look at people's birth certificates, but it is not at all clear whether the person recorded on the certificate as having been born is also recorded as having died. Here again we think, as the noble Lord recommended, that there should be stricter control over the issue of birth certificates as a proof of identity. This is a problem that needs to be tackled.
Overall, it seems to us clear that to write into the Bill the first part of our proposal, namely, Amendment No. 6, would be an efficient and probably more cost-effective way of checking up on national insurance numbers. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness would clarify for us the factual situation and comment on Amendments Nos. 46 and 49, which seek to impose an immediate penalty on someone with fraudulent intent who is in possession of a false national insurance number. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think we have here a serious problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right to call our attention. Also, of course, we have a need for balance. On the one hand, we must try to track down and pursue the fraudulent use of national insurance numbers. On the other hand, perfectly genuine law-abiding people—many of them the victims of theft, as of credit cards—continue to have legitimate needs and a legitimate right to build up a pension entitlement. The two things need to be kept in balance somehow.
Will the noble Baroness confirm, as I am sure she will, that so long as people have surviving dependants there may be an interest in maintaining national insurance numbers of people who are now dead? Secondly, can she tell us of the procedure which is

1099
followed when a national insurance card is reported to have been stolen? I appreciate this is a technical question, and apologise for not having given notice of it. If she would prefer to write to me, I would entirely understand.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I accept that your Lordships are concerned about the issue of national insurance numbers, of which there have been significant reports. Perhaps I may start with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, partly in response to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, as to the apparent discrepancy between the size of the population, which he estimates as around 60 million, and national insurance numbers, of which over 80 million are in circulation. The noble Earl is absolutely right in saying that not only are numbers given to individual citizens but that numbers are allocated to children at the child benefit point. When someone dies, his national insurance number needs to continue to exist; in other words, to be a live number, because widows' benefits depend on it. Also, an EC national for example, who has come to this country, worked only for 12 months and then gone back to, say, Spain or Germany, none the less maintains a live number even though not a UK citizen and a member of our population base, because at some point he or she may return to the UK and wish to resume national insurance. Equally, foreign students who are permitted to work part-time have a national insurance number, although not part of the home population.
There may be UK nationals who are entitled to retirement or winter fuel payments even though they may be living abroad. There are even extreme examples of people, like Gurkhas, who are entitled to claim working families' tax credit, or the foreign wives of UK servicemen. Given all that, your Lordships will see that there is an understandable gap between the live population and the number of necessary national insurance numbers in circulation.
Regarding the cleaning project, yes, we identified about 200,000 mis-matched, unacceptable dead numbers which have been cleaned from the system. We have completed that exercise. May I say that the numbers of national insurance numbers being issued each year have not changed since the early nineties: there is not some sudden crisis identified with national insurance numbers. If a number is suspected to have been stolen, it is marked on the computer and checks are carried out to verify this. I hope I have brought the matter into perspective.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, also asked about the computers. The basic information is held on the department's central index but there is also additional information, such as the amount of contribution which is held on NIRS2, as he said. Given that background information, I hope I may persuade your Lordships that these amendments, though they may be pegs on which to express wider concern about national insurance numbers, really do nothing at all to help us. They are redundant and may even make the situation worse.
1100
The first amendment would place a statutory duty on officers to check the validity of a person's national insurance number before initiating any enquiries under the powers of Clause 1; that is Amendment No. 6. We do this already. It is one of the basic building blocks before any further investigation into fraud can continue and therefore putting this on to the face of the Bill would achieve nothing at all. It is already absolutely standard practice. It is imperative that we establish at the outset the identity of the person suspected. I would ask the noble Lord to accept from me that this amendment is redundant, despite being useful as a peg on which to explain that we always do it. We do this already, and checking the national insurance number before we start on any serious investigation is an absolute requirement.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 46 and 49, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that they would achieve nothing new. It is already an offence to make a false statement in order to obtain benefit. That is what happens when a false insurance number is used. Of course, there may be a genuine error. A person may have been allocated a number as a child, perhaps when living abroad with their parents who were UK nationals, and stayed abroad before returning home perhaps 30 years later and has then innocently sought another national insurance number when starting work here, without realising that a number had been already allocated to them. There will be occasions when people innocently but erroneously hold two national insurance numbers. The issue is whether they use those numbers to perpetuate fraud. That was part of the debate we had earlier. It is already an offence, so once again this amendment is redundant.
The proposal would create a penalty specific to that offence which would tie the hands of the magistrates to a maximum penalty of £500. However, the existing offence attracts a penalty of up to £5,000 or six months' imprisonment. Therefore the noble Lord—I am sure unwittingly, innocently and in error—seeks to weaken the effect of the offence and the punishment which already exists by law.
I hope that I have addressed the point about the gap between the population and the numbers in circulation. I hope that I have covered the point about computers. I hope that I have addressed the issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about what happens if the number is stolen. I hope that I have addressed the issues underlying the amendment by suggesting not only that they are already part of departmental procedure but that they are already offences and the amendment would weaken the ability of the department to handle those offences. In the light of all that, I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to pursue the amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can she confirm whether the cleaning project is continuing; and whether there is any extension of the Balham project?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thought that I had mentioned the cleaning project. We have

1101
identified something like 220,000 mismatched numbers. We have completed the exercise; it was finite. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on the Balham exercise. I can give him information about the local project.
However, on the basis of that exercise we have found significant areas of benefit fraud. It is not all associated with national insurance numbers. The project was set up in 1997. We have had validation trace units at seven of the sites within the offices. We have been looking at the allocation of ninos. As a result, there have been something like 166 arrests for identity fraud; a further six deportations; and by extending the initiative to neighbouring Benefits Agency offices in 1999 there were a further 46 arrests. We seek to make use nationally of the lessons learned from Balham. We now have specialist teams to combat identity fraud and the fraudulent use of ninos. From 1st April 2000 we are not only continuing the work in Balham but extending it nationally. We are going live across London inside the M.25 corridor and Wales from 1st April 2000 where 70 per cent of all nino applications are handled. We have gone live in the rest of the country from 1st October 2000. So, yes, we are continuing the Balham project. We extended it to the M.25 and Wales last summer. Last autumn we went live to the rest of the country. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's point on Balham.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the points she made. I understand what she says about some national insurance numbers continuing in operation with regard to widows' benefits and so on. Clearly that is necessary. None the less the extent of the surplus seems to be very large—80 million people as against 60 million would scarcely be covered by that. It could surely be argued that we withdraw the number with regard to the owner but perpetuate it as regards the widow or other related claimant.
None of these matters covers the basic point which the Balham project—I am glad to hear that it is being extended—seems to confirm: that it will be a relatively simple exercise, albeit large scale, to check up on the extent to which the national insurance numbers held by an individual coincide with those which appear on the Government's records. There is the feeling that a large number of invalid national insurance numbers are being held. Therefore, to clean up the matter by making the initial inquiry on a national basis has much to be said for it in terms of reducing benefit fraud.
The Minister's other points are very fair. I take the point that inquiries are already made at the first stage on national insurance numbers. But that is the present situation before the Bill comes into operation as an Act. We were concerned that this should be an upfront part of the exercise.
I concede the point the Minister makes on penalties. It merely demonstrates how important the issue has been considered in the past. The report of the noble Lord. Lord Grabiner, seems to bear out that point. It
1102
gives considerable cause for concern with regard to surplus numbers and the stringency with which new numbers are issued.
I shall study carefully the point the noble Baroness makes. Clearly I shall need to amend the second set of amendments, if not the first, and return to the matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) Prior to the exercise of the power conferred on an authorised officer to obtain information under this section, that officer shall obtain in writing the consent to carry out an investigation.
( ) Consent shall be obtained from an official of seniority of "Band B" or above from the relevant department.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is concerned with the way in which the powers conferred on authorised officers to obtain information under the clause shall be authorised and the level at which the investigations take place.
There is still considerable concern about the way in which the investigations will be carried out, despite the excellent amendments moved by the noble Baroness earlier, with no external check on whether it is reasonable to investigate an individual. The British Bankers Association still feels that independent external checks should be made on the way in which the Government operate. It remains of the view that one should have independent judicial authorisations for specific inquiries. It stresses that it does not understand why those suspected of benefit fraud should have a lower standard of protection against the invasion of their privacy than those suspected of tax fraud or criminal offences.
The Minister has been kind enough to write to me and to others on this point. No doubt the noble Baroness will wish to put on record her arguments. The code of practice gives us more reassurance than we had in Committee. The protections which are built in seem to be more substantial than we had at first realised. On the other hand, it is not entirely clear how the system will operate in practice. We had understood that there were to be authorised officers. On page 10 of the code of practice we find a reference to a selection of individuals. There is reference to authorised officers; and we are clear about them. However, there will also be fraud investigators, decision makers, fraud specialists, responsible officers and accredited fraud officers. The relationship between each of these is not entirely clear.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thought that the example given at the bottom of page 10 clarified the relationship between them extremely well.
Lord Higgins:My Lords, the example given is:
"A Fraud Investigator is investigating a suspicion of undeclared savings. He considers all the relevant facts surrounding the case and decides that the information from a building society is

1103
necessary. He refers the matter to the Authorised Officer, together with the reasons for the request. The Authorised Officer makes sure these are valid reasons and, if so, makes the request of the Building Society and, upon receipt, passes the reply to the Fraud Investigator".
What gives cause for concern is that the whole argument turns upon whether it is reasonable to carry out the investigation. The initiative of the matter comes from the fraud investigator and then goes up to the fraud officer. The amendment seeks to establish at what level these decisions, which clearly involve an invasion of privacy and raise issues on human rights and so on, are likely to be carried out.
One of the other examples given is that the information is given on the basis of an anonymous tip-off. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. If the tip-off received is anonymous rather than backed up by any further indication as to the source of the allegation or what has prompted it, do the Government regard that as a reasonable basis for carrying out an investigation. There may be all kinds of reasons why individuals make anonymous tip-offs; for example, they may not like the person.
If we look at that particular case, it appears that the person who has the ultimate say is not the authorised officer but the investigating officer. If that is so, it gives us some cause for concern.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not see an investigating officer. I have "fraud specialist", I have "decision maker", who actually makes the benefit decision, and the "authorised officer". Where is the investigating officer?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, doing this on one's feet is not perhaps the easiest thing to do. I have a list. I have authorised officers, fraud investigators, decision makers, who, as the Minister has said, are related to the decision on the actual benefit question. I have a responsible officer who turned up at some point and an accredited fraud officer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, but where is the investigating officer?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it would have been easier perhaps in Committee to have found one, but then we did not have the draft code of practice. He is a fraud investigator. However, I am not clear whether sufficient protection is being given to ensure that the investigation is reasonable.
I turn to the related points on this matter. The code of practice at paragraph 4.7 sets out what reasonable grounds are. It states:
"An Authorised Officer can require information only where he has reasonable grounds for doing so. Reasonable grounds are where an officer has good reason to believe a person is either committing fraud (or is intending to do so). What is reasonable would vary, depending upon the circumstances of the case, and each case should be considered on its own merits".
That is a most extraordinarily circular paragraph. I am not clear how that answers the question, what are reasonable grounds, although the code of practice goes on to give further examples.
1104
What we are really concerned about here is whether, given that there is apparently to be no external approval as to whether or not an inquiry is justified, the level at which these inquiries are carried out is appropriate. Therefore, perhaps, given the various categories which we have now summarised, the Minister could tell us at what level in the Civil Service these particular offices will be filled. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this provides me with my first opportunity to thank the Minister for providing us with the draft code of practice. That was extremely helpful. It is an extremely well-drafted code. It shows all the typical excellence of the Department of Social Security at putting itself under restraint coming from its own good judgment, while at the same time maintaining a vehement objection to any restraint placed upon it from any other quarter.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to respond on that point? In fact he will find that "fraud investigators" appears in paragraph 3.2, but that apparently has not been drawn to the attention of the noble Baroness. So the drafting is somewhat strange.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I thought that I remembered the phrase, but I did not succeed in finding it while he was speaking. I am sorry to have been so slow.
I return to the point. As a member of an institution, I sympathise with the objection to restraint from an outside quarter. On the other hand, most of us are subject to restraint and probably have to put up with it here and there. But although the draft code of practice tries to diminish the misgivings considerably, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that misgivings still remain. What, therefore, is the best thing to do is not necessarily a simple question.
Incidentally, I share the noble Lord's misgivings on the subject of anonymous tip-offs. They have been relied on in law enforcement in a variety of contexts at least since the Heresy Act of 1401, but they have led to a considerable number of miscarriages of justice. Having said that, I might remind the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the person who put anonymous tip-offs centre stage when he was Secretary of State was none other than Mr Peter Lilley. I expressed misgivings about it at the time. I express misgivings about it now. Those are no party misgivings; they are simply a matter of concern for justice.
However, I come back to the point that I made at Second Reading about proportion between legitimate objectives. The Minister was not entirely pleased with the point I made. If I remember her words right, she said that the proportions did not always appear to her as they appeared to me. Fair enough, I do not expect it. But on this occasion perhaps the point about proportion may tell in the Minister's favour. It is often essential for the prosecution of fraud that the fraudster or potential suspect fraudster should not know that he is being investigated until fairly late on in the proceedings. Fraudsters have a capacity sometimes,

1105
not merely for disappearing but for evaporating. If their identity is fictitious they can collapse it and may never be found again. So there may be a strong case indeed for making approaches under cover quietly.
It may be in terms of priority that the need for justice and the need for control justifies the use of a superior officer in the way that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, demands. I am capable of being persuaded of that point. However, I must say that the noble Lord has not yet so persuaded me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may respond first to the point about the anonymous tip-offs. I understand noble Lords' concerns. I was asked whether anonymous tip-offs alone would be reasonable grounds for an investigation. The answer is no.
An example may be where someone is understood to be a lone parent but a tip-off says that she actually has a live-in partner. That may be the kind of tip-off that one gets from a neighbour when they do not have a good relationship. Tip-offs of that kind would usually be raised with the claimant. Occasionally, very detailed tip-offs might be regarded as reasonable grounds, but in all cases they would be checked against our records on the claimant.
As I have said, the general presumption would be to check first with the claimant. Only detailed and serious allegations might trigger the need to go under cover. I hope that this gives the noble Lord some reassurance on that point.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked about the relationship between the fraud specialist and the authorised official. At present, fraud specialists carry out investigations on the ground. Something in the order of half a million such investigations are carried out each year using current powers. Only a small number of authorised officials will be attached to each of the 13 units, usually between 10 and 50 officers. To use the additional, sensitive powers conferred by the Act, the fraud investigator would have to approach the authorised official in order that that official could make the inquiries on behalf of the fraud investigator. Given that many people are in the field carrying out work, we would not want such information "floating around the system", to borrow the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, when we discussed this matter in Committee. Sensitive inquiries utilising the new powers contained in the Act must be carried out by the authorised official, who, in turn, must have "reasonable grounds" to investigate, which in turn must be clarified with the fraud investigator. I hope that that has clarified our slightly teasing exchange on this matter.
The third question raised by the noble Lord concerned whether authorised officials will be sufficiently senior to have such powers entrusted to them. In Committee I said that such officials will be appointed at executive officer grade, grade B3 or its equivalent in a local authority. They will be authorised to act on behalf of the Secretary of State only once they have been given full professional training. I could give
1106
details of that training but I shall not take up the time of the House unless noble Lords would like me to do so.
The grade is a management grade equivalent to that of a flight lieutenant in the Royal Air Force or a second lieutenant in the Army. It would rank between a police sergeant and a police inspector, who similarly carry high levels of responsibility. The grade is the same as that required for officers who currently use departmental powers to inspect the records of employers about their employees. Most noble Lords would regard that work as equally sensitive. I have already indicated that management controls will be put in place to be implemented by sector managers.
Finally, if an individual or an information provider has a complaint or question about the manner in which these powers have been applied by the authorised official, they may direct their inquiry to the senior officer in the central intelligence unit or the investigation manager in the case of local authorities. The address will be included in all requests for information.
I have sought to establish that, first, anonymous tip-offs would not, as they stand, provide reasonable grounds for investigation. They would need to be checked with the claimant, although occasionally exceptions may be made. Secondly, the fraud specialist will carry out the day-to-day work on the ground of checking the integrity of benefits but the exercise of powers as regards data information conferred by the Bill must be handed to an authorised official who must demonstrate reasonable grounds so to act. Such authorised officials will be relatively senior members of staff, in the top quarter in terms of hierarchy of staff in the Benefits Agency. Thirdly, if a complaint is received about the inappropriate use of these powers, relevant information will be made widely available by the authorised officials.
I hope that, with those points, the noble Lord will feel that I have addressed his concerns.
5 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am not sure that I am impressed by the level at which these decisions are to be taken. Paragraph 3.7 of the code states that,
"Authorised Officers will receive their authorisation from the Fraud Area Manager acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Authorised Officers will be of management grades not below that of Executive Officer. They will be managed by officers not below the grade of Higher Executive Officer".
It would seem that a person acting "on behalf of the Secretary of State" will not be below the rank of higher executive officer. The noble Baroness compared the grades with ranks in the Army and the Royal Air Force. However, they do not seem to be at a particularly high level. We shall need to consider that between now and Third Reading. We shall also need to consider the continuing concerns expressed by the banks and other organisations on the lack of external supervision.

1107
However, we have made considerable progress and the code of practice represents a substantial step forward. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, ultimately this is a matter of balance. We need to weigh the degree of power conferred on officials on the one hand and the lack of external supervision on the other. Nonetheless, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reassurances as regards anonymous tip-offs.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to say that we shall review these procedures. The last thing the DSS wants to see is criticism from banks and building societies of the actions of its authorised officials. If we receive complaints, we shall either review the managerial supervision element or we shall review the training. If the fears expressed by the noble Lord turn out to be legitimate—I do not think that they will, because officers are already working with equal levels of responsibility in parallel fields; their behaviour is almost always exemplary—then we shall find that out. The code of practice offers plenty of opportunities to make adjustments through training and complaints procedures. Having said that, I should point out that, based on the body of experience from complaints officers currently working in the field, we believe that we have set these processes at the right level.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I understand the point. Again, although I am reassured by the noble Baroness's comments on training and so forth, if someone is carrying out an investigation which is not reasonable, that is far more a question of an individual's attitude to the issues than it is a question of training. I shall bear in mind the points made by the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, if Amendment No. 8 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 9 to 11.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 34, leave out from ("is") to end of line 41 and insert—
("(a) a person who has committed, is committing or intends to commit a benefit offence; or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, leave out lines 42 to 44.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the provisions as regards members of the family of a suspect. Again, the code of practice has proved to be extremely helpful. In Committee I raised the question of whether it was appropriate to include in the list of those who might be investigated people who were simply members of the family of someone
1108
who was otherwise suspect. That part of the Bill has now been radically changed. This is the only section which, in effect, has survived the helpful innovations introduced by the noble Baroness.
The relevant paragraphs in the code of practice are paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12. That part of the code does seem to restrict the provision to inquiries about family members whose circumstances are directly relevant to the claim under investigation. For example, if a man is claiming a means-tested benefit but is not declaring his wife's earnings, inquiries may be made about her bank account in order to establish the truth. I have some doubts about the precise wording of paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12, but I think it would be helpful to discuss that when we discuss the code of practice as a whole.
This issue was raised in Committee. However, perhaps the Minister will state for the record precisely why she believes that the members of a family—defined precisely in the code of practice—may need to be investigated. Also, is she satisfied that there are adequate restraints on going beyond the particular cases where the fraudulent benefit claim immediately raises the question of family relationships?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again I am happy to give the assurance that the noble Lord seeks. I explained in Committee that information about a person's family—the tightly defined nuclear family; in other words, the dependants who are covered by benefit—is needed by the department. People claim benefit not only for themselves but for their dependants.
The crucial point is that income-related benefits are based on household assessment; therefore, we need to know about the household. It is as simple as that. For example, people may be fraudulently claiming for children that they do not have; they may claim that they are single when they are a couple; or a man may be claiming a benefit when the woman is in work. The implication of the noble Lord's amendment is that if a single man were working and claiming benefit he would be prosecuted, but if a married man were claiming benefit when his wife was working—the same offence but within the household—we could not prosecute him. I am sure that that is not the noble Lord's intention.
So I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks. The notion of "family members" is tightly drawn. Because income-related benefits are household based, any claim is on behalf of the whole household; therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the information is correct and valid. That is why we need to retain the provision in paragraph (d).
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that is a helpful explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 44, leave out ("(b) or (c)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this Act shall authorise an inquiry which contravenes any provision of the Data Protection Act 1998.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 38.
Amendment No. 14 seeks to ensure that any inquiry initiated as a result of the Bill is pursued with the full knowledge of the data protection regulations and that the concerns expressed by the Information Commissioner about some provisions in the Bill have been taken into account.
The Minister assured us in Committee that if the Information Commissioner believed the Bill to be in breach of the Data Protection Act, she could issue the department with an enforcement notice. Would it not be preferable to smooth over any potential areas of conflict before the Bill becomes law and subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act?
Although safeguards exist in the Bill and in the draft code of practice, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said in Committee, it is questionable whether the action can be proved to be necessary and, therefore, whether any inquiry is or will be within the bounds of the Data Protection Act. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that knowledge of the data protection regulations will be required as part of the training of the authorised officers who will exercise the powers provided under the Bill?
Turning to Amendment No. 38, the Minister was kind enough to say that she would confirm whether or not an individual could request information held on him by the DSS and under what circumstances there would be an opportunity to do so. We are grateful to the Minister for the confirmation set out within the code of practice that an individual will be able to access personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act. However, although the draft code of practice has established that an individual has the right to subject access, and would be eligible without our amendment to access personal data held on him by the DSS, it does not confirm at what stage, if any, individuals may access that information if they are under investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 14. We examined this amendment on the first day of the Committee stage. My instinctive reaction then was that the amendment was unnecessary and that that is still my view.
I think that the source of the problem is that the Data Protection Act 1998 is widely misunderstood and that even experienced lawyers are a little nervous of it. I include myself in that category. The obscurities of the 1998 Act are driven by the fact that it has its origins in the human rights convention, and the legal concepts in the convention were then very novel, and still are quite novel, to English lawyers and legislators.
1110
The relevant provision of the convention is Article 8. The first paragraph of the article spells out the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Obviously, the right is not absolute or unlimited. The convention is carefully structured and makes a sensible balance. Accordingly, paragraph 2 of Article 8 makes it plain that a public authority may be entirely justified in interfering with that right provided that the interference,
"is in accordance with the law and is necessary … [for] the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of… crime … or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
Those two aspects of Article 8 are perfectly mirrored in the Data Protection Act. The right in paragraph 1 is covered by the so-called Data Protection Principles, especially the first principle. The limitation on the right is set out in Section 29 of the Act, which expressly exempts from the first data protection principle cases where personal data is processed for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or for the purpose of apprehending or prosecuting offenders. It follows that in this context Article 8 of the convention is made effective in our domestic law by the Data Protection Act.
The next step in the argument is the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 3(1) of the Act requires that, so far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the convention rights. The obligation to construe all legislation in this way is, therefore, cast squarely on the court.
It will immediately be obvious that it is entirely unnecessary and indeed circular to introduce any provision into this Bill of the kind that we are now discussing. In the first place, it adds nothing to the Data Protection Act, which cannot be excluded or side-stepped. Secondly, Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act means that, if and when the Bill becomes law, it must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the convention rights.
I should like to emphasise one further point that I believe is sometimes under-rated in our debates, and, for the most part, ignored in the representations from some of the outside bodies, or pressure groups, that have given their views on this particular subject. The purpose of Clause 1 of the Bill is to enable the DSS to detect or prevent crime and to apprehend and prosecute benefit fraudsters. That is an entirely legitimate object in any civilised society. It is specifically authorised by the convention. That is especially the case where these powers are necessary as a check on whether a particular benefit claimant has, on a previous occasion, given honest answers to questions properly put to him or her and where the answers are to be relied upon for the purpose of deciding whether or not the claimant qualifies for the relevant benefit. We must always take full account of the convention right in paragraph 1 of Article 8, but there is absolutely no justification for disregarding or watering down the limits on that right that we find in paragraph 2 of Article 8.

1111
In the result, I believe that this amendment is unnecessary for at least two reasons. First, if and when these powers in Clause I are enacted, they will be exercisable only in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998; and, secondly, the provision will have to be construed by the court compatibly with the convention because Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 says so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that was an extremely helpful intervention, for which I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I should like to probe one or two of his assertions. First, I do not have the text of the Human Rights Act with me today, but it is my recollection that the requirement to construe existing statutes in the light of the convention is a requirement to do so as far as possible. It must be so, otherwise the whole provision for a certificate of incompatibility would be unnecessary.
Secondly, the noble Lord is clearly persuasive in arguing that Clause 1 of the Bill is a legitimate object within the terms of the convention. However, it has been argued by the Data Protection Registrar that this object is subject to the requirement of proportionality. That is a fairly major argument. There is probably some obligation on this House to consider how far that requirement of proportionality is met. We know that the registrar has had some fairly significant misgivings at earlier stages of the Bill. I understand that discussions have taken place since then. I have heard in the most general terms only about the results of those discussions. However, before we leave this amendment, perhaps we could be enlightened on how far the registrar is currently reassured. That would be extremely helpful to the House.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I shall respond briefly to the noble Earl's observations. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the opening words of Section 3(1), which read:
"So far as it is possible to do so".
Indeed, I believe that I referred to those words when I drew attention to the provision. However, if it is not possible to do so, the possible consequence is that there would have to be a certificate of, so to speak, non-compatibility. In that event, there would be a potential problem.
The noble Earl also referred to the issue of proportionality. The amendment now before us is one that would have the effect of making the operation of the powers contained in Clause 1 of the Bill expressly subject to the Data Protection Act 1998. The proportionality point does not arise by virtue of the Data Protection Act. It arises under that Act in any event, but it will also arise under this Bill, if and when it becomes law. Therefore, there is no need for this Bill to incorporate a provision that would make it in its operation subject to the Data Protection Act 1998, because the proportionality obligation will have to be satisfied under this legislation standing alone.
1112
We discussed this issue previously. I entirely agree that it must be necessary; and that means proportionate. The mere process of going through these proceedings—indeed, as we have done in previous debates—reveals most clearly that the product at which we are arriving is a proportionate response to a serious social and criminal problem.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am indebted to both my noble friend Lord Grabiner and to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for expanding the point about the proportionality issue and the degree to which all legislation is subject to the Data Protection Act. That brings me to the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. There is no need for amendment No. 14. There is nothing in the Bill that can enable us to contravene the Data Protection Act 1998. The noble Lord asked why we have not placed such a provision on the face of the Bill. I could respond and say that, equally, the Bill must not contravene the Human Rights Act 1998, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or the freedom of information legislation. However, we do not seek to place them on the face of the Bill. The law is the law; and, by law, we cannot contravene the law. The Data Protection Act 1998 is the law. Therefore, putting a provision on the face of the Bill to the effect that we cannot contravene it would not change the fact that we cannot contravene it; in other words, the suggested provision would be otiose. Indeed, I believe that my noble friend Lord Grabiner put the case most succinctly.
The question was also raised as to whether the Data Protection Act and its obligations and responsibilities should form part of the training of authorised officers, which I believe to be a most helpful and pertinent question. Yes, indeed, it is important that they should understand that their actions must fall within that framework.
I turn now to Amendment No. 38, and the question of data. As I believe we made clear in Committee, we generally keep data for 14 months, unless it is needed for prosecution purposes. Anyone can ask for the data that is held upon himself at any stage, so long as that request would not jeopardise any investigation. For my own interest, I asked to have sight of a typical print-out of what might be held on a real but anonymised individual in the social security computers. This gives information about national insurance numbers, family, employment, and so on.
In the light of that, I was also asked whether it would be reasonable to reduce the time limit of 40 days down to 21. The reference in the amendment to,
"the relevant agencies or bodies".
which would include the DSS and local authorities, would also, presumably, include banks and other organisations listed in subsection (2A), as set out in Clause 1. That would mean that the noble Lord's amendment to restrict the time available to make such enquiries to 21 days would not only apply to the DSS but would also apply to banks, building societies, credit reference agencies, and everyone else. As a

1113
result, I believe that those organisations would be extremely unhappy. They are currently subject to the same 40-day requirement as applies to the DSS. However, as the amendment is framed, they, too, would be brought within the 21-day requirement. I am sure that they would find this very hobbling in terms of their ability to respond, because the time limit would be halved and could be seen as unreasonable.
Finally, I was asked whether the Data Protection Registrar was reassured in terms of what we propose. The truth is that we have not heard from the registrar recently on the subject. I understand that she has been sent the draft code of practice, but has not responded. I believe that it is fair to say that her original concerns have been addressed in part by the amendments that we have proposed, especially Amendment No. 8 that the House accepted earlier, and by the publication of a code of practice, which will be a statutory code of practice. If the registrar has other concerns, she will no doubt communicate them to us. However, I have checked the position. That was certainly the situation yesterday. I rechecked to confirm whether or not we had heard anything further today, but we had not. That is the best information that I can give to the House.
Having addressed some of the concerns that your Lordships expressed—one about the code of practice and the other about subsection (2A)(a), (b) and (c), which was dealt with by way of Amendment No. 8—I hope that my response will also allay the concerns that the Data Protection Registrar gave in response when the Bill was originally published.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification from the Minister. I cannot recollect saying anything in my short speech to either amendment about putting anything on the face of the Bill. I have checked my notes and I cannot recollect saying that.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, were helpful, particularly as regards clarifying the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act as they relate to the two amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I have misunderstood the noble Lord. However, Amendment No. 14 states:
"Nothing in this Act shall authorise an inquiry which contravenes any provision of the Data Protection Act 1998".
In other words, the noble Lord asks for a provision on the face of the Bill that nothing we do can contravene any provision of the Data Protection Act. As I said, that cannot happen. We cannot contravene the provisions of the Data Protection Act because that is law, in the same way as we cannot contravene the Sex Discrimination Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and so on. As I say, perhaps I have misunderstood the noble Lord.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I accept the points that the noble Baroness makes. These are probing
1114
amendments to clarify points which we are grateful to have explained. On the subject of the Human Rights Act, normally there are various additional measures in the Bill. However, they are missing. Is there any specific reason for that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not know what additional measures the noble Lord has in mind. Perhaps he can help me.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, normally the Bill states that it is in conformity with the convention. Is there any reason why that statement is missing?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that statement was signed originally before the Second Reading. I believe that it was signed at the First Reading of the Bill. I signed that the Bill was compatible with human rights. I believe that on a couple of occasions the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, told me that I had signed that measure and that he held me personally responsible for that. It was certainly signed.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I take the Minister's word that it does not matter that the measure is not on the face of the Bill at all the other stages.
I return to the amendments. I am grateful for the detailed clarification both from the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, and from the Minister. It is helpful that we have that detailed clarification. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:
Page 3, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert ("any information other than information which (within the meaning of section 2I of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) is communications data but not traffic data." ").
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("(2F) Nothing in subsection (2B) or (2C) above shall prevent an authorised officer from exercising the powers contem,c1 by this section for requiring information, from a person who provides a telecommunications service, about the identity and postal address of a person identified by the authorised officer solely by reference to a telephone number or electronic address used in connection with the provision of such a service.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 42, leave out ("and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20A not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 2, at end insert (", and
'telecommunications service' has the same meaning as in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Electronic access to information]:
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 7, line 9, after ("refuses") insert ("without reasonable excuse").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment inserts a defence of reasonable excuse into the offence provision under Clause 2.
There may be a number of valid reasons that a person cannot comply with a requirement under new Sections 109BA or 110AA. As currently drafted, the Bill takes no account of this and creates an offence of strict liability regardless of the circumstances of the particular case. We are of the view that every case should be considered on its own merits and that only wilful refusal to comply with a requirement under the Bill should be culpable. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled as I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, would have agreed that we had addressed this issue in paragraph 4.5 of the draft code of practice which has statutory weight. We inserted that measure in response to the concerns that the noble Lord expressed in Committee. Therefore I feel slightly miffed that we responded to those concerns in the draft code of practice but he has failed to acknowledge that. Paragraph 4.5 of the draft code of practice states:
"If information is not provided the Authorised Officer should explain the DSS statutory powers. and the potential consequences of non-compliance. Information providers will be expected to comply with reasonable requests and the DSS will take the matter further if an individual employee is being obstructive"—
I refer to the point about wilful refusal that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, made—
"Authorised officers must consider any reasonable excuse that a person may have for not providing the information. Examples may include industrial action, staff shortages or unforeseen sickness. The list is not exhaustive".
The example I gave in Committee was the breakdown of a computer. The code also refers to evidence that does not incriminate someone. I hope that I have addressed the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Astor.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down could she give us a little more clarification of the word "consider" in paragraph 4.5 of the code of practice? Is it fanciful of me or does that wording imply that an official could consider and turn down a reasonable excuse?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in that case he would not be acting reasonably and the whole of the legislation is framed within the context of reasonableness. If it would be helpful, I am happy to strengthen the wording in the draft code to make it clear that authorised officers must not press for information where the information provider has a reasonable excuse and to cite more examples of what we would consider reasonable in the context of electronic access to data. We have a further meeting on 15th March with representatives of the information providers so we could review the code of practice that I quoted in the light of that meeting. I want to be
1116
helpful so that everyone understands exactly what we count as good cause, so to speak, and what would be reasonably regarded as wilful refusal. I hope that noble Lords will be content with those assurances.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's helpful and positive remarks I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
CODE OF PRACTICE ABOUT USE OF INFORMATION POWERS
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice relating to the exercise of—

(a) the powers that are exercisable by an authorised officer under section 109B of the Administration Act in relation to the persons mentioned in subsection (2A) of that section; and

(b) the powers conferred on an authorised officer by sections 109BA and 110AA of that Act.

(2) The Secretary of State may from time to time—

(a) revise the whole or any part of the code for the time being in force under this section; and

(b) issue a revised code.

(3) Before issuing or revising the code of practice under this section, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) prepare and publish a draft of the code, or of the revised code; and

(b) consider any representations made to him about the draft;

and the Secretary of State may incorporate in the code he issues any modifications made by him to his proposals after their publication.
(4) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament the code of practice, and every revised code, issued by him under this section.
(5) The code of practice issued under this section and any revisions of the code shall come into force at the time at which the code or, as the case may be, the revised code is issued by the Secretary of State.
(6) An authorised officer exercising any power in relation to which provision must be made by the code of practice under this section shall have regard, in doing so, to the provisions (so far as they are applicable) of the code for the time being in force under this section.
(7) A failure on the part of any person to comply with any provision of the code of practice for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any civil or criminal proceedings.
(8) The code of practice for the time being in force under this section shall be admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings.
(9) In this section "authorised officer" has the same meaning as in Part VI of the Administration Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 22 and 54 which are pivotal. They concern the matter of the code of practice governing the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
We had a lengthy debate in Committee regarding whether or not the Bill should make provision for a code of practice. I explained that it had always been the Government's intention to have a code of practice regarding the use of provisions under Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill—the powers to obtain information. I also explained that we did not intend to commence using those provisions until the code had been published. I recognised, however, that the House, and organisations in the private sector, wanted greater certainty on this point, and I agreed to consider whether we could bring forward a government amendment to make provision on the face of the Bill for a code of practice, which is what we have done. The detail of the proposed provision is in Amendment No. 22.
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State must consult on a draft of the code before it is published. We have already met with representatives from business and local authorities to discuss what should be in it and we shall continue to hold dialogue with them further to develop the draft code which has already been provided to your Lordships. Additionally, this provision provides for formal consultation both on a first draft after the Bill receives Roy al Assent and on subsequent revisions of the code following its publication.
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice relating to the provisions at Clauses I and 2. The House can thus be certain that the powers in Clauses I and 2 will always be exercised within its framework.
The amendment provides that the Secretary of State may revise the code of practice from time to time. The private sector organisations have suggested to us that they would find it helpful if the code of practice were regularly reviewed. A suggestion of three years has been made. We think that that might be beneficial to all concerned. It would enable private sector organisations to provide feedback—the sort of research that we discussed earlier as regards any complaints about how things were working. It would give both the private sector organisations and authorised officers in both DSS and local authorities an opportunity to say whether or not they find the code helpful. Consequently, I give an assurance to the House that we would review the code of practice within three years of its publication and that the code would be revised, if necessary, in accordance with that review.
The amendment also provides that the final version of the code of practice be laid before both Houses of Parliament and, above all, that authorised officers must have regard to the code, where it is relevant, when they exercise the powers in Clauses 1 and 2. The code of practice shall be admissible in criminal and civil proceedings. So if an authorised officer fails to comply with the code of practice that could be taken into account by a court of law.
Amendment No. 54 amends the commencement provisions of the Bill. It provides that Clauses 1 and 2 may not be commenced until the code of practice has
1118
been published. Our discussions with the Information Commissioner, which is the Data Protection Registrar, and representatives from business indicate that this would be a welcome addition to the Bill's provisions.
Perhaps I may say a word or two about the code of practice. I emphasise that the work is in draft. Negotiations are ongoing. A document may go through many stages before it is published. At the moment it makes no reference to local authorities because we are currently in consultation. We had a helpful meeting last week, but we still have to do further work with them as to what shape the code will take. We plan to provide the next draft before the Bill reaches the Committee Stage in another place, subject to the rest of the consultations, particularly with the local authorities, proceeding satisfactorily.
I believe that in the code we have addressed the key issues of what the powers are, who will use them and how they will be used. There is an introductory chapter setting out its purposes and a specific chapter setting out the various safeguards pertaining to the use of the powers. We have tried to include examples as we have proceeded as to how the powers might be exercised.
It is a code which is primarily aimed at authorised officers. It is designed to instruct them on how they must use the powers. But we also want it to be intelligible and legible to business and to any private individual who wishes to find out more. We have endeavoured to set out what is and what is not reasonable in the exercise of the information powers. For example, we have stated that authorised officers should always consider the option of making a direct approach to the customer if they need information about them. Unless there are grounds for thinking that an investigation would be compromised by approaching the customers direct, this would be our immediate route for obtaining information. We would only make an approach to the information provider if there is no other feasible option available. At paragraph 2.9 the code makes clear that information subject to legal privilege may not be obtained under these powers. I have given a commitment that I shall return to this matter at Third Reading with an amendment to that effect because it is such an important and sensitive issue.
I hope that your Lordships will find the draft code helpful. I will, of course, take on board your Lordships' comments including those made in correspondence, if that might be helpful subsequently because, as I say, such a draft code goes through many stages of revision before it is laid before Parliament. These amendments make provision on the face of the Bill for a code of practice governing the use of provisions in Clauses 1 and 2. They also ensure that the measures in those two clauses cannot begin until the code of practice has been published and laid before both Houses of Parliament and that, before publishing the code, the Secretary of State must consult on a draft of it. We shall have further consultations in order to review the draft within three years. I hope that your Lordships will welcome these amendments. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I believe that the whole House will be very grateful for the extremely constructive and flexible attitude which the Minister has adopted throughout our proceedings on this Bill. We certainly welcome the amendment which puts the code of practice on a statutory basis. Already in the course of our debates we have picked up various points in the draft code of practice. At this stage of the proceedings I do not intend to repeat them.
However, there are one or two points which are worth questioning. The first arises from an exchange which took place a moment or two ago between the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever. I had not previously noticed that the Bill, as printed at Report stage, does not include, as it did when published at Committee stage, an assurance by the Minister that the Bill conforms to the European Convention. It is possible, although unlikely, that the form of the Bill may change during the course of its proceedings through this House and the other place in such a way that it is inconsistent with the convention.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, was it on the original Bill as published for the Committee stage?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the original Bill has an undertaking from the noble Baroness giving an assurance that it is in conformity with the convention. Suddenly, it has disappeared.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that it has already been given. It may well be a printing error which has been well spotted for its omission. The crucial issue is the undertaking that was given in writing when the Bill was originally published and that stands.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I understand that very well. I have never noticed it before. It is possible that an amendment has been made which is not in conformity with the convention. However, the noble Baroness says that that is not so, but it is possible. What is relevant to the present debate is that it seems possible now that we are putting the matter on a statutory basis, that there is something in the code of practice which does not conform. I do not believe that that is stretching the matter too much. The assurance that has been given needs to be considered by the House. Perhaps in a more general sense—and it is not appropriate to discuss it at this point—the House should consider whether the way in which we handle this particular issue is the best way of doing so.
Perhaps I may return to one other point as regards the amendment before making one or two general points on the draft code of practice. I am not quite clear how subsections (7) and (8)in the new clause interact. Subsection (7) states,
"A failure on the part of any person to comply with any provision of the code of practice for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any civil or criminal proceedings".
1120
Subsection (8) states,
"The code of practice for the time being in force under this section shall be admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings".
If those subsections interact in any way, and if we are going to make a statutory code, then if someone has failed to do something which is in the code there is an argument for saying that that should not render them liable to civil or criminal proceedings. The fact that such matters can be used in evidence in respect of another offence not related to the code does not appear to be right. Obviously, this is a highly technical matter. It would be helpful if we could have an indication as to how those two subsections interact.
I have covered most of the points that I need to make. As regards the pure drafting of the code, it appears that no-one has read it straight through. For example, I refer to paragraph 2.4 which begins,
"However, any authorised officer shall not ask for information"
and so forth. Then it states,
"For example, we will not ask a utility company to obtain a current meter reading".
There appears to be a change from first to third person. There are similar examples in paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12.
As regards the local government code of practice, in correspondence the noble Baroness has indicated that it will be available in March. Will we have it before Third Reading?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thought I had made that point clear in my original remarks, but perhaps I was speaking too rapidly. I said that we were still in discussion with local authorities. That code will be incorporated into the other and we hope that it will be in place, subject to discussion and agreement, in time for the Committee stage in another place. We have gone further and faster in our discussions with business than with local authorities, although they are in parallel track.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful for that information. Because of the imminence of a general election it is very important that the code is available before then.
I have one extremely important point which arises at paragraph 4.13. It states that,
"Authorised officers will not make enquiries in person by means of a visit. The power to inspect promises only relates to enquiries made to an organisation about their employees".
I believe the word should be "premises".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I welcome the amendment, which provides for a statutory code. I think that I am right in saying that the provisions to which my noble friend Lord Higgins has drawn attention are very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the provisions about the Highway Code, which have existed for some considerable time. The important thing is that the definition of offences has to be in the Bill. I wondered whether that was absolutely plain when the Minister was responding to the previous

1121
amendment. It must be right that the definition of offences has to be in the Bill. The code cannot create offences.
On the other hand, a failure to comply with the provisions of the code might be evidence that an offence defined under the statute has been committed. It is important that the statute defines the offences. One cannot use the code to modify or reduce the scope of the statutory provision for offences. I should be glad to have that confirmed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened to that intervention with great interest. I shall re-read the code of practice with that question in mind between now and Third Reading, as I am sure the Minister and many others will also do.
On the whole, it seemed to me that the code was concerned with creating defences rather than offences. In the very short time available to me, I have not seen anything in the wording of the code to which I wish to object. I warmly congratulate the Minister on the work that she has done on the subject. In our preliminary meeting, she made encouraging noises about the code of practice and its time of appearance. She has performed a great deal more than she has promised. That is entirely the right way round. I take her point that consultation is still in progress. We saw it in progress a few minutes ago and I very much welcomed its operation. I am in no position to complain about that.
It is highly unlikely that we have done anything contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights that was observed by neither the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, nor my noble friend Lord Goodhart. I am inclined to fall back on Locke's remark when he saw the proofs of his Second Treatise of Civil Government—that printers have ways all their own, not united by the general fairness that cements mankind.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, on the point about the certificate of endorsement, for the sake of the record the first version of the Bill carried the endorsement by my noble friend the Minister to the effect that the provisions of the Bill were compatible with the convention rights. The current version, produced after Committee stage, does not carry that endorsement. Section 19(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, which contains the obligation to produce the statement, provides that before Second Reading the Minister must,
"make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights".
That obligation has been complied with. The Act also says:
"The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate".
The statutory obligation has been satisfied.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. I have had similar advice from the Table, which is that the endorsement appears after the First Reading and only
1122
once in each House and does not have to be repeated at each stage of the Bill. I was wrongfooted and thought that maybe it had been left off accidentally. The basic point is that the original certification casts its halo over all subsequent proceedings and does not need to be repeated. I am intrigued that we have spent longer on that today than on many of the other issues in the Bill.
The second point that has been raised was on the code. I welcome the welcome that has been given around the House to the code. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred to an apparent incompatibility between subsections (7) and (8) on what was liable. Subsection (7) says that a failure to comply with the provision will not render a person liable to civil or criminal proceedings. That is a standard in statute providing for codes of practice. It ensures that the authorised officer will not incur personal liability merely for breaching the code. It will not prevent him being prosecuted for an offence committed in connection with his duties. Subsection (8) provides that the code shall be admissible as evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings. In other words, a court may have regard to the code when considering whether an authorised officer has acted properly in his exercise of the information powers set out in the Bill. If the noble Lord wants further elaboration, I shall be happy to write to him.
On the point about "premises" and "promises", all that I can say is, "Promises, promises, thank you very much".
Finally, in response to the thoughtful speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—we would expect nothing less—I shall re-read his comments and see whether we need to take any further action, but we agree with what he said.
In the light of that, I hope that your Lordships will again feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: It is your amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Ouch! I hope that your Lordships will be able to withdraw any objections and will accept my amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Arrangements for payments in respect of information]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 23, I remind noble Lords that if it is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 24, owing to pre-emption.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("authorising") to the end of line 38 and insert ("payments to be made to any person for information obtained by virtue of the powers contained in subsection (2A) of section 109B.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25. Amendment No. 23 has two objectives. First, it would widen the categories of persons who may be recompensed by the Secretary of State in return for providing information under the

1123
new powers. Secondly, it would remove the Secretary of State's discretion on who is to be paid and the amount of such payment.
Clause 3 restricts the potential recipients of payment to credit reference agencies, telecommunications providers and, to a limited extent, water, gas and electricity suppliers. It therefore excludes a number of other organisations from the possibility of payment, notably banks and insurance companies. It also restricts the amount that can be paid to utility companies. Those organisations will bear the majority of the inquiries as a consequence of the Bill—around 55 per cent on the department's estimate.
This is fundamentally a question of equity. The Bill would create a large number of potential information providers to help in the fight against social security fraud. That has not been challenged. The issue is the fairness of the burden of compliance. The Government, who will be the beneficiary of the inquiries, hope to save at least £200 million through lower benefit payments.
In Committee, the Minister explained that there was a general principle that the Government do not pay for information that they are authorised by law to collect. Past practice does not necessarily make that a good principle when we consider the burdens on business. We also know that the general principle is not absolute. It was ignored in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and is ignored again to an extent in this Bill in relation to credit reference agencies and telecoms providers.
The Minister also argued in Committee that businesses could afford to pay. She read out some profit figures from some major banks. I am troubled by that. If businesses have legitimately made profits in the UK or elsewhere and paid tax on them, that does not create a reservoir into which the Government can dip as they choose.
Those net profits belong to the shareholders. We should not assume that strong profits are made by all the companies that the Government intend to bring within these new information powers. I cite Equitable Life as an example of an insurance company where extra costs would impact on policy holders. The banking sector is also diverse in scale and profitability. We can not assume ability to pay.
I accept that if Government estimates of up to £7.6 million in additional costs are correct, that would not be a large burden on business; but those estimates may be incorrect. Against the background of increasing regulatory burdens on businesses, we should draw a line somewhere.
I hope noble Lords will agree that with this small amendment we can send a positive message about regulatory burdens to the business community.
Amendment No.23 removes the discretion to pay whatever the Secretary of State thinks fit. Amendment No.25 defines that in terms of the costs that are reasonably incurred. Costs will need to be defined, and I hope that they will include the opportunity cost of capital, so that the ability to pay a profit-inclusive
1124
price to the credit references agencies, which is a matter that concerned the Minister at Committee stage, would not be affected.
I do not believe that this provision would plunge the Department of Social Security into an administrative quagmire, nor do I believe that businesses would haggle and thereby delay the use of the powers, as suggested by the Minister in Committee. It is unlikely to be in their interests to do so.
I note that the department is prepared to negotiate constructively with credit reference agencies and telecommunications providers, and I hope that the same spirit would prevail in relation to other information providers. I am confident that their representative bodies could present practical solutions that would not create an excessive burden as a result of the amendment.
The amendment requires fair payment to be made to those drawn within the net of information providers.
I hope that noble Lords will therefore support the amendment.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has raised an issue that goes way beyond the confines of the Bill. It is a big and an important issue. Therefore, it is not entirely proper to seek resolution tonight because we can only resolve a small part of it. Nevertheless, she has placed noble Lords in her debt by raising the issue, and I hope that the thought she has provoked will spread beyond those here present.
There is an ongoing general argument about the division of cost between government and business. It not only arises in the context of administration undertaken by business on behalf of the Government but it arises constantly in all the debates on social costs and regulation. I should like to see all those issues considered together in a process of negotiation in which we might be able to work out, on some intelligent general principles, who pays for what.
What I would not be so happy with is a process of slow, administrative creep, in which, bit by bit, administration is passed over to private companies and private bodies and carried out on behalf of the department. It began in the Student Loans Bill 1990, when universities were required to take on the day-to-day administration of student loans. That involved taking on a considerable number of staff, running an office, and paying costs that in many cases could have been used to employ one member of teaching staff, and probably two. During the passage of that Bill the Government, purely voluntarily, chose to make a concession. It was not, of course, the full cost—it never is—but it was extremely welcome.
In Committee the Minister resisted the idea that the full cost should be met. She said that the Secretary of State should pay what appeared to him to be appropriate, a power that could be curbed or curtailed, where necessary, by judicial review. I am not aware that the Treasury is as easily controlled by judicial review as perhaps some other departments of state.

1125
The principle that public funds are adequate for the purpose for which they are voted seems to be regarded in certain Whitehall quarters as a tautology. This is an issue that should be considered in a wider context than the Bill.
I read the Minister's arguments in Committee because I was unable to be present. She argued that the Government do not pay for information that people are required to supply by law, but do pay firms that make their living out of supplying information for money. That approach has a coherence and an intelligibility in the short term, as a stop-gap measure, and is not an inadequate resolution of the problem. However, in saying that, I do not suggest that we should happily leave the situation as it is.
I remember the protests of British Airways against the charges imposed on it under carriers' liability. It seemed to me that those points were very well taken. An enormous administrative burden was being placed on a body that was not particularly well trained for it, and not equipped with the necessary powers of interpretation and knowledge of immigration law. The idea that administration is part of the majesty of the state., and should be so taken, is not one lightly to be lost sight of.
I hope that, after the little local business outside Westminster is over some time in the next few months, whoever is then in office will be prepared to sit down with representatives of finance and business and enter into a genuine, serious process of consultation about how the general issue of who pays for what should be resolved. It is in that hope that I am prepared in the short term to see the Bill remain as it is.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I also support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Businesses today already face a torrent of red tape, while at the same time trying to remain enterprising and thriving. On their shoulders lie the responsibility of creating the wealth of the nation, and they are competing with foreign companies.
In responding to the two amendments, can the Minister clarify the position of mutuals and other non profit-making organisations?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendment No.23 strikes out the categories of organisation that receive payment for supplying information and substitute a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that arrangements are in place, as he thinks appropriate, for requiring authorised payments to be made to any persons in the list in Clause 109B(2A) in respect of information obtained under the new powers.
Amendment No.25 inserts a new subsection requiring that payments made to information providers should be equivalent to their costs.
We debated the amendments in Committee. Our starting point, as stated so elegantly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that where organisations are required by law to provide information to Government, we do not pay for it. I gave the Committee various examples.
1126
Committees have to provide extensive information to Inland Revenue and Companies House, for example, but they are not reimbursed.
The Information Commissioner—Data Protection Registrar—requires organisations to complete detailed registrations of their data holdings, purposes, suppliers and recipients, but she does not pay them for this information. Banks are required to report suspicions of money laundering to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Utilities are required to provide information to the regulator to enable him to carry out his statutory duties. I do not wish to labour the point, but I simply repeat what I said in Committee: the DSS has had powers since the 1940s to require information from employers about their employees. Again, we do not pay for this, and it was not something that was proposed by the preceding government in the previous 20 years.
This is a good country in which to do business. Multi-national companies are setting up in business in the UK because of our stable economy and benevolent regulatory regime. At the other end of the scale, as I am sure the noble Baroness will know, small French companies are relocating to Kent because the regulatory burden is less and the incentives greater. I could go on to expand on what the Government have done to reduce burdens on business.
With regard to regulation, we have the lowest level of product market regulation of any OECD country. The labour market is less heavily regulated than in other EU countries. The non-wage ongoing labour costs are among the lowest in the OECD and the European Union. The Regulatory Reform Bill will allow us to enact important reforms that otherwise would not take place because of pressure on parliamentary time. Those reforms will be beneficial to business. Each department now has a Minister who is responsible for regulatory reform. We have cut taxes on business. We have cut corporation taxes by a full 3 per cent, and the main rate is now the lowest ever in the UK.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, what is product market regulation?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is an attempt to control standards and the like, as opposed to labour regulation.
The main rate of corporation tax is now the lowest ever in the UK and the lowest in any major industrialised country. We have cut the small companies' rate by 3 percentage points from 23p to 20p. We have introduced a 10p starter rate of corporation tax, and so on. The Chancellor announced in the pre-Budget report that the Government are considering other ways in which to provide a more competitive environment for business, including the abolition of outdated requirements for withholding tax on intra-UK interest and royalty payments, reform of the tax treatment of intellectual property, goodwill and other intangible assets, regimes for the tax treatment of gains on the disposal of substantial shareholdings, and extending the on-shore

1127
pooling rules for double taxation relief. I should be glad not to be pressed further on what that might entail. I could go on, but I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that in relation to all those dimensions the Government are committed to establishing a regime in which business can thrive and be competitive.
Essentially, the noble Baroness is arguing that businesses should not incur any costs in helping the Government to fight benefit fraud. That is where we part company. Fraud is theft from the taxpayer. Businesses which operate in the UK enjoy an environment and infrastructure paid for by the UK taxpayer. The police, who protect businesses from crime, are funded by the taxpayer. The courts, where businesses defend their rights, are funded by the taxpayer. And businesses are taxpayers, too.
However, the fact remains that businesses enjoy the many benefits of trading in this country and, in so doing, make strong and handsome profits. The share of the cost of enacting these proposals in the case of, for example, Barclays would amount to approximately 75 minutes' profit for the whole year.
I have heard the argument that the costs would be passed on to customers in the form of higher charges. I do not accept that for one moment. The debates which we had in Committee about profits speak for themselves. I understand why businesses would seek not to carry that responsibility, but I believe that it is right that businesses should meet the costs for the greater good of the country.
Amendment No. 25 seeks to require the Secretary of State to pay information providers an amount equivalent to the costs that they have reasonably incurred rather than an amount which he considers appropriate. The point that I wish to make in this respect is that this amendment undermines the whole logic of paying credit reference agencies. As a result of this amendment, they would be worse off than they would be under the Government's proposals.
Credit reference agencies accumulate information in order to sell it. I believe that that point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in discussing where we should draw the line. That is their business and it is how they make their profit. We believe that it is only right for the DSS to pay them the market rate—
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, perhaps the Minister did not hear what I said when I talked about profit. I said that there was no reason why it should not include the opportunity cost of capital, which in ordinary accountancy language translates into profit when the books are made up at the end of the year. I did not say that using costs would deprive businesses of the ability to pay a profit-inclusive price. Indeed, that would be a possibility.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is saying that it would be a possibility, not an inevitability. Am I right?
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am saying that if the Government wanted to, they could do that.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, certainly I would not wish to put words into the noble Baroness's speech which she did not intend to use.
I return to my substantive point. We are trying to distinguish organisations to which we seek to pay the going rate because they make their profit from that activity. This amendment, as pressed by the noble Baroness, would limit us to paying only their costs. The credit reference agencies might be surprised at that suggestion, particularly given the noble Baroness's experience in the business world and their expectation that she might speak on their behalf.
Although the noble Baroness says otherwise, we believe that the amendment would plunge the department into complex negotiations and renegotiations with specified suppliers of information about what they consider to be the reasonable costs of providing each and every piece of information. As I said, while that was happening the system would continue to be defrauded. I believe that the better way forward, as provided in the Bill, is for the Secretary of State to be able to meet the costs which he considers appropriate. Businesses can rely on the fact that the unreasonable use of the power would be curbed by judicial review.
I do not doubt that the utilities, the credit reference agencies and the telecommunications companies could afford to meet the costs of compliance. However, that is not the issue. We are seeking to make a distinction in paying those categories of business for those types of information. We were not motivated by whether or not they could afford to help us. It was a question of whether or not it was their task or job to help us.
The job of credit reference agencies is to sell information. If that information were made available free of charge, they would have no business. In the case of the utilities and telecommunications companies, in Committee I explained in detail why we considered it right to pay them for some of the information that they would provide—that is, for the purposes of electronic matching. Again, we consider that approach to be fully in line with the department's approach to the Royal Mail, which we also pay for providing electronic data for matching.
We included telecommunications companies because, for the purposes of data matching, they have invested in special technology to help to meet government inquiries. The House will note that those powers do not allow us to require organisations to alter their procedures or invest in special technology, and so on. That is why we believe that they are in a special position.
We do not believe that we are making unreasonable demands. We are seeking to make our inquiries in such a way that the costs are minimised. I have given commitments that businesses will not be required to invest in special software. They will not be required to obtain information especially in order to meet inquiries. They will not be required to store information differently or to store it for longer. Businesses need not fear these powers.

1129
I hope that I have reaffirmed the distinction that I tried to draw in Committee between paying for information which, on the one hand, it is the sole purpose of an organisation, such as a credit reference agency, to provide, or to pay for the additional costs that we may impose on telecommunications companies for the technology required for data matching. We consider it reasonable to meet those costs. However, we do not believe that we should pay banks and insurance companies and the like for information which we can reasonably expect them to provide in our combined effort to fight fraud, particularly financial fraud, of which they are almost as much the victim as is the DSS.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me a question about mutual companies. Mutuals and non-profit organisations are also liable to respond to our requests for help without payment. If they have information, we shall seek to pursue it.
In the light of those assurances, apart from the broader debate about regulatory burdens on industry, which may indeed be the subject of a proper Wednesday afternoon debate on some occasion, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does she accept and share with her right honourable friend the view that this is not simply a particular problem but one part of a rather more general problem?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not wish to trespass on debates that have already taken place on the Regulatory Reform Bill, in which these issues were addressed on a wider front. However, I certainly agree that the interaction of government with business takes place across a wide front of government activity. Therefore, it is important that there is an overview and that these interventions and interactions are coherent and reasonable. I believe that I am right in saying that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has responsibility in the Cabinet Office for that function. That is why in each department a Minister is appointed to ensure that the burdens are reasonable. They are overviewed by the Cabinet Office. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will accept that the Government are acting to ensure that an oversight of this information is held at a most senior level.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. It disappoints me but perhaps does not surprise me. Perhaps I may state for the record that I was not trying to propose an amendment which would have deprived the department of the ability to pay the credit reference agencies a price which included their normal profit. Indeed, if the words that I proposed were deemed to be seeking that, I should have considered amending them. That was not what I sought. I was seeking to make a general point about the increasing regulatory burdens and the need to draw the line as to when those burdens should be more fairly shared out. I accept that that is a bigger issue.
1130
The Minister recited many details to establish the competitiveness of the UK economy, including lower regulatory burdens compared with those In other countries. I do not deny that, but that advantage has been eroded in recent years. All of the surveys carried out by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and the British Chambers of Commerce constantly refer to the rising tide of regulation and the associated increasing costs. That was the motive behind my amendment. However, I accept that it is part of a larger issue and I shall not test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) any local authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 26.
Amendment No. 24 seeks to establish whether local authorities should be paid for operating the Bill's proposals and, if so, how much they should be paid. In Committee, the Minister discussed that and was courteous enough to write to me subsequently setting out details of the Government's weekly benefits savings anti-fraud incentive scheme and of the new anti-fraud incentive scheme. The first of those schemes involves a sliding scale, which changes depending on how much fraud the local authority prevented. However, it also imposes penalties on local authorities if they fail to meet individual thresholds by 75 per cent.
Our debate in Committee revealed considerable differences between the position of central government and that of the Local Government Association as regards the extent of the payment. The LGA has also written to me since the Bill's Committee stage. It continues to maintain that the support that central government give to local authorities in terms of housing benefit administration is inadequate and meets less than two-thirds of actual costs. It also points out that "the current incentive regimes" are not "sufficient" to meet the costs of tackling fraud and are ineffective. It states:
"Resources are insufficient and notice of funding is frequently given far too late to meet the local authority's budget cycle".
That is obviously an important consideration because it affects whether the scheme is likely to be operated with the degree of determination that noble Lords would wish. The LGA also states that the shortfall that results from the way in which central government allocate funds to local authorities means that any funding has to be made up through council tax Those are the reasons why it feels that the Bill's proposals are not compatible with a reasonable and equitable approach to the problem that the Bill seeks to address. The LGA is also concerned about the extent to which the so-called "two strikes and you're out" provisions

1131
might within three years have important implications for local authorities if specific benefits were withdrawn and the burden fell on local authorities.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's first point about subsidy arrangements and I shall return to it. His second point was that local authorities feel that a burden will fall on them if benefits are withdrawn. Which bodies does he have in mind? People for whom a local authority has responsibility under housing legislation because they are vulnerable will have, almost by definition, only a partial arrangement involving either 20 per cent or 40 per cent of their personal allowance. They cannot therefore be left without benefit. The same definition of vulnerability applies to local authorities that have the relevant responsibilities and to those who are protected by the hardship regime under the DSS. I hope that the noble Lord can help me—I absolutely do not understand this point.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that may make two of us!
My understanding is that the view of local authorities is that if a benefit is withdrawn under the "two strikes and you're out" principle, as set out in the provisions, the costs would have to be covered in another way. Unfortunately, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is expert in these matters, is no longer in the Chamber.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord's argument is not possible. Local authorities have responsibility under housing legislation and under social services legislation. Under housing legislation they have an obligation to house someone if he or she becomes homeless only if he or she is vulnerable. Anyone who is vulnerable is also protected by the hardship schemes that operate under the "two strikes and you're out" principle. In terms of social services, local authorities have a responsibility to intervene only when people are vulnerable through ill-health or disability—they may be an ex-prisoner—or if there are dependants and children. Those people are protected by the hardship clauses. There is not an overriding responsibility on local authorities; a path by which local authorities can pay money to single individuals who have no benefit does not exist. If people are vulnerable, they are protected under the DSS and the vulnerable are the responsibility of local authorities. I do not understand this point.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am stuck between two groups, both of which are obviously expert. As I understand it, local authorities argue that in some cases the local authority may have a homeless duty. If the applicant is deemed to be vulnerable, the local authority will not be able to recover the costs of rehousing the applicant. If the applicant has dependants who are likely to suffer hardship, social services authorities may also have to provide assistance. The Government have given no indication of the fact that they will reimburse local authorities for those additional costs.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, housing benefit is not affected by the Bill; it is not a sanctionable benefit. People cannot therefore become homeless in this regard even if they were cheating with regard to their housing benefit. The deductions would come from JSA or income support, not housing benefit. Therefore, people cannot become homeless because housing benefit would not have been withdrawn. There may be a profound misunderstanding in this context.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, local authorities will doubtless read our exchanges and the Minister's arguments and we shall see whether they come back to us. A similar situation arose in Committee, when the view of local authorities seemed to be at variance with that expressed by the Minister. They have come back to us about the extent to which there is a deficit with regard to meeting the relevant costs. Members of the House and local authorities should consider the Minister's comments. In the light of those further considerations we should carry out further consultations. I shall go into the matter in greater depth and consider how we might resolve what appears to be a conflict of understanding in this regard between the Minister and local authorities. Having said that, if she would spell out her response to my other points, we could take the matter further at a later stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am baffled by the noble Lord's argument. The concept of vulnerability, for which, as I said, local authorities take responsibility, affects precisely those groups of people for whom a hardship scheme is in place under the DSS. The relevant situation should not therefore arise. Housing benefit cannot be taken away if someone is on income support or JSA, which is a hardship benefit. It can be touched only if a person is not on income support or JSA, in which case he or she would have other sources of income. I do not understand this part of the argument.
I return to the first part of the noble Lord's argument. Essentially, the basis of his case was that the level of subsidy provided to local authorities was insufficient. We may have to disagree in this regard. I understand that local authorities may seek additional funding. In their place, I did exactly the same. However, they could not say that we have behaved unreasonably. We have increased the sums available to local authorities for the next three years.
The increase for 2000 to 2001 is 2.5 per cent in line with inflation, but the housing benefit case-load has decreased by approximately 6 per cent. That recognises that local authorities have transferred some of the housing stock to housing associations and that housing benefit cases now may be more complex. Local authorities have received increased resources in line with inflation to meet a reduced case- load. This can be probed further with the local authorities. I agree that it will not be even across the country. I have the statistics for each local authority's subsidy

1133
arrangements should the noble Lord wish to pursue it, including that for Wandsworth. From my knowledge of local government, these seem reasonable.
It was mentioned that local authorities may be under pressure because we are changing the subsidy arrangements which provide an incentive for them to detect fraud. We are changing the arrangement from the weekly verification scheme to the new verification framework. The changes will increase the emphasis on awareness, prevention and prosecution as well as detection and increase the incentive to prevent and detect fraud. The change is from April 2001. Precisely because local authorities said that they were under pressure to make these changes in the time-scale envisaged, we have agreed that they can continue to use their current scheme until April 2002 if they wish. We have a one-year transitional period that they can choose. Many local authorities are seeking to start the new scheme straightaway because they agree with us that in the long term it will be more advantageous for them to do so. Those local authorities not fully geared up have another year.
I believe that we have met the concerns of the local authorities. I realise that these concerns were raised by the noble Lord in Committee. I thought that I had replied by letter and sought to address them. Understandably, local authorities have come to him and said that they are not satisfied.
On the point about local authorities' responsibilities for those who might become homeless, I do not understand that argument from my experience. They are welcome to come back to us on the subsidy arrangement. It may be that we have to agree to disagree. I can understand local authorities wishing to augment their revenues. From the information I have it seems that they have been treated reasonably and fairly, particularly in terms of the overlap of one year in moving on to the new verification framework. I hope that in the light of that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I shall look at Hansard with interest because normally I propose the amendment at the beginning. I have found from experience that if I do not propose then, I forget to do so at the end. We will see what transpired. The amendment is still before us.
As far as concerns a difference of opinion on whether the finance provided by central government is adequate for local authorities, that may be a matter that is not wholly reconcilable. As regards the point about a possible misunderstanding, certainly we will have to go into matters further at Third Reading. That may be illuminating for the Minister or the local authorities but not both. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Exchange of information by authorities administering benefit]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 10, line II. at end insert—
("(2) Any directions given by the Secretary of State under this section shall include such directions which place a duty on authorities to which this section applies to adopt a code of practice as the Secretary of State shall from time to time provide.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, effectively this amendment argues that local authorities should have a standardised code of practice between them. In the light of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has said about this, it may be that we will have to wait until the matter arrives in another place at least as far as concerns the local authority aspects of the code of practice.
My understanding is that some local authorities farm out responsibility for some of these matters to organisations—one called Capita has been brought to my attention. It may be that they appear under the earlier debate on agents and servants, but I ask whether they will be required to provide information or whether information will only be required in the context of the local authorities themselves. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, agrees given the earlier discussion on the code of practice and the fact that the terms or conditions under which local authorities handle their concerns on housing benefit will be shaped by the code. There will be ample opportunity to discuss that with those bodies.
Clause 5 deals with the manner and form in which information is obtained from authorities administering housing benefit. We use this information to make decisions about the administration and design of the housing benefit scheme. I was a little baffled as to how we could put this into the Bill or into the code or practice as laid out.
Did the noble Lord have any further concerns? It is the case that Capita is an agent. The noble Lord is right to assume that Capita would be required to supply information as shaped by our previous discussion. Those were the points that he raised, and I hope that I have addressed them.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 28A:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
HOUSING BENEFIT DOCUMENTATION
(". The Secretary of State, or the relevant Minister, shall revise and review the current documentation for an application to be made for housing benefit to ensure that the information provided will facilitate any inquiry to detect fraud, and following consultation with such relevant bodies as he thinks fit, issue a draft document which shall be used by each relevant administering authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have pursued this matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for some years. It relates to the documentation that local authorities use for housing benefit claims and operations in the housing benefit scheme. It seems to be extraordinarily diverse. Some documentation is a great deal better and more helpful in preventing fraud than other kinds. There does not seem to be any argument for different local authorities using significantly different forms. This amendment suggests that the Secretary of State, or relevant Minister, shall revise and review the current documentation and that a standard system should be employed which is specifically designed by the department to ensure that the commitments and statements made, perhaps with reference to national insurance numbers, may be as appropriate as possible for this purpose. I do not understand why there is diversity. No doubt, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, can tell us why or alternatively accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the short answer as to why there is diversity is history. The amendment seeks to introduce a standard claim form for housing benefit to be used by all authorities. Currently, local authorities have some freedom to produce forms to suit their own circumstances within the framework of legal requirements. They are also expected to follow good practice guidelines issued by the department. This freedom has some advantages.
We accept that the forms used could be improved. We have already done something about it. It was clear that my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Social Security, was aware of the noble Lord's amendment even though I was not until this morning. The Secretary of State was very concerned about it and it has dominated his thoughts over the recent Recess. The Secretary of State is issuing a new model claim form today. It has been developed by the Benefits Fraud Inspectorate as part of its work to help local authorities improve administration. It gives local authorities a standard from which to work and a bench-mark of good practice both in terms of design and content. We believe that this model will help local authorities to produce better claim forms that will be more efficient for them and easier for tenants to complete.
So we share the spirit of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. But we do not go as far as his amendment, which seeks to impose this form on local authorities. Let me explain why.
First, the cost of doing so would he considerable. In order to comply, every local authority would need to reprogram their computer systems—they all have different computer systems—so that the information could be input in the order and in the format set out on the model. In many cases that would be an unnecessary diversion of resources and wasteful.
Secondly, there is of course the interrelationship with council tax benefit. In some authorities housing and council tax benefits are administered separately and in others they are administered together. That
1136
determines whether or not the claim form is designed to capture information for both benefits at the same time. We can therefore respect the need for some local flexibility to cater for that.
Thirdly, many local authorities add additional sections to the housing benefit claim forms to gather extra information for other benefits for poorer residents—for example, for school uniforms or council nursery places. A national claim form would mean that local authorities would have to issue supplementary forms either with the housing benefit form or after receiving the housing benefit form back. That again could lead to delays or waste of costs.
For those reasons we do not believe that a statutory standard claim form is the way forward at the moment. As I said, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate developed a model claim form which is in the process of being issued to local authorities along with general guidance on good design of claim forms. That has been developed in full consultation with those authorities and we fully expect it to be used as the minimum standard. Of course the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate will continue to monitor the standard of claim forms in its visits.
Finally, we are making further and much needed changes to the claims process. As part of our modernisation programme we are developing a single claims process for income support, JSA allowance and incapacity benefit, which will also capture and transfer to local authorities information for assessing housing benefit claims. For people of working age it is intended that initial information for claims be gathered over the phone; any evidence subsequently provided will be verified for the purposes of all related claims, and that should prevent some of the duplication which is at the moment taking place and which is wasteful.
I hope as a result that those people who need to claim a variety of benefits will receive an integrated service because they will be using integrated claims forms in the procedures. For those people claiming just housing benefit, our model claim form will enable local authorities to improve and enhance the service they give. It may be, as local authorities re-tool their computer systems, so they will gradually take over the model claim form and it will become a common basis of usage across the wide range of local authorities.
I hope in the light of that response we indicate that we are addressing some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord—issuing a model claim form and encouraging local authorities, where appropriate, to take it up. However, we do not believe it is appropriate at this stage to deny them the flexibility that they have to use the forms for other purposes as well, such as council tax benefit and take-up campaigns of various sorts to identify various forms of need such as council nursery places.
We are therefore treading a line with the consent and support of local authorities, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will feel he is able to respect and which will enable him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful for that illuminating reply. I do not propose to go into the business of managing local authorities' housing benefit—I suspect I am not well qualified to do that.
Nonetheless, it is important that we go as far as possible towards standardisation. As the noble Baroness said, it may be that a specific local authority wants to acquire other information and retain a degree of flexibility. I felt that that could have been met by having a standardised first part of the form and a less standardised part for a degree of flexibility. At any rate, the fact that a model form is being produced is a step forward. I find it extraordinary that the situation was allowed to develop in the first place.
Computerisation raises some issues with regard to the extent to which it will be possible to cross-reference to detect whether some of the other data we have been discussing on the earlier clauses can be checked against the local authority organisation if, as I understand the Minister correctly, there are a vast variety of different computer systems. However, I understand the Minister's reply reflects a realistic appraisal of the problems involved in this area and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 6 [Loss of benefit for commission of benefit offences]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 10, line 42, at end insert ("provided always that no such reduction shall exceed 10 per cent.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope the Minister will confirm that I have today, on the whole, tried to be helpful where I can. One cannot do it everywhere. Unfortunately what is for us the major issue of the Bill has arisen rather too late in the day to be given the treatment to which at other times it might have been appropriate. That is the question of Clause 6 and the benefit sanctions.
It is clear to everybody, no matter from which point of view they approach the issue, that where there is a prohibition there must be a penalty; where there must be a penalty, that penalty must be made as effective as can appropriately be possible. But the word "appropriately" cannot altogether be left out. One wants the penalty to be sufficient to deter. But there are penalties—one reads of such things in other places—which are not merely of a level to deter, but of a far greater level.
It is an assumption that legislators tend to make rather too easily that there is a level of penalty which is sufficient to deter which nevertheless stops short of real savagery. It is not in all cases axiomatic that that is necessarily so. One tries to make it the case where possible. But one should not take it for granted, a priori, that it will be.
The level of sanctions here, we are told, is not to be above 40 per cent and is to exclude housing benefit. But careful questioning by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee brought out that in a limited
1138
number of cases, where there are overlapping sanctions, the level of sanction could reach as high as 80 per cent. That is a quite draconian level of significance.
The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, commented on this matter in his report and in Committee—I have read everything that was said there; I apologise for being unable to be present. I found I was answered fairly thoroughly long before I was able to make an appearance and was therefore able to do a degree of preparation I might not otherwise have been able to do. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, said that these sanctions are well established in social security law. As I remember, he quoted the Jobseekers Act. He is correct. He may not know that all those he mentioned I opposed when they were introduced, and most of them the Minister equally opposed when they were introduced. The Minister remembers the Jobseekers Act well enough.
The fact that it has been done before, does not mean in my case at least that there is any continuing consent; in fact there is a continuing dissent. A large number of issues are involved which have never been argued out; have never been resolved; and no evidence has been brought to bear on them. The Minister, speaking in Committee, clearly found my view of the effect of sanctions altogether incredible. Indeed, to borrow her phrase, she said that, on the effect of sanctions on those who suffer them, we are living in different worlds.
The virtue I will claim here is that I am prepared to have a commission to research and ascertain which of us is living in the real world; or indeed if neither of us is—which is always a possibility—and in what proportions our worlds are mixed when we come to reality. That seems to me to be a perfectly proper academic curiosity. I have not yet seen in anything done, either by this Government or the last, an equal curiosity to arrive at the truth.
The Minister's difficulty here—indeed, the difficulty of the whole of the Department of Social Security—is that when we consider the existing levels of benefit, particularly of income support, they are suffering from delusions of adequacy. I have already quoted the assumption of most public bodies that any public money voted for a specific purpose is tautologically adequate to the purpose for which it is voted. That is not necessarily so. The levels of social security benefit were calculated by Beveridge in 1948 off research dating from pre-war sources. The chance that that level, uprated automatically in line with inflation between now and 1948, will meet what it genuinely costs to subsist in safe poverty is astronomically small. Prices go up but they do not go up in a uniform scale, so the effect on different points in the social security scale can be very different.
Many people in rural England now spend 10 per cent of their benefit simply travelling to the necessary place to collect it. That is largely a result of bus deregulation. That is only one example; I do not believe that it is unique. As a matter of urgency we need to arrive at a new picture of how much benefit is

1139
necessary to support good health. The view of the Acheson report that the level of income support is too low to be compatible with good health is not by itself conclusive but I believe that it is one to which we should pay a good deal of attention. We should put some effort into finding how true that is. If the whole level is insufficient to maintain good health and we start shaving off parts from something which already risks being below a minimum, we may create considerable difficulties.
That is my basic reasoning for thinking that the effects of benefit disentitlement on the scale we are considering here are likely to be a good deal more severe than the Minister thinks. The Minister shakes her head; I am sure I shall hear why. I shall listen with a great deal of interest. We need to take seriously the arguments for finding a level of minimum income. My party policy, on which we shall go into the next election, is that we believe we should commission research to find out what is now a minimum income necessary to maintain good health.
I recall when that proposition was put in an amendment to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. He made an extremely powerful and persuasive case. It ruffled a good many administrative feathers in government circles. To me, that suggests the word "bull's-eye". I think that the noble Lord was right, and the irritation he caused was evidence of his rightness.
When we have a benefit level which is clearly sufficient to maintain good health, we would be in a position to have sanctions which take it down to the level that will maintain good health and no lower. It is when we start to take benefits below that level that we get into trouble. That would either provoke ill health, which is not conducive to returning to work, or would create a temptation to illegal action, which may be serious.
Part of my complaint about the whole regime of benefit sanctions is that we have absolutely no idea on what scale either of those processes operates, if, indeed, at all. If the problem is as trivial as the Minister believes, the research would surely show that I am wrong. I am prepared to take that risk. Is the Minister prepared to take it equally?
The Minister argues that the sample arrived at under the Bill would be too small for serious research. That is a point which can be taken perfectly seriously. On the other hand, I am sure that she does not think I would object if she were to enlarge the research sample to take in people deprived of benefit under other benefit sanctions. At present I do not see any prima facie reason for supposing that benefit sanctions for one reason are likely to create more hardship than equally severe benefit sanctions for another reason.
If I were to see any reason to suspect that, I would be perfectly ready to investigate it. If a larger sample were to show one sanction causing more hardship than another, I would be prepared to look at it further, as I am sure the department would also. But enlarging the sample—I have not demanded that in Amendment
1140
No. 39, to which I think we might with convenience speak in this group—would not create severe problems. If that is the Minister's problem, I do not see why she should not do it.
If we are to have a sanctions regime—there has to be some way of punishing people on benefit and we have not yet found a satisfactory one—minimum income entitlement would necessarily be part and parcel of the same package. But if we do not have one, I do not see how we shall justify the other. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I have no difficulty in supporting about 90 per cent of the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He has been addressing the question of the level of social security benefits and a minimum income level, which I could probably argue about a great deal. However, the Bill is about social security fraud. Whatever level the social security benefits are at, fraud would still be a problem which we would have to tackle.
It seems to me that we are all opposed to social security fraud and each and every one of us would want to see it reduced, if not totally eliminated. Perhaps the best way to do that is to prevent fraud taking place, but we know that that is not possible; nothing whatever is perfect. What happens here is that anyone who deliberately commits a social security fraud will be subjected to sanction. However, the Government recognise that there are vulnerable people in that respect. Therefore, measures are being taken. There is an opportunity to receive reduced benefit in such circumstances. The sanction will last for only 13 weeks.
This attack is on the people who commit the abuse deliberately. Although we might talk of measures being draconian, the people who commit the abuse and bring about fraud need sanctions which they have to observe. They must be ones which they can feel; ones which will be a deterrent and may prevent them from attempting the fraud in the first place. It does not seem to me that the amendments do anything like that. I think that the Government have it just about right, if we are to punish people who commit fraud deliberately. We know that fraud involving billions of pounds takes place every year.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity. Last year around 10,000 people were prosecuted for benefit fraud. The vast majority of those who were caught did not go on to re-offend, but there is a small minority who do, despite being punished by the courts. It is those persistent benefit offenders who are being targeted by this sanction.
I think that the noble Earl was running two arguments. One is that if benefits were sufficiently generous, or certainly far more generous than they are currently, he would have less difficulty with sanctions because sanctions would then only reduce those benefits to a more acceptable level. That is an argument about the relativity of benefits to wages and the like. We can discuss that on other occasions. The other implication of his remarks was that these are

1141
people who have fallen into hardship, for whom it is not unreasonable to commit benefit fraud and therefore any sanction that follows alongside it should be as light as possible but noticeable.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, did the Minister hear me at any moment say anything that suggested it was not unreasonable that they should commit benefit fraud?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords, but given their straitened circumstances it was suggested that the sanctions should be as light as humanly possible, because otherwise they might get into further hardship. All requirements to see the effect of the sanctions are posited on the belief that the sanctions will produce such states of hardship, and so on, as would be unacceptable in the eyes of the noble Earl. That is as I understand it.
Under the current system—though people may disbelieve this outside—this hard core of repeat offenders can continue to receive benefit as if nothing had happened and, if they were stealing from the till and were discovered, as if nevertheless they could continue to work as a cashier. Everyone would think this was inappropriate and wrong.
We estimate that about 5 per cent of those who are successfully prosecuted end up back in court for benefit fraud. These are not inadequate people; they are not people who have a disability, a learning difficulty or other problems. They are people who are deliberately, knowingly and fraudulently cheating the system, as established by the courts, not once but more than that. We are talking, for example, of people like the disc jockey who fraudulently claimed incapacity benefit for two separate periods at a cost of £9,000. There was also the man who was prosecuted once for working while claiming and then again for stealing and cashing a relative's child benefit book. Undeterred, he was prosecuted yet again for attempting to claim JSA to which he was not entitled.
These people are claiming benefit to which they are not entitled, primarily because they have other sources of income already, such as being in work. One claimant was successfully prosecuted in February 1994 for two offences related to girocheque fraud and sentenced to three months in prison. He was prosecuted a second time in September 1996, again for cashing girocheques belonging to other people, and again received a custodial sentence. He was prosecuted a third time in December 1998, this time for working while in receipt of incapacity benefit. The overpayment was about £130, and so he had to serve a period of community service.
This is what we are dealing with. We are not dealing with inadequate people in straitened circumstances; we are dealing with people who have more than once been found guilty by the courts of deliberately and knowingly—not innocently or erroneously—cheating the system. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, will accept that for as long as there has been a benefit system provision has been made to stop or reduce benefit
1142
where a claimant does not comply with the rules. As far back as the early 'sixties the standard amount by which supplementary benefit—the forerunner of income support—was sanctioned was 40 per cent of the personal allowance. There was the same provision for 40 per cent of the single person's allowance. and for 20 per cent where pregnancy or serious illness was involved.
I understand the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about basic minimum standards, below which there may be difficulties for the person concerned. Therefore, this sanction has a safety net for the vulnerable, which provides a minimal level of support for the offender and any dependant, where they have no other resources to fall back on. There could be a reduction of benefit, as I have described, which works out at £10 or nearly £21, according to whether a family is involved and to their degree of vulnerability. If the claimant or any one within an assessment unit is seriously ill or pregnant the reduction of £10, the lower rate, would apply.
In the case of JSA, hardship payments would be made from day one to any family falling into a vulnerable group, which includes those responsible for a child or a young person, where someone is disabled or where the claimant or partner is pregnant, is a carer, or suffers from a chronic medical condition. In other cases anyone on JSA would be able to claim hardship payments not from day one but from the 15th day. For those on income support the same rules relating to the seriously ill or pregnant would apply to the amount of deduction.
Obviously the sanction does not remove an underlying entitlement to JSA or income support, and housing benefit and council tax benefit remain in full payment. This mirrors the hardship payment and benefit reduction schemes that are already in place in other sanction regimes.
By restricting, as the amendment would do, the level of any benefit sanction to just 10 per cent of the single person's allowance—£5.25 rather than £10.50—I believe we would be saying that we view this offence of twice knowingly and deliberately committing fraud as certified by the courts to be less serious than those who are currently sanctioned with 20–40 per cent for failing to attend a job interview, or for giving up work voluntarily and who do not appear to be seeking work. In other words, at the moment we sanction 20 per cent or 40 per cent failures or offences done for the first time in some cases which, in most people's eyes, are far less serious than the persistent, knowing and continued fraud that are sanctioned here. That cannot be right.
For any sanction to be effective, we have to combine our concern for those who may be vulnerable with the need to protect the system from those who fail to meet their responsibilities. I do not believe that the amendment would do that. The sanction would last for 13 weeks, after which the benefit would be restored to the rates that would otherwise apply, and throughout this period no reduction would normally apply to housing benefit or council tax benefit.

1143
This would mean that for a family of four with two adults and two children they would have £128.50 a week to live on, and the housing costs would be met. For a fit single person aged 25 or more the amount would be £31.30 and the housing costs would be met. I do not think this implies destitution, homelessness and debt. At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke eloquently on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I said that we would monitor the effects of the sanction, including its use as a deterrent, together with the effect on an individual's life, including the adequacy and accessibility of hardship payments and together with the effect on specific claimant groups. I also said that we could not pursue the sort of detailed research that the noble Earl has again proposed tonight.
To do so, it would be necessary to see the effect of taking away £10 a week from the benefit level of £200 a week over 13 weeks. One would need to appraise the health of each member of the family before the sanction was imposed; and one would need to check diaries of their food, expenditure and leisure consumption. It would certainly be necessary to survey their housing and the effects of the weather and also intrude on their privacy to find out the resources of family and friends as regards possible subsidy and other sources of support. One would have to work out whether serious illness in one parent or in a child or perhaps in a third member of the family could be attributed to that deduction of £10 from a benefit of £200 over a period of 13 weeks. Other factors would have to be taken into account, such as the length of time the family had already spent on benefit, and also the amount of savings they had. I do not believe that this research, as outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is possible.
I come back to my basic argument. These are sanctions imposed only when somebody has knowingly, fraudulently and persistently defrauded the benefits system, and that has been established by the courts. They are in line with the sanctions imposed on offences against the benefits system since the early 1960s and with the rest of other benefit sanctions. We have in play hardship regimes that we think are in line with all the other hardship and benefit regimes that are in place, which have been shown by research on JSA and incapacity benefit to support people while making them realise that we expect the conditions of those benefits to be respected as part of the entitlement to them.
I know that the noble Earl will not accept my argument but I would say that at the end of the day, under these conditions, IS or JSA would normally be sanctioned either by 20 per cent or 40 per cent of the personal allowance and the benefit for the rest of the family would remain undisturbed. Child benefit will never be withdrawn. Housing benefit and council tax benefit will remain in payment, even when JSA or IS is sanctioned. Premiums payable for the family will not be reduced: only the personal allowance. Free prescriptions and free school meals will remain available, even when a benefit may be sanctioned.
1144
Where a claimant might deny payments to the rest of their family, arrangements can be made to pay the residual benefit to other members of the family. Access to the social fund will still remain and, in the event of a successful appeal, any payments that should have been made will be paid in full.
If people defraud knowingly the benefit system over a period of time, as established by the courts, they must know that there will be a sanction. We believe that the sanctions are proportionate and have proper legal safeguards. We believe that we have decent hardship arrangements in place, and that they have a proper read-across to the benefit sanctions that have existed since the 1960s and to sanctions applied to other forms of benefit.
Although I may not have persuaded the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I hope that I have persuaded the House that our proposal is proportionate, reasonable and appropriate given the offence of persistent, consistent and knowing benefit fraud.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I suppose that the amendment was bound to tempt the Minister into trying to argue that she is against sin and I am not. She has not resisted the temptation. To cut a long argument short, perhaps I may say that where the Bill proposes a six months' sentence of imprisonment, provided I were assured that it was not mandatory I would not oppose it. I believe that we are proposing a somewhat more severe penalty. I know that the Minister does not agree. The noble Baroness heard my arguments about delusion of adequacy as regards the level of income support. I shall repeat them if necessary, but I suspect that the House would rather I did not do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, did I hear the noble Earl correctly? Does he think that 13 weeks' loss of £10 on a benefit of £220, reducing the amount to £210, is harsher than a six months' prison sentence?
Earl Russell: My Lords, yes, and I am prepared to consider research to see whether I am wrong, is the Minister prepared to do the same?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wonder how many noble Lords in this House believe that a £10 sanction on a benefit of over £200 over 13 weeks is harsher than six months in prison. I do not believe that the proposition deserves substantial research.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister shows a remarkable lack of curiosity. One of us is wrong. I would rather like to know which of us it is. I am prepared to take the risk of finding out.
The next trap that the Minister fell into was that she listed, very properly, cases of social security fraud which are clearly grossly credible. They were almost all people who were already working—for example, a disc jockey. Those people in law, properly, have no benefit entitlement anyway. So a social security benefit sanction takes away from them what they should never have had in the first place. As Gibbon would put it, it

1145
robs them of a superfluous treasure. It is a most inappropriate sanction because it bites on something that those individuals should not have anyway.
If we are dealing with real criminals, people to whom benefit should never have been awarded—even if we are thinking in the pure, narrow terms of deterrence—benefit sanctions are not the appropriate penalty. Some more ordinary criminal penalty would in those cases be a good deal more appropriate.
The Minister trotted through a great deal of material about hardship payments to vulnerable people. If one is on a means-tested benefit and that benefit is rightly awarded—we must assume that that benefit is not allowed by the Treasury to be significantly above what is needed to live on—how can one then be deprived of any substantial part of it without being in hardship? I have asked this House before why single people can never be presumed under benefit rules to be in hardship. I have never had an answer. I shall continue to ask the question because one day I should like to hear an answer. It sounds like a somewhat perverse form of family values.
Any punishment must create hardship. I would like that hardship to be such that it does not leave the person beyond the point of recovery—it does not drive him into either illegal courses which may leave him with a long-term drug dependency or in the grip of a drug dealer, or in a state of ill health such that he cannot return to work. That is a degree of moderation which one may legitimately expect of the criminal law in any circumstances. Beyond that point, it becomes self defeating.
I turn to the Minister's difficulties about research. We all know that when the Whitehall machine sets out to prove that some matter is difficult it can do so very well indeed. If we have a sufficient control group with which to compare these people, I do not envisage that every single detail about the area and the weather for which the Minister asks will be necessary. The Minister seeks to make matters more difficult than they need be. It is an art in which any good Minister—as the noble Baroness is—is skilled. I do not take the argument that seriously. But meanwhile the clock is ticking away. We have had the argument previously; we shall have it again. We shall hear the argument during the election. So, ready for the next round, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 33 I should tell the House that if the amendment were agreed to I should be unable to call Amendment No. 34.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
7.15 P.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 12, line 24, after ("discharge") insert ("or a court in Scotland makes a probation order").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 had originally been grouped with Amendment No. 34.
In Committee I undertook to consider further the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, regarding the treatment under these provisions of an absolute discharge or probation order in Scotland. As the noble Lord will recall, the legal system in Scotland and in England and Wales differs somewhat on the labelling of offences. But I am sure the House will agree that social security legislation has to be consistent across both countries.
As I said in Committee, the key point at issue here is whether or not a court has found a person guilty of fraud against the benefit system. The purpose of this amendment is to put that principle beyond doubt. The effect of the amendment is to specify that any case where a court in Scotland makes a probation order is treated as a conviction as regards these provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, was correct in saying that where a court in Scotland grants an absolute discharge or makes a probation order it is not treated as a conviction because this is what the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides. However, the position in England and Wales differs in that while the granting of an absolute discharge is similarly deemed not to be a conviction, any case where a court makes a probation order is a conviction.
The social security system applies to Great Britain as a whole. I am sure that your Lordships would agree that claimants should be able to expect the same treatment whether they live in Scotland or in the rest of Great Britain. It would be unfair to sanction a person in England or Wales on the basis that he had committed two benefit frauds, one of which had attracted a probation order, but not to sanction a person who had committed identical frauds in Scotland and received identical sentences.
I hope that the amendment, which ensures that the sanctions are applied even handedly across the whole of Great Britain, will be accepted by the House. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in detail the amendment. Of course, we welcome it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 34A to 35 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Effect of offence on joint-claim jobseeker's allowance]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Effect of offence on benefits for members of offender's family]:
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Interpretation of sections 6 to 11]:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Delegation of functions]:
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Colluding employers]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 18, line 29, at end insert ("and, in addition, an amount which is 32 times the weekly cost of the benefit which was defrauded by each employee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we debated the question of what penalties should be imposed on colluding employers whose actions resulted in social security fraud. Generally speaking, the feeling on this side of the House is that the proposals with regard to measures to combat organised fraud are significantly less and less effective than proposals to combat individual fraud.
In Committee we suggested that the penalty on employers who were colluding in fraud with their employees should reflect the fact that substantial amounts of money might have been lost to the Exchequer, in particular in relation to employees drawing benefits to which they were not entitled. Somewhat to my astonishment, the Minister expressed horror that any colluding employer should suddenly become liable for the consequences of his action. She suggested that that might put the employer out of business and was unduly severe. Therefore, taking, as always, the views of the Minister into account, I have tabled a more moderate amendment.
Amendment No. 42 suggests that the penalty that a colluding employer should incur, in addition to that set out in the Bill, should be 32 times the weekly cost of the benefit defrauded by each employee. Your Lordships may be puzzled why the figure is 32 times the weekly cost of the benefit defrauded. It is based on the proposal which applies to local government when it adopts an incentive scheme to stop fraud. That seems a not unreasonable proposal. It may be the case that a particular employer employs perhaps 20 or 30 individuals, all of whom are drawing benefits fraudulently. If that is so, the penalty of 32 times the amount of money lost to the Exchequer as a result of the fraud is not an unreasonable penalty to impose.
So I have taken into account the views, and, indeed, the reaction, which the Minister put forward, but it seems to us that a significant penalty should be imposed on employers. The overall effect of the collusion between employers and employees may be significant but both groups of people have an option. They do not have to commit the fraud. Furthermore, the employer does not have to go along with a situation where his employees can defraud the taxpayer. I beg to move.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, perhaps I may make one or two observations about the proposed amendment. The particular attraction about the provision as drafted is its simplicity. It is clearly drafted. It contains nice round figures that would constitute the penalty to be extracted from the offending employer. I suspect that one of the reasons for the simplicity is to encourage employers who are charged or accused of collusion to come to a deal—for want of a better word—pursuant to these provisions. These provisions are designed to achieve a voluntary deal on a civil basis without the need to invoke the criminal process.
1148
The first criticism I make of the proposal is that it simply introduces mathematical complication, albeit that the mathematical complication can be explained as it was by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
The second point is that the noble Lord need not be concerned that the underlying irritation that drives his amendment cannot already be dealt with under the existing common law. In the kind of fraud we are now discussing, if an employer knowingly participates in a benefit fraud which produces the result that money is stolen or has disappeared in an illegal way and it can be demonstrated that he has the appropriate guilty knowledge, he can be made personally liable as a constructive trustee in the civil courts. There the full extent of the loss sustained by the Exchequer can be recovered. Therefore, the imposition of the penalty, which as I understand it is the real driving force that sits behind the amendment, is not necessary because in a suitable case the DSS could bring proceedings against a colluding employer and recover that money in the civil courts. The proposed amendment therefore is not necessary.
The third point is that the amendment unnecessarily introduces into the existing provision the additional concept of the benefit which was defrauded by each employee. At the moment, the provisions in Clause 14 do not require proof of fraud against an employee. It requires a colluding employer who has done one or other of the things identified in the provision. The introduction of the amendment would mean that proof of a fraud by each employee would be necessary in order to recover the 32 times figure. That is not currently required in order to operate Clause 14. The amendment adds an unnecessary complication. That goes back to my first point about simplicity. It would make it unmanageable and complex. I believe that the existing common law position protects the position adequately.
Earl Russell: My Lords, would I be right in thinking that calculating the amount of benefit defrauded when some of the attendant circumstances cease to be the case might be a good deal of work?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe so, my Lords. The purpose of Clause 14 is to streamline the lengthy and expensive process of prosecuting collusive employers. It introduces a single fixed penalty for the small-time offender, thereby enabling the department to focus limited prosecution resources on the more serious cases.
As my noble friend Lord Grabiner explained, the effect of the amendment would be to increase the amount of the penalty in circumstances where the employer's act of collusion results in an overpayment of benefit. In addition to the fixed penalty of between £1,000 and £5,000 already provided in the clause, the penalty would also include an amount equivalent to 32 times the weekly cost of the benefit which was defrauded by each employee. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the amendment would not only be extremely complicated but would hike up the amount of the penalty considerably, depending on the type of benefits stolen.

1149
The clause already reflects the maximum penalty that a court might impose were the employer prosecuted and convicted. As I said in Committee, the majority of small time offenders at which the penalty is aimed are currently prosecuted for giving false information. In those circumstances, the maximum fine a court could impose would be at level 3 or level 5, which carry maximum penalties of £1,000 and £5,000 respectively.
An additional amount suggested by these amendments, which relates to the amount of putative benefit lost, would be likely to take the total amount of the penalty above that which a court could apply. This would essentially remove any incentive for an employer to agree to the penalty, undermining the purpose of the clause, which is to punish small time offenders without going through the process of a lengthy and expensive prosecution. It would also mean that the penalty agreed under such a process by administrative arrangement could and would be higher than the maximum amount that the court would be entitled to impose. Again, I do not think that that necessarily would be appropriate.
I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that any penalty should include a means of recovering the amount of funds that have been defrauded. However, we already do this. Where there is an overpayment of benefit that is attributable to the claimant, we recover the loss directly from that individual, which is in line with the Scampion report. We do not seek to change that.
However, linking it to the size of the overpayment would be unreasonable in that the weekly amount of benefit defrauded is not determined by the employer's action—although I accept that he may have contributed to it—but by the personal circumstances of the employees involved. Although the employer may have assisted in the fraud, he cannot be held responsible for an employee's age—certain benefits are age related—or his domestic situation—he may be claiming on behalf of a partner and children—which could result in certain benefits being claimed. For example, based on the benefit rates from April 2001, it could mean that an employer alleged to have colluded in fraud with a 25 year-old employee who is single and claiming JSA would be offered a penalty of £1,000 and an additional amount of £1,697. The total amount of the penalty would be a little under £3,000. However, if the same individual had a partner and two children, the total amount of the penalty would amount to £4,800. The amount of penalty would fluctuate not according to what the employer had done, but according to the circumstances of the employee, over whom the employer has no control.
The employer's offence is to tell a lie at a specific point in time in relation to his employees. We will get at that, so to speak, by offering a penalty in lieu of a court case. It is very difficult to tie the individual employee's overpayment to the employer because the employer is unlikely to know what benefit they receive. The employer may lie to fraud investigators in respect of one employee's hours of work or amount of wages, which would constitute an offence, but that does not
1150
mean that the employer is responsible for the size of the employee's family, for the length of time that the employee has been making claims, or even the rate at which benefits were paid.
While I agree that the employer is culpable because he colluded in the fraud in the first instance, the amount of benefit defrauded is not a direct responsibility of his action, although it is consequential on it. The benefits stolen and particularly the total amount defrauded are linked to the claimant's age, his domestic circumstances, for how long he claims and what benefits he claims.
I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree that this is unfair. The same offence committed by an employer would result in very different penalties being imposed, according to the circumstances of the employee. It could also lead the employer to being vulnerable or liable to administrative penalties higher than those which the courts could impose. Again, that would be unfair. Finally, it would be perfectly reasonable for the employer to choose not to opt for the process of negotiating an administrative penalty—out of a preference not to have a criminal conviction on his record—but would instead revert to the old court system, which would introduce the familiar delays and difficulties of establishing guilt. We would not achieve our aim; namely, to take smaller offences out of court proceedings. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the amendment seems to have provoked a lively set of arguments, which I should like to take fully into account, in particular the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner. It is true to say that if such cases go through the normal legal process, they are likely to incur far heavier penalties. We are concerned here with the alternative form of penalty. I take also the point that it might be complicated and difficult to show exactly how much money the Exchequer has lost as a result of various employees seeking to exploit the collusion of the employer.
Having said that, I am not sure, from a purely logical point of view, that I agree entirely with what has been said by the noble Baroness. While it is true to say that the loss to the Exchequer will depend on how many employees engage in the fraud and which benefits they seek to claim, it is nevertheless the case that, if the employer had not colluded, the fraud would not have taken place and the amount, however much it may be, would not have been lost to the Exchequer. I have a little difficulty in agreeing with the argument that the amount lost is somehow independent of the fact that collusion had taken place. If there had been no collusion, then no loss would have been incurred.
However, I should like to consider the matter further. I remain unhappy at the balance struck between the main criminal penalty and the alternative penalty. I should like to think on that between now and Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Offence of failing to notify a change of circumstances]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 20, line 3, leave out from ("(4)") to end of line 4 and insert ("for "subsection (1)" there shall be substituted "subsections (1) to (1BC)" ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 45 and to speak also to the amendments grouped with it. The amendments deal with two separate issues. The first amendment has been introduced after discussions with Scottish lawyers. I hope that I shall receive a beaming smile from the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, on the grounds that we are doing our best to be helpful. The intention is simply to ensure that the offences are comparable both north and south of the Border, allowing for the differences between our respective legislatures.
The second issue is to ensure that the responsibilities in Clause 15 to report changes of circumstances extend to those who receive benefit on behalf of benefit claimants as well as to claimants themselves and to third parties. In doing this, we have taken the opportunity to make clear the particular responsibilities placed on landlords who receive rent direct in the form of housing benefit to which their tenant is entitled. Their responsibilities are related to changes pertaining to the claimant's occupation of the dwelling for which the housing benefit is paid.
Clause 15 provides for two separate offences. One is the summary offence of failing to notify a change of circumstances which the individual knows will affect his benefit. The other is more serious and attracts a greater penalty commensurate with the offence. I could set out the detail of these differences but, given the hour, perhaps noble Lords will accept that originally, Scottish lawyers thought that we might be able to rely on the existing drafting. On further reflection, it was considered better to use the term "knowingly". The terms "dishonestly" and "knowingly" are used in the present versions of these offences in order to respond to the concerns expressed by the Scottish Law Society and to reflect the different approaches of the two criminal law systems.
This amendment seeks to "tidy up" the legislation in response to consultation and correspondence.
Perhaps I may turn now to the subsequent amendments. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that those who receive benefit on behalf of claimants are held responsible for reporting changes, as are claimants themselves. We are dealing with two main groups here: appointees and landlords. Because of their different positions in relation to the claimant, the Government consider that different conditions should apply and this is reflected in the amendments.
I shall deal first with appointees. These are individuals and organisations who, because of the mental inability of the claimant to act for themselves, are appointed by the Secretary of State to act in the claimant's place. They make the claim, receive the
1152
payments and take responsibility for notifying changes of circumstances. Because they are standing in place of claimants, if they act fraudulently, we think that they should be treated in a similar way. For example, if an elderly, incapable lady is admitted into a nursing home and a relative acts for them and then acts fraudulently, we believe that they should be caught by the legislation in the same way.
The second group is landlords who receive their rent in the form of housing benefit paid direct to them, instead of the claimant, by a local authority. If the claimant leaves the address, the claimant himself has a responsibility to notify the local authority and so, too, does the landlord. However, if there is no incentive to do so, then the dishonest landlord could continue to pocket the housing benefit. The existing legislation is vaguely worded and has caused disquiet, in particular among landlords in social housing—for example some housing associations—who are not sure where their liability for "policing" their tenants begins and ends. The amendment aims to make their responsibilities absolutely clear. The changes that the landlord is responsible for reporting are those connected with the tenancy: the tenant's occupancy of the property for which housing benefit is being paid, and his liability to pay rent. I am sure that this will reassure honest social landlords as to what their responsibilities are. I hope that it will also send a clear message to landlords who receive rent direct that, if they continue to enjoy it when they should not, they too are liable for prosecution.
Finally, let me point out once more for the record that the offence in Clause 15 relating to "causing or allowing" a claimant to fail to notify a change of circumstances does not include third parties who merely learn of a change. To become guilty of an offence, a third party would have to be active in some way in the failure. This comes back to the CAB point that some knowledge of that failure is not in itself an offence.
I hope noble Lords will agree that, despite the apparent complexity of these amendments, they are in essence a simple replication of the offences so that they apply to third parties under an existing obligation to notify relevant changes in the claimant's circumstances. I hope that the law will now be clarified. I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the amendments. I have no doubt that the Scottish Law Society will be very happy with the first groupings.
I should also like to thank the noble Baroness for her letter following on from our amendment to Clause 15 at Committee stage. We welcome these amendments, which remove our concerns by placing the responsibility that landlords have in relation to their tenants on the face of the Bill. This includes details of the requirement to report changes in circumstances.
We believe that it is right that landlords and agencies should not be required to be the watchdogs of their tenants. They should have only a duty to report any

1153
change of circumstances that relate to the tenancy. The amendments will be welcomed both by landlords and by agencies which work in a confidential way with tenants and those receiving benefit.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 47 and 48:
Page 20, line 28, at end insert—
"(1BA) This subsection applies where—

(a) there has been a change of circumstances affecting any entitlement of a person ('the claimant') to any benefit or other payment or advantage under any provision of the relevant social security legislation;

(b) the benefit, payment or advantage is one in respect of which there is another person ('the recipient') who for the time being has a right to receive payments to which the claimant has, or (but for the arrangements under which they are payable to the recipient) would have, an entitlement; and

(c) the change is not a change that is excluded by regulations from the changes that are required to be notified.

(1BB) In a case where subsection (1BA) above applies, the recipient is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he knows that the change affects an entitlement of the claimant to a benefit or other payment or advantage under a provision of the relevant social security legislation;

(b) the entitlement is one in respect of which he has a right to receive payments to which the claimant has, or (but for the arrangements under which they are payable to the recipient) would have, an entitlement; and

(c) he dishonestly fails to give a prompt notification of that change in the prescribed manner to the prescribed person.

(1BC) In a case where that subsection applies, a person other than the recipient is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he knows that the change affects an entitlement of the claimant to a benefit or other payment or advantage under a provision of the relevant social security legislation;

(b) the entitlement is one in respect of which the recipient has a right to receive payments to which the claimant has, or (but for the arrangements under which they are payable to the recipient) would have, an entitlement; and

(c) he dishonestly causes or allows the recipient to fail to give a prompt notification of that change in the prescribed manner to the prescribed person.

(1BD) In any case where subsection (1BA) above applies but the right of the recipient is confined to a right, by reason of his being a person to whom the claimant is required to make payments in respect of a dwelling, to receive payments of housing benefit—

(a) a person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1BB) or (1BC) above unless the change is one relating to one or both of the following—

(i) the claimant's occupation of that dwelling;

(ii) the claimant's liability to make payments in respect of that dwelling; but

(b) subsections (1BB)(a) and (1BC)(a) above shall each have effect as if after 'knows' there were inserted 'or could reasonably be expected to know'.").

Page 20, line 29, leave out ("and (1B)") and insert ("to (1BC)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Page 21, line 9, at end insert—
("(1BA) In a case where subsection (1BA) of section 111A above applies, the recipient is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he knows that the change affects an entitlement of the claimant to a benefit or other payment or advantage under a provision of the relevant social security legislation;

(b) the entitlement is one in respect of which he has a right to receive payments to which the claimant has, or (but for the arrangements under which they are payable to the recipient) would have, an entitlement; and

(c) he fails to give a prompt notification of that change in the prescribed manner to the prescribed person.

(1BB) In a case where that subsection applies, a person other than the recipient is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he knows that the change affects an entitlement of the claimant to a benefit or other payment or advantage under a provision of the relevant social security legislation;

(b) the entitlement is one in respect of which the recipient has a right to receive payments to which the claimant has, or (but for the arrangements under which they are payable to the recipient) would have, an entitlement; and

(c) causes or allows the recipient to fail to give a prompt notification of that change in the prescribed Intoner to the prescribed person.

(1BC) Subsection (1BD) of section 111A above applies in relation to subsections (1BA) and (1BB) above as it applies in relation to subsections (1BB) and (1BC) of that section.").
Page 21, line 10, leave out ("and (1B)") and insert ("to (1BB)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
("Quarterly reports
QUARTERLY REPORT BY AUTHORITY
."(1) Each authority administering housing benefit or council tax benefit shall prepare a quarterly report in respect of—

(a) the number of investigations aborted during the period of the report;

(b) the number of investigations under way during the period of the report; and

(c) the number of penalties, prosecutions and their outcomes during the period of the report, as a result of the powers conferred on it by this Act.

(2) Each authority shall make the reports referred to in subsection (1) available to the public at large in a mariner it thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, unlike the following one, which is concerned with other benefits, relates particularly to housing benefit and council tax benefit.
I note that detected fraud in local government exceeded £100 million for the first time in 1998–99, and that detected fraud increased by 22 per cent in the same period. Of course, one never knows whether the increase in detected fraud reflects the fact that there is more fraud or the fact that more is detected.
The purpose of the amendment is simple. Concern has been expressed throughout our debates on the Bill regarding the extent to which the proposals will be operated in a reasonable manner. Concerns remain that there is no external check on that. The amendment seeks to make available an indication of the extent to which the operation of the proposals has turned out to be reasonable.
The crucial item out of the three listed in the amendment is the number of investigations aborted. Clearly, if an enormous percentage of investigations undertaken turn out to be abortive, there is some implication that the reasonableness of the inquiries being started in the first place is in doubt. It would be helpful for us to see how, when the Bill becomes an Act, as I hope and believe it will, it operates in practice. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the amendment seeks to place a statutory duty on each local authority to publish a quarterly report on the numbers of investigations it carries out on the basis of the powers in the Bill, and the proportion of those which are aborted and those which result in some form of punishment.
I take the noble Lord's point that this information would provide a form of public accountability on how well local authorities were making use of the powers, and whether they were using them properly. However, I hope to persuade the noble Lord that the amendment is unnecessary.
I should first point out that he is in error in his assumption that these data would provide a meaningful picture. Local authorities do not "abort" investigations. In line with the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, they carry them through to conclusion, even where the indications are that the investigation is leading to a negative outcome. In that process we would expect there to be a proportion of cases where investigation established that there was no fraud. We would also expect a proportion of cases—though hopefully diminishing with the use of powers in the Bill—where there was insufficient evidence to prove fraud. That is the nature of investigation. Obviously, if we limited ourselves to investigating only those cases where fraud was pretty much a foregone conclusion, we should not make much of a dent in the levels of fraud that we know exist.
We share the understanding that it is very hard to know what counts as success. If a local authority identifies a large amount of fraud, is it because it has let in a large amount earlier in the system which it subsequently detects? If an authority detects a low level of fraud, is it because it has "built out" fraud at early stages? There is no way of knowing from the noble Lord's amendment. Therefore, there is no means of identifying whether a local authority is performing to "best value" standards by nature of the amendment, because we do not know what would count as success or failure. I suggest that that is why, at its core, the
1156
amendment is not appropriate. We simply cannot use the number of prosecutions or penalties compared with the number of investigations to indicate either success or failure in terms of the Bill.
It is also the case that investigators may use any of the full range of powers at their disposal in any one case. While it would obviously be possible to distinguish cases where the new powers were used from those where they were not, it would be hard to draw meaningful conclusions about the effectiveness of the particular powers in which the noble Lord is interested and the powers that already exist—many of them introduced by the previous administration—and which were being used in addition.
A further point of substance is that we already collect a great deal of information about local authorities' anti-fraud performance for management purposes, which might be a more proper use of such statistics. More generally, I believe that adherence to the code of practice and the commitment on the face of the Bill agreed by your Lordships this evening will ensure that we use the powers properly.
We cannot know whether detecting more fraud or detecting less fraud is a priori evidence that the Bill is satisfactory or not as regards local authorities—because that must be balanced against the amount of fraud that we have built out of the system by other parts of our relationship to local authorities in the handling of housing benefit. It therefore seems to me that what we should rightly be focusing on is whether local authorities observe the code of practice. As we discussed earlier, the paragraphs affecting local authorities will come as a result of consultation with them over the next few weeks. We should also focus on a review of that in the light of complaints that we may receive about the effectiveness of local authorities' performance and the appropriateness of the behaviour of their officials.
We have already given your Lordships a commitment that we shall be reviewing the code within three years to ensure that both we and our information providers are happy with the operation of the powers in practice. We plan to do this by means of a report for consultation, which will cover our performance and that of local authorities against the requirements of the code. Plainly this will include information on how we and local authorities have used the powers and how productive they have been compared with expectations. The report will be widely valued and publicly available.
Local authorities are subject to a best value performance indicator on security and accuracy. Reports of performance under best value are already made available to the public. We intend to review that performance indicator to make it more robust. We expect to link it to the new anti-fraud incentive scheme for local authorities that will be phased in from April 2001.
For all those arguments, we cannot meet the noble Lord's request; namely, to determine whether more or fewer prosecutions, more or fewer abortive prosecutions, are an indicator of success or failure.

1157
However, we can get to the substantive point and reward local authorities for detecting fraud and for building fraud out of their system, as well as reviewing the conduct of their officials in how they handle fraud in the light of complaints or any concern and embody that in the code of practice and its reviews over the next three years. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I entirely take the point that if there is an increase in the detection of fraud one is not sure whether that means there is more fraud or more detection. Indeed, I made that point in my opening remarks. I was well aware of the problem when I was Minister with responsibility for Customs & Excise as regards the detection of drugs: one never knew whether it was more drugs coming in or more detection of drugs taking place. The only observation to be made in that context is what is happening to the street price. Unfortunately, there is no corresponding indicator in that respect that one could use as far as concerns the matters now under discussion.
I am seeking to establish to what extent certain enquiries were started which, in the event, ought not to have been instigated. It is possible that the noble Baroness is right in her contention that this is not the ideal way to set about the task. However, the very broad-brush approach that the Minister suggests in terms of a code of conduct, and so on, is perhaps not sufficiently precise an indication of the extent to which those operating the system are, or are not, acting reasonably in initiating particular enquiries. I should like further to consider the matter between now and Third Reading. Clearly it would not be appropriate at this stage to move Amendment No. 53, which adopts the same arguments. Indeed, it would merely delay our proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Commencement]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 21, line 25, leave out from ("as") to end of line 26 and insert ("the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), different days may be appointed under this section for different purposes.
(3) The power under this section to appoint a day for the coming into force of the provisions of sections 1 and 2 shall not authorise the appointment for those purposes of any day before the issue of the code of practice that must be issued under section (Code of practice about use of information powers).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Business
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as consideration of the Report stage of the Social Security Fraud Bill is now complete, this evening's Unstarred Question is no longer restricted to one hour. A time limit of one-and-a-half hours will now apply. As a result, each speaker
1158
on the list now has 12 minutes within which to make his or her contribution. However, if noble Lords prefer to avoid the inconvenience of extending their speeches at such short notice, I can assure them that they will attract no criticism from these Benches.

General Aviation
7.54 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their policies on promoting general aviation, including revised planning guidance.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak on general aviation tonight. It is very timely in the light of the two government consultation papers, Noise from Civil Aircraft and The Future of Aviation. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, and all the other noble Lords who are taking part tonight. I must also declare that I am a fixed-wing pilot, President of the General Aviation Awareness Council and Vice-President of the Popular Flying Association. Finally, I am presently involved with an industry and parliamentary fellowship with BAE Systems.
In broad terms, aviation can be split between commercial and non-commercial flying. General aviation (GA) is generally thought to encompass civil aviation other than the commercial air transport sector. The question is whether general aviation is important. Sir Malcolm Field, Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, said in September of last year that,
"of all the areas of aviation, it is General Aviation which is the most active and varied, with by far the majority of civil aircraft in the UK falling into that category … GA is the springboard for many of the world's commercial pilots and a vital industry in its own right. It is imperative that General Aviation is both successful and safe".
The UK commercial airlines operate about 850 aircraft from 23 UK airports. The UK general aviation fleet comprises more than 10,000 aircraft that operate from around 490 airports, aerodromes and private airstrips. Whereas more than 70 per cent of all GA activity has some business or safety purpose, 85 per cent of all seats sold by airlines are for purposes of holiday travel or personal pleasure.
It should be recognised that a lot of effort goes into ensuring that the needs of the airlines and, therefore, the needs of the travelling public are met. As a result, general aviation has paid a heavy price. GA survival depends on access to airports and airspace; unreasonable restrictions on either can be seriously detrimental to the economic and social welfare of the community, both nationally and locally. Yves Lambert, Director General of Eurocontrol, also said in September of last year that,
"we all know that General Aviation plays a large role in flying circles. The rather loose term covers many important activities. In Europe alone, I believe there are 300,000 pilots flying over 50,000 GA aircraft with an economic impact of some 5.5 billin Euros … GA must be taken seriously. Its needs should be met as far as possible; and its hard-won liberties must not be curtailed".
Private aviation plays an important part in the development and the economy of the UK. If we wish to retain and support it, we must be careful not to confuse different principles like the "user pays" with the "beneficiary pays", as different charging regimes will ultimately impact on the overall flexibility of GA. We are deeply concerned that the escalating costs of operating light aircraft in the UK are pushing flying beyond the reach of our younger generation. The country is in danger of losing its strong pool of qualified pilots and its unique place in the world for pilot training and development. Today, 60 per cent of all pilots joining the airlines come from the club and private flying routes.
The air-mindedness of our youth today has been seriously eroded over the past 10 to 15 years compared to previous generations. It is suggested that this decline is likely to continue. Aviation is ingrained into people from an early age. They often start off as model aircraft builders, going on to enjoy educational flying in the air cadet corps and university air squadrons. They eventually work in aviation, or, like myself, become a home plane builder in the recreational sector.
It is worth noting that, although the UK has less than a handful of commercial plane manufacturers—of which BAE Systems is by far the most important—it also has a successful home-build industry, with many plane kit manufacturers. A good example is the much exported Europa aircraft, which could have been seen hanging in the Dome.
Business aviation includes air taxi operations, in which clients charter whole aircraft, and corporate operations in which a company owns and operates its own aircraft using professional pilots. Business aviation provides industry and commerce with speed and flexibility of operation, which the rigid schedules and time-wasting routines of airline travel deny to those who need to travel quickly, cost-effectively and by the most direct routeing. Many of the world's most profitable companies operate their own aircraft for those reasons. There are well over 200 corporately owned aircraft in the UK. The ability to operate out of a nearby airport may be one of the prerequisites to an international company locating its offices and businesses in a certain area.
There are more than 100 air taxi operators in the UK, not only providing regular charter and ad hoc services for business travellers, but a vital part of the overnight mail, business data transportation services and freight services. A number of Ministers use GA to facilitate their busy and demanding schedules, and so they should. Ministers must surely serve their country more efficiently by making best use of their time. Yet if the infrastructure continues to decline, the flexibility of business aviation will diminish and successful businesses will suffer. Countries such as France and the USA are well aware of this.
GA aircraft are also used for police and ambulance services, aerial photography and survey, pipeline and electricity cable patrols, commercial support to
1160
military operations, shipping and fishing patrols, coastguard duty, dispersal of coastal oil slicks and for agricultural purposes, not forgetting the eye in the sky helping to keep our roads on the move in our busy cities. Each day GA touches every one of us in some way.
However, the problems for GA are getting worse. More and more regional airports are using pricing policies that deter the small operator. For example, the use of mandatory handling adds substantially to the overall cost. Yet this was never meant to apply to GA operations. In some cases there is no alternative, because smaller aerodromes are closing or have operating restrictions making them difficult to operate to or from.
The future of Gloucester Airport, Rochester, Kemble and Bicester, to name but a few, is in doubt as they are becoming prime locations for housing. Some will become involved in expensive inquiries such as the South Cambridge inquiry, which will cost the local authority £½ million. Once an aerodrome facility has been lost, it is extremely unlikely that another great open space for an aerodrome will be utilised to replace it. Yet these landing sites are not looked upon as being of importance to the national economy, let alone local economies. Coupled to this, with airspace problems such as the gradual loss of lower airspace radar service (LARS), what we are witnessing is an over-commercialisation of the nation's infrastructure which is becoming beyond the economic means of GA. This is where the need arises for a national policy with regard to the future of general aviation.
As for planning policy guidance, PPG13 is a step in the right direction but, as it is only guidance, local authorities can and do choose to ignore it. The strengthening of PPG13 would give better guidance to local authorities. One hopes it might require them to make statements in their regional and local plans. If one agrees with the argument that airports and airfields are part of our national integrated transport system, perhaps local authorities should be required to follow directions rather than follow the guidance of a strengthened PPG13.
8.4 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for introducing the debate this evening. As my noble friend mentioned, we know that it is timely because the Government have produced an important consultation paper, The Future of Aviation. I recognise that general aviation is only a small but important part of that exercise but none the less it is relevant. I hope that the noble Lord will regard this evening's debate as part of that consultation process and will take into account the opinions which noble Lords will express in it.
I too am an occasional private pilot although not as distinguished as my noble friends who have spoken and who will speak this evening. It is important to start from the premise that the United Kingdom is a world leader in aviation. It is a world leader in terms of airlines, airports and air traffic control. It has an

1161
extremely important aerospace business. Many of the people who are the backbone of those industries have a background of general aviation. My noble friend mentioned the figure of 65 per cent of airline pilots who have come up through what can only be described as a self-improvement route. They may have started flying as a hobby. They have then taken it further and have spent their own money to improve their qualifications. They have spent much of their resources on training themselves to enter a highly skilled job which is productive to the UK economy.
I hope that the Minister will support my argument that there is great benefit to the United Kingdom in having a major pool of highly qualified people who can enter the airlines, the military and air traffic control. I understand that many air traffic controllers are also private pilots. That argument has previously been deployed in the context of shipping. I know that previously the noble Lord has recognised the value of having a highly qualified maritime base. The same points apply to aviation. The UK has been a pioneer of the privatisation and the commercialisation of these industries. These models have been followed across the world, first with airlines and then with airports. I am sure—the noble Lord will be more aware of this than I—that all eyes will be on him, his department, the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS itself, when that privatisation occurs.
We contend that GA is important. It is important as a freedom for people to exercise their right to fly if they are suitably qualified. It is economically important to have people who can join the important industries I mentioned. Business aviation is, of course, vital to companies who need to move their executives around quickly and who have calculated that the use of executive aircraft is vital to their businesses. Certainly when I was in government I received many representations from firms that wished to locate near to London, within or near to the M25 zone, but were having great difficulty in finding premises that were within sufficient striking range of GA facilities which would allow their senior executives to come and go using business aviation. It is easy to misinterpret that point and to talk about "fat cats". However, if we wish to attract investment into this country, we must consider seriously what these executives demand and what they need. Business aviation is an important part of that.
We are seeing some new developments. Financial wags used to say that when the chairman bought an executive jet it was time to fire the chairman. Now I believe that we have passed that point. We now recognise the economic value to corporations of using such aircraft where appropriate. Certainly there are new initiatives such as corporate sharing of aircraft—this is effectively time share—which have made them very much more affordable for corporations. We have also seen the new initiative of Richard Noble's F1 company to develop a whole new range of aircraft to be used in the air taxi field. That is also an exciting initiative.
1162
We are lucky in this country that we have an admirable safety record on GA. However, that is only maintained by having good quality training organisations and extremely efficient safety regulation. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the safety regulation group of the Civil Aviation Authority. That regulator enjoys the confidence of its industry. That is extremely important to any safety regulator. A pragmatic approach has also been taken to the delegation of authority to other bodies such as the Popular Flying Association, the British Microlight Aircraft Association, the British Gliding Association and others. That is a pragmatic approach which I contend has worked.
When pilots exercise the privileges of their licence they must realise that it is their responsibility to strike a balance between their desire to fly and the desire of people living close by to airports to be able to enjoy a quiet existence. Again, the evidence is that pilots take that extremely seriously. They realise that flying is a privilege and that they must do so in a considerate manner. I invite scrutiny, for example, of the aviation press a great deal of which is devoted towards considerate flying. I also draw attention to the technical diagrams or plates which describe the procedures at any particular airfield, most of which will have special noise considerations built into them to make sure that pilots minimise the disturbance that they cause to other people.
As my noble friend Lord Rotherwick mentioned, in a way aviation has been a victim of its own success. We have seen extraordinary growth in the commercial aviation arena and that has in effect displaced GA from some of the larger airfields. It is an ongoing problem that business operators who wish to operate out of Heathrow, for example, find it extremely difficult to get more than very occasional slots.
The planning regime to which my noble friend refers is extremely important. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13—a draft which was put forward in October—recognises that small airports and aerodromes are important; that they serve business, recreational, training and emergency service needs and that as the demand for commercial air transport grows, GA finds access to larger airports increasingly restricted. In formulating their planned policies and proposals the document states,
"Local authorities should take account of the contribution of GA to local and regional economies; the national need for pilot training; and the benefits of having suitable facilities".
I welcome all those sentiments.
I raise the question of whether the sentiments and policies put forward in PPG 13 are being communicated effectively to local planning authorities. I draw the attention of the House to the paper presented by the General Aviation Awareness Council to the Secretary of State for Transport in February 1999. It pointed out that planning applications for aerodromes had a relatively low success rate yet on appeal the success rate was more than twice the national average. I would be interested to know whether the Government recognise and agree with the council's figures and therefore whether they

1163
would conclude, as I have done, that perhaps local planning authorities have shown a tendency to make more unsound decisions as regards flying sites than other applications. If there are other explanations of that, this evening would be a good opportunity to discuss them. If that is the case, the next question for the Minister is what action he proposes to take to communicate the guidance more effectively to local planning authorities. I certainly agree that the action already taken to revise the guidance is a step in the right direction.
My noble friend referred to the lower airspace radar service issue in the course of his speech. We had a very quick run around that course when we had a Starred Question on the issue. But it is extraordinarily difficult, as the Minister and his questioners found, to explain a complex issue within the space of a 20 or 30 second Question.
Let it simply be said that a great deal of aviation activity, both commercial and GA, takes place outside controlled air space and that the LARS service is an important aid to safety, particularly when talking about flying on instruments in adverse meteorological conditions. So I caution the Government, the Civil Aviation Authority and the new operators of NATS, when they take over, to look very carefully at the LARS service and not to forget about the major safety benefit that it brings.
I conclude by stressing the argument that general aviation is important. I urge the Minister not to lose sight of that fact when the Government are considering policy initiatives. One frequently reads in the press of very vocal groups who point the finger at GA, but who do not balance the argument by discussing the important benefits which this activity brings. We cannot afford to regulate or price general aviation out of existence.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, I have an interest to declare which, I believe, the two preceding speakers have already done, in that I am a private pilot. That is my only interest. I serve no body within private aviation. But I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Rotherwick has been successful in having this matter debated tonight. It is indeed timely in view of the papers which have already been referred to by previous speakers. It is a subject about which my noble friend knows a great deal, as evidenced by the statistics and the information which he so ably gave the House.
Above that, the House perhaps may be interested to know that when he referred to himself as a "home plane builder", I hope that I will not embarrass him when I say that he built an absolutely wonderful light aircraft which he has flown to many parts of the world. In 1997 I was privileged to be part of a wing organised by the air squadron which flew 11 light aircraft to the north-eastern reaches of Pakistan, at the invitation of the Pakistan Air Force, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of their independence.
1164
Flying in the Himalayas with a multitude of different aircraft types made for some very interesting and unforgettable moments. Before I detain the House with too many stories, perhaps I may say that I am very relieved that both he and I are back here to tell the tale.
General aviation plays an important part in the economy of our nation. Businessmen need to be able to use this means of transport effectively and this in turn creates investment and prosperity in the regions. This is all the more true today when we have such dreadful traffic congestion on our roads. Any substantial conurbation, I believe, will benefit enormously from having its own regional airport.
With that in mind, I should like to talk briefly about one such airport proposal, which is not very far from where I live. For that reason I declare an interest. I am referring to the proposal to turn RAF Finingley into a regional airport. As noble Lords may know, if it happens it is to become known as Doncaster Airport. Doncaster used to have its own light aviation airport with a grass runway not far from the racecourse. I used it in the past. But about seven years' ago it was closed and the land was developed, which, unfortunately, is something that is happening to too many light aircraft airfields, as has already been mentioned by my noble friend.
In view of the fact that Doncaster lost its airport, I am naturally in favour of the Finingley proposal. I believe that it will bring many benefits to the area, not least in jobs. However, support is not universal, as I understand it. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House tonight whether there will be a planning enquiry before proceeding or whether it will be allowed to go ahead under local planning rules. I believe that currently there is some uncertainty, which is a bad thing, so perhaps the noble Lord can take this opportunity to clarify the situation.
One of the very important aspects of this particular proposal is traffic planning, the provision of new roads and the upgrading of the existing ones. The A1 trunk road south of the Doncaster A1 (M) section has a notoriously bad stretch between Ranby and Tuxford, some of which is considered so dangerous that a permanent 50 miles per hour speed limit has been imposed on it. It is also an area which is particularly vulnerable to traffic congestion at certain times of the day. I accept that this is slightly wide of the Unstarred Question, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say what plans there are for upgrading this stretch of the A1, which I should have thought was almost sine qua non in the provision of this airport.
My noble friend Lord Rotherwick made some interesting observations, one of which was that costs are pushing flying beyond the reach of our younger generation. As my noble friend Lord Goschen said, 65 per cent of our commercial pilots came up through the private pilot and hobby aviation route. I do not know what the Minister can say to allay that serious problem, but we ought to try to address it if we can.

1165
I fear that regional airports are using pricing policies to deter general aviation. I hope that we can redress that in some way, because light aviation is a vital part of the fabric of our commercial infrastructure. I hope that general aviation will prosper.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's speech. I hope that he will confirm that the Government wish to promote general aviation in this country.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, has done us a service by introducing the debate. I have learned a lot from his detailed analysis of general aviation. Some time ago I lived in the United States for several years, where general aviation was a large industry. From what I have learned in the past few days in preparation for today's debate, it seems to be going the same way here as it did there.
Unlike the previous speakers, I am not a pilot—perhaps it is not necessary to make that point. Thinking of what the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, has just said, I am not sure whether, as a pilot, I would have had a greater or lesser feeling of security when I was skimming the mountainsides in the Andes in a commercial plane. That kind of flying is always frightening, however and whenever you do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, gave us good evidence of the importance of general aviation to the air transport industry. It is not just private flying for rich men, but everything from pilot training through freight transfer to crop spraying and air-sea rescue.
The industry has a problem of reduced availability for general aviation. The Government concede in their consultation paper on the future of aviation that the problem can only get worse due to the pressure on airport space. At the same time, local authorities appear to the industry to be unsympathetic to general aviation. Some would say that they are ignorant of its contribution to the economy and over-sensitive to local people's complaints about aircraft noise and fears about increased activity at their local small aerodrome.
The noise from large commercial aircraft has been dealt with pretty successfully over the past 30 years or so via the system of air noise certification, which was forced on the civil servants, politicians and aircraft builders and operators by the strength of public opinion across many countries. I understand that quite a lot could be achieved by the introduction of mufflers or silencers to deal with the noise from smaller aircraft, which can be intensely annoying at a local level. What action could the CAA or the Government take to encourage the use of silencers now and to introduce a system of progressive noise reduction for smaller aircraft similar to that which operates for larger commercial aircraft? That is a different way of controlling aircraft noise from the designation of approach paths or the alignments of flight paths. Those matters seem to be the subject of the consultation paper on the control of noise around aerodromes, which takes no apparent interest in controlling the noise as it comes out of the aeroplane. Those are two different issues.
1166
I do not accept the argument that local authorities ignore planning guidance. There may be an argument that the guidance could re-emphasise the economic value of general aviation, although I do not know enough about that guidance to say. In my experience, local authorities follow planning guidance, particularly when forming their local or strategic plan. They have to do so, or the Secretary of State will not approve the plan.
Furthermore, to pick up a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, if any officer feels that a local elected authority is about to do something that will result in the proposal or plan being rejected at public inquiry, he will certainly tell the elected members so. Because of the extreme expense of going through an unsuccessful planning application procedure, most members will heed a suggestion that they should not do anything that would be likely to result in losing an inquiry.
Nor do I accept the point made in some of the briefing material that small aerodromes are worse placed to contest a planning proposal or put their case to a local planning inquiry than any other small business or individual. Many individuals appear successfully at local planning inquiries or similar occasions and put their views very well. Local planning inquiry judges are very good at ensuring that small organisations and individuals are heard and their points correctly recorded and given their due weight.
I agree that there is a need for a national aviation policy and an airports policy. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, encouraged the Minister to take note of today's debate in the context of the current consultation process on the future of aviation, is the Minister minded to construct an airports policy that could guide all those involved in providing airport capacity at any level? Such a policy is badly needed, if only to enable us to cut the time taken by airport development public inquiries. That huge use of time and other resources—I need only mention Terminal 5—is largely the result of having to argue the whole case for or against proposals for change of use or expansion or the creation of a new airport without the benefit of any common ground determined by the Government from which both parties can proceed.
The last area in which there can be conflict is on safety, particularly near major airports. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, about LARS. It is important that whoever is in charge of air traffic control at the end of March—or whenever the new system comes into being—takes into account the importance of making sure that there is an effective method of air traffic control that governs the safety of general aviation, whether in or out of the controlled areas.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Rotherwick on having introduced this short debate on general aviation. It is not an issue that is debated very often in this House, but in recent months,

1167
funnily enough, it has featured occasionally, especially during the passage of the Transport Bill, which the Minister will no doubt remember well.
The term "general aviation" covers both fixed wing aircraft and helicopters operating for a wide variety of purposes including leisure pursuits, gliding, flying training and of course the business aviation sector, which includes air taxis and other means of transport. I was impressed to learn from my noble friend how many aircraft and activities were included in this category in this country.
The users and owners of these types of aircraft share concerns about reduced access to airport facilities and air space, LARS in particular, and the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services (NATS). Heathrow and other major airports for general aviation users are increasingly subject to restrictions. As capacity at peak times is put under more pressure, general aviation is likely to find it more difficult to access larger airports.
The industry is also concerned about the loss of smaller airports to redevelopment and the imposition of conditions of use at other airports that limit their ability to cater for the users' needs.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13, which has been referred to by a number of speakers this evening, states:
"Airport development is promoted by developers through the usual planning process, though major schemes will usually be decided by the Secretary of State for the Environment (sometimes jointly with the Secretary of State for Transport) following a public inquiry."
I presume that that note was written before the merger of the two departments, because the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport are now the same person. We are happy to see the Minister of Transport in the Chamber this evening.
The members of the industry to whom I have spoken are keen that public inquiries should also take place where there is a proposal for the closure of these airports. General aviation, and business transport in particular, rely on access to these airports so that they can provide reliable services.
Much reference has already been made to the subject of planning, and there is no doubt that some local authorities have taken a very anti-general aviation stance during the preparation of local plans, primarily because of the noise that general aviation can cause.
General aviation airports tend to attract pilot training schools, hence there are a large number of small piston-engined aircraft flying repetitive circuit patterns, which can cause disturbance to the public. However, general aviation provides a very important supply of trained pilots for the airlines, as well as the smaller GA (air taxi and charter) operators.
The number of service pilots retiring and available on the civil market has reduced significantly over the last few years, emphasising the importance of civil pilot training. Similarly, new European licensing regulations are tending to increase the cost of training
1168
and have resulted in a reduction in GA training activity over the last year. It is very important to the wider industry that training should be allowed to continue.
The DETR circulated a consultation paper on the Control of Noise from Civil Aircraft last year, and the Airport Operators' Association highlighted the concern of smaller airports over proposals to provide local authorities with greater powers over airports and the need to consider the wide variety of size and type of airport throughout the UK. The Government's position is to prefer local noise issues at aerodromes to be addressed at the local level, but this must not be applied in a discriminatory manner that puts GA airports out of business.
I should like to refer briefly to the EU Draft Directive on the Assessment and Management of Environmental COM (2000) 468 final, which the Minister will no doubt have at his fingertips. The Government will need to ensure that this legislation does not conflict with DETR policy and that, once again, the resultant burden does not prove too great for the fragile financial state of many small airport businesses.
The point to be made here is that in order to encourage aircraft operators to fit quiet propellers and exhaust silencing systems, the industry needs as much assistance as possible from the regulatory authorities. There have been cases, for example, where the CAA has refused to accept the certification process carried out in another EU state, and has required full certification in the UK. The considerable extra cost of this process is in addition to the equipment cost and the cost of fitting it to the aircraft, and this acts as a significant deterrent to the aircraft owner or operator.
Regulation No. 3922/91 states in one of its articles that where a product has been approved in one or more JAA member states, it should be automatically accepted in another JAA member state, without the need for further additional certification or administration. That is the kind of small point that would make life for general aviation operators rather easier.
Recently, we have seen, as a result of the chaos on the railways, an increasingly large number of movements of air taxis and helicopters. As I understand it, the London Heliport at Battersea now caters for over 11,000 movements a year. Can the Minister therefore tell noble Lords what the Government are doing to improve and preserve the access of air taxis and helicopters to well-placed airports?
Another concern is the public/private partnership of NATS. We have been over this ground on several occasions, including earlier this afternoon. As we are all well aware, the Ministry is due to report back to the House within a short space of time on what has happened during the last three months. I think the Minister stated earlier that the subject of general aviation would be included within the overall context of the PPP. Can the Minister therefore say what meetings he or his colleagues have had with

1169
representatives from the general aviation community during this period, and give an insight into the reassurances he has been able to give general aviation about the concerns that have been so well expressed by my noble friends on this issue this evening?
We are all well aware that in Europe there is a great move towards the creation of a single European sky, and according to reports that I have received, this is going full steam ahead. My final question, therefore, is this: can the Minster reassure noble Lords that during discussions about the single European sky the Government have taken on board the concerns of general aviation in that area?
I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for initiating the debate. I welcome the opportunity to share what the Government are doing to promote general aviation, and to address the hopes and concerns that have been expressed during the debate.
The Government will do all that they can to promote every area of the UK aviation industry, from our major international carriers to our smaller enterprises. The UK aviation industry leads the way, thanks to the innovation and competitiveness of its aviation companies.
Our aim, as Government, must be to create an environment that allows our aviation innovators to continue their excellent work and to foster growth in this area as far as possible. The contribution to this success made by the general aviation industry in all its guises is not to be underestimated. We will seek to continue to support general aviation and we will also ensure that the very specific needs of this industry are not overlooked. We will do that when we come to implement our general policy aims in the aviation and transport sectors.
However, in order to do so, we need to have in mind that the term "general aviation" covers a number of activities, including flying, training, leisure flying by private individuals and the use of air taxis. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for his detailed description of the various aspects of the general aviation sector and for highlighting so clearly that each aspect has differing needs and priorities.
Although the activities covered under the heading of "general aviation" are extremely diverse, the combined contribution that general aviation makes is significant in economic terms and also in other ways, such as providing, as has been emphasised tonight, a source of pilots for the aviation sector as a whole. General aviation is also a source of pleasure for the pilots who use more than 8,000 general aviation aircraft in the UK and who are entitled to enjoy their right to fly. Of course, they must do so in a balanced way which takes into account the rights of those who live near aerodromes.
Although I said that general aviation covers a wide range of activities, the Government will consider the needs of the general aviation industry as a whole and
1170
will take those needs into account when shaping aviation policy. We shall not act without first seeking the views of those who are most likely to be affected by our actions.
We have undertaken to introduce an air transport White Paper in order to prepare UK aviation policy 30 years ahead. It is essential that we get that right. We have issued a consultation document so that all the main parties can consider the issues and put forward their views. I look forward to receiving comments from the general aviation industry which should express the detail of the industry's needs and aspirations for the future.
I am aware that a good start has been made and that the general aviation voice was heard loud and clear at the recent seminar which we organised to discuss responses to the consultation document. I hope that the comments received from those working in general aviation will cover many of the issues raised today. Although this debate is perhaps not timely in that we currently await comments on the air transport consultation document, I shall try to specify why current policies are as they are and what they do to promote general aviation.
I note from the title of today's debate, and from some of the interventions made, that planning is at the forefront of the minds of noble Lords and of our general aviation industry. Therefore, it may be helpful if I explain briefly the general rules and procedures which govern the planning system.
We have a "plan-led" planning system. The general principles are contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 1—General Policy and Principles. That document explains that, where the adopted or approved development plan for the area contains relevant policies, planning applications must be determined in accordance with the local plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. On the other hand, applications which are not in accordance with relevant policies in the plan should not be allowed unless material considerations justify granting a planning permission.
Material considerations must be genuine planning considerations—that is, they must be related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. Obviously much will depend on the nature of the application under consideration, the relevant policies in the development plan and the surrounding circumstances.
The courts are the arbiters of what constitutes a material consideration. All the fundamental factors involved in land-use planning are included, such as the number, size, layout, design and external appearance of buildings and the proposed means of access, together with landscaping, the impact on the neighbourhood and the availability of infrastructure, and so on. Government statements of planning policy are material considerations which must be taken into account, where relevant, in decisions on planning applications.

1171
Although development in general requires planning permission, some forms of development are granted a general permission by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 without the need to make a planning application to the local planning authority. That includes certain works related to aviation development. In the first instance, it is for the local planning authority to determine whether planning permission is required in any particular case.
Planning policy is of most interest to the general aviation sector in so far as it impacts on planning decisions in relation to aerodromes. In general, we have not intervened in the development of general aviation aerodromes. Essentially they are local planning matters which should be decided locally. However, through their local representatives, the Government scrutinise development plans and are able to keep a close watch on emerging policies which affect general aviation aerodromes.
Generally, the Government will intervene only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved; for example, if a plan or application conflicts with national policies or important matters which may have significant effects beyond the immediate vicinity, or in cases which involve issues of national security. I note the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, about the outcome of planning decisions. Although I have no detailed comment to make on that this evening, the figures in the GAAC paper have been noted. We do not collect those figures centrally. Therefore, I am unable to verify the analysis of reasons for appeal and whether that warrants further consideration. However, planning authorities must make decisions on the basis of local facts.
In order to ensure a coherent approach to planning across different sectors and regions—I hope that this will help to provide some reassurance to the noble Viscount—25 planning policy guidance notes have been issued by the Government. All local authorities must take those into account in preparing the regional planning guidance and determining planning applications. They focus on the integration of land-use planning and transport, including the promotion of more sustainable transport choices both for people and for moving freight.
Transport guidance note PPG13 emphasises the important role that small airports and aerodromes can play for local business, recreational, training and emergency needs. For that reason, the guidance note advises that local authorities should take account of the important contribution that general aviation can make to local and regional economies, including the national need for pilot training. That guidance note is in the process of being updated. If the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, does not have a copy of the current issue, I shall certainly ensure that it is updated to take account of the changes that have been made in departmental structures. However, the document is being updated and it will continue to recognise the important contribution made by the general aviation sector to local economies and beyond.
1172
A question was raised in relation to airport slots. I have already said that we shall do our utmost to promote and encourage the good work done by the general aviation industry. However, it must be done with a sense of perspective and with an eye for the realities of modern aviation.
With regard to the issue of slots, since 1986 there have been legal constraints on the use of Heathrow and Gatwick Airports by business and general aviation during the hours of peak congestion. That is simply and obviously a consequence of the demands on capacity at those airports. I appreciate that over recent years the constraints have bitten increasingly hard as the airports have become more congested. However, it is important to make the most efficient use possible of the available infrastructure. A slot which is used for business aviation cannot be used for a scheduled service which reduces the passenger throughput. A mix of large and small aircraft also requires longer gaps between aircraft movements than where the fleet is more homogenous. That may have the added effect of reducing hourly capacity at airports where capacity is such a precious commodity.
Business and general aviation is not excluded from Heathrow or Gatwick and there are no plans that it should be. I accept the arguments made about the importance of business aviation, and I take on board the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool. I am afraid that I am unable to give much detail as to the current position with regard to the proposed Doncaster airport. Noble Lords will understand that I am constrained by the inhibition of the planning process because the possibility always exists that there may be a quasi judicial role for Ministers in the event of a call in that respect.
Thirty years ago in my business life I travelled many times on corporate aircraft between Heathrow, Manchester and Liverpool and I have done so many times since in England, across Scotland and abroad. I understand the importance of encouraging business travel to be flexible and efficient. That drives us towards economic competition and growth. Noble Lords need have no concerns on that score.
Business and general aviation still have a role to play in Heathrow and Gatwick. It is essential for the industry to recognise that there are no easy solutions and that the pressure on capacity will not go away, at least in the short and medium term. One response is to consider making greater use of alternative airports to serve the London area. Longer term, I refer back to our consultation document in pursuit of a White Paper. That process is supported by regional studies examining the best shape for the aviation industry in the next 30 years. That is an important process.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, I confirm that while the CAA is currently reviewing the so-called large provision in the South East of England, it will certainly take into account some of the issues that the noble Baroness raised. That review is still in progress, but I am confident that any specific proposals concerning provision around Gatwick and Heathrow will be considered very carefully and acted on where necessary.

1173
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that I shall certainly take into account the views that noble Lords expressed tonight. Our debate has been an important contribution to the current consultations on air transport policy. The noble Viscount, like other noble Lords, made his point with great eloquence and force.
On the question of noise from civil aircraft, there has recently been a consultation on legislation for the control of noise from civil aircraft and the effect that that might have on general aviation. In launching the consultation process, we have not prejudged whether there should be any limit on the types or size of aerodromes that are liable to be designated. We are looking with interest at the views that we have received. It remains our preference where possible for aviation noise mitigation measures to be resolved between interested parties. The proposal to provide aerodromes with greater means of regulating flying behaviour will be an enabling power and it will be used only if there is a need to do more to ameliorate aircraft noise at a particular aerodrome.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, asked about improving access for helicopters and air taxis. Looking at the clock, I see that time does not permit
1174
me to attempt an answer; even if I had made such an attempt, I should not have done so with any precision. I assure the noble Lord that in our consultations on the operational aspects of NATS with interested parties, we shall ensure that general aviation is consulted. The Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in another place have been conducting consultative meetings. I shall report back to the noble Lord in the very near future.
I hope that I have explained some of the ways in which the Government have acted to promote the general aviation industry. The best way in which we can do so is by providing a business environment that allows our companies to thrive. Our debate has shown that while that is the case, we need to examine several specific issues in relation to which the voice of the general aviation industry still needs to be heard. I urge the industry to use its voice.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for giving us the advantage of his extensive aviation experience and for securing this debate. If I have left any questions unanswered, I shall write to noble Lords with greater detail.
House adjourned at six minutes to nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
Tuesday, 27th February 2001.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clause 30 [Form and content: general]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 13, line 12, at beginning insert ("Save as provided in section 36,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 45, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 46. As the Committee will be aware, these amendments would permit the transfer or indeed the loss of a unit if something were or were not to happen. In reality, they are paving amendments for Clause 36 of the Bill. The intention is, quite simply, to allow the commonhold community statement to provide for a unit-holder to lose the unit if he fails to abide by certain conditions. In effect, it creates a parallel to the existing forfeiture provisions in leases.
There is little in the Bill regarding dispute resolution within commonhold. Whatever is provided, there will almost certainly be a need for some form of ultimate sanction. As with all forms of contractual arrangement, if a party does not abide by its obligations under the contract, that party must expect, ultimately, to lose the benefit which the contract provides in return. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach): The noble Lord has spoken to two amendments. It seems to me to be logical to take the second of the amendments first. That would remove the word "not" from the subsection, thus making it possible for the commonhold community statement to make a provision for an interest in commonhold land to be lost or to transfer contingent on some future event. The thinking behind subsection (8) is the same as that behind paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Bill, which specifies certain kinds of land that cannot become commonhold. In each case in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, the estate in the land is subject to a statutory rule which allows or requires the estate to revert to a previous owner if some specified event occurs. Indeed, as I am sure the noble Lord will remember, this is entirely consistent with Clause 7(2)(b) of the draft Bill, on which the previous government consulted in 1996. We have followed the previous government's example.
The commonhold association and the unit-holders in place in the development at any particular time should be in full command of the commonhold land. Plainly, the unit-holder's interest in his unit would be
CWH 62
undermined—weakened—by the risk that at some future time, contingent on something happening or not happening, over which he would almost certainly have no control, he was at risk of losing it. In the same way, the commonhold association being responsible for the common parts, it would be bad practice to set up a scheme that would potentially deprive it of any part of its assets at some future time. Any change to the extent of the commonhold should be the result of a decision taken by those in ownership and occupation at the time and not that of a decision taken some time previously, quite possibly by people who no longer have any connection with the development.
The earlier amendment would make amended subsection (8) of Clause 30 subject to the words,
"Save as provided in section 36".
However, we have looked in vain at Clause 36 for any provision which would serve to qualify the power to create contingent titles for which the amended clause would provide. Shortly, we shall come to an amendment to Clause 36, but that does not appear to be germane to this point. Therefore, I shall invite the noble Lord to withdraw that amendment when we come to it. Clause 36 has nothing to do with contingent interests; it is concerned simply with the enforcement of rights and responsibilities within a commonhold; for example, the payment of compensation to a unit-holder from the commonhold association for repairs that may take place in the unit-holder's premises on behalf of the commonhold association. Therefore, we do not believe that Clause 36 is relevant to this issue and we invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: The Minister has not addressed the central question that I posed. It is not clear to me why there should be no power akin to forfeiture in the system. The most effective sanction against a unit-holder failing to discharge his financial obligations to the association is to charge the unit as security for due performance. Unless the association has such security, its only ultimate remedy is to prove in the defaulting unit-holder's bankruptcy in which it may or may not recover a small dividend.
One of the provisions which might properly be contained in the CCS, pursuant to Clause 36, is a prohibition on the creation of any new charge over the unit unless any debts due to the association shall first have been discharged, or are discharged simultaneously with the execution of the charge. I hope the Minister agrees that the absence of such a sanction is likely to make it very difficult to sell the common hold scheme commercially.
Lord Bach: We do not agree, and we are not keen to bring into this field the notion of forfeiture. I am led to believe that it is one of the most hated leasehold powers. I should have said in my initial response that this resolution will be set out in the commonhold community statement. Perhaps the Committee will look at page 16 of the current draft which was distributed yesterday.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, who is always generous in giving way when a member of the Opposition rises to speak. I understood that a draft was produced 10 days ago. Is there a new version?
Lord Bach: In my experience, the noble Lord is always unlucky as far as concern these matters. A new draft was sent to all noble Lords who took part in last week's Committee stage and spoke at Second Reading. We tried to make it available yesterday so that the Committee would have it today. I am sorry if it has not reached the Committee, but every effort was made to provide it.
The dispute resolution will be set out in the final commonhold community statement which is to be found at pages 15 and 16 of the current draft. As to forfeiture, my advice is that it will be possible for the commonhold association to proceed against a defaulting unit-holder, including by charging order and, eventually, possession. Forfeiture is not at present an option.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the provenance of the most recent document to be circulated. The noble Lord draws my attention to pages 15 and 16 of the document. Will the noble Lord give the Committee an opportunity to consider proper amendments to those pages since they form the central plank of his response to my amendment?
Lord Bach: We shall, of course, listen to any comments that are made about this and take them on board if we think that they are appropriate.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I take that remark to mean that we will have an opportunity to deal with these matters on the floor of the House. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bach: The noble Lord should be careful about agreeing to withdraw the amendment too easily. I did not say that there would necessarily be such an opportunity on the floor of the House. We will listen, of course, in the normal way—through correspondence, through any amendments that are brought forward or at meetings, which we are always glad to hold with any noble Lords who show an interest in these proceedings—but I was not saying that it would be at the Government's instigation that these matters would be debated on Report. I should like that to be absolutely clear.
Lord Kingsland: If I understand the Minister correctly, he will not be giving noble Lords the opportunity to consider, on the floor of your Lordships' House, in public, pages 15 and 16 of the draft CCS—even though he has conceded that they are his answer to the question as to why there are no provisions equivalent to forfeiture in the Bill.
Lord Bach: We shall of course respond to any amendment that is brought forward on this issue. The
CWH 64
noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will have to be patient. He will hear my response to an amendment that will be moved a little later in regard to the final version of the commonhold community statement. He will hear my answer to that amendment in due course, and he may be pleased by what I have to say.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is important for us to appreciate that, if there is any issue on which we feel that documents have arrived too late for us to consider it at this stage, we are of course free to bring it back on Report.
Lord Bach: Of course. That is exactly what I am saying. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, echoes exactly what I said. Of course you are absolutely at liberty to bring it back at Report stage. What I am saying is that the Government do not intend, at this stage, to produce any amendments to that effect. However, if amendments are put down in the proper way, as they will be, then we will of course have to answer them. I hope that there is no misunderstanding about this.
Lord Kingsland: I am still not entirely clear about what the Minister intends. If we are to have the opportunity to consider and table amendments to this document, or to find some way of doing that—for example, by making the document a schedule to the Bill and then amending it—I am, for the moment, content.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I used to do it all the time in opposition. The then government objected very strongly.
Lord Kingsland: I am shocked to hear the latter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Regulations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Kingsland: In view of the exchanges that took place in the course of the debate on the previous amendments, I do not need to speak on this matter.
Baroness Hamwee: I should like to say a few words. I did not intervene on the previous grouping because it seemed to concern both how documents such as the commonhold community statement were presented to the Committee and the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
Before I ask my question—I suspect that I am making the point for other noble Lords—perhaps I may say that we are genuinely grateful to the Government for circulating documents to us. However, it would be useful if those who were charged with circulating them realised that we are not all full time in this building. I received this morning the letter of 21st February with the drafts which were referred to at the previous day of Committee stage. The final

CWH 65
paragraph of the letter said that a second edition of the draft would be available today. I opened the envelope when I was in another building and did not have an opportunity to obtain the other set of drafts. Although it is extremely helpful to have the documents, it would be a step forward if those who circulated them understood that noble Lords are not always in the building to receive them.
My question on the commonhold community statement is based on the previous draft which to me looked very much like a lease and contained many of the provisions that I would expect to see in a residential lease. A good many of them are in square brackets and it is suggested that they should be optional. They relate to such matters as noise: no nuisance is to be created by playing musical instruments, and no pets are permitted without the consent of the commonhold association. Those are important issues. The over-loud playing of musical instruments, radios and so on can be very disturbing to neighbours, but the Government have told us that they hope that commonhold will be as close as possible to freehold. If one lived in a freehold house, possibly a terraced dwelling, close to neighbours who played the radio loudly one would be disturbed. I do not quite follow the Government's approach in the commonhold community statement.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have not had time to study my document. I am pleased to say that I had three copies and I was delighted to see that the last one shows the second draft, which means that I can put the first two aside. But they all came simultaneously. At least they are well labelled.
I am not clear about the noise. I recall the legislation on local authorities and the situation mentioned by the noble Baroness of two neighbouring houses. But there is recourse in law. Is she saying that there is or is not such recourse in commonhold? Normally one would expect to respect other people's peace and quiet within their own dwelling and it would be perfectly normal to have such a clause, whether in a lease or in a commonhold. I see no reason why it would not be there to protect others. It is usually enforced only if there is a quite outrageous case.
I can give an example. I left my unit for a time and the young man who took it decided that on Mardi Gras day he would put up a notice in the street saying that all were welcome to come to a party. Hundreds poured into his unit, and the other residents were very unhappy. I received a letter from the commonhold management—and rightly so. It is important, therefore, to have good conditions included. However, I have not yet been able to read them.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may give a further explanation. The noble Baroness makes my case for me. I entirely agree that one should not disturb one's neighbours but the legislation to which she has referred seems to me to be the kind that one would expect to apply in a freehold situation. To have a clause creating a particular relationship within
CWH 66
commonhold such as one would see in a lease has led me to ask how closely the Government are trying to replicate leasehold rather than freehold.
Lord Bach: The interesting comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Gardner, strengthen our view that it is appropriate that the commonhold community statement is not on the face of the Bill but is subject to regulation. It is a standard document but each commonhold, when it is set up, will have its own commonhold community statement. It is the distinction that there will be between them that will be critical for the living conditions that those in the commonhold have to agree.
I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did not receive the draft statement in time and that other noble Lords have not had a chance to react it. We would welcome having the best address for any noble Lord for such correspondence so that we can get it to them as quickly as possible. But I hope that the Committee will give us credit for doing our very best to get these regulations out, as we promised at Second Reading. On many Bills in the not too distant past the Government have come under severe criticism—sometimes justified—for not having done what we have done on this occasion. While we take the criticism on the chin, we think that we have done rather well on this occasion.
I return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The draft commonhold community statement is a template intended to provide the basic framework with room for flexibility for individual commonholds. It is getting that balance right between standardisation and covering the wide variety of circumstances that will occur.
The thinking behind the use of regulations to establish and control the CCS is much as it was for the establishment and control of the memorandum and articles. The document will contain a great deal of detailed information about such matters as hanging out washing, as well as more important matters to do with the rules relating to how default of duties will be dealt with, the setting and collection of commonhold assessments, and so on. Other items that will be dealt with in detail in individual commonholds will be, for example, putting out the rubbish for collection, or, as has already been pointed out, the keeping of pets.
The bulk of the document will be the plans and description of the development, much of which will be dictated by regulations issued by the Land Registry. We think that that kind of detail should be dealt with in regulations. It will allow us to keep up with the market, to amend the rules if they are found in some respects to be unworkable or if times change and circumstances require. We have provided the model documents as invited to by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Before the Minister sits down, I should like him to clarify two points. First, is what is contained in the commonhold community statement a template of best practice or a requirement? Secondly, in the draft that I have certain paragraphs

CWH 67
are in square brackets. Are those particularly significant? For example, are those the ones that are best practice and are the rest requirements? I am not clear whether there is any significance in the different typeface and the way that some paragraphs are put in square brackets.
Lord Bach: Like the noble Lord, we are feeling our way. We are trying week by week to give a fresh draft of this important statement so that when it comes to putting a final draft to the House, which we will have to do in due course if the Bill becomes law, we have it right. I hope the noble Lord will indulge me by not insisting on an answer to his very direct questions. We are trying to get it right; it is supposed to be a template; they are supposed to be the kind of regulations that will assist, some of which will be standard and others will be open to flexibility.
The Earl of Caithness: On the first day of Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that there were areas on the statement out of which one could not contract. I think that followed up my point that we wanted as simple and standard a document as possible. Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that for the third draft that he presents to us the items that cannot be changed between the parties, the ones that are absolutely standard for every unit, should be in one typeface, and items that can be changed between the parties and additions should be in another typeface.
Lord Bach: I thank the noble Earl for that suggestion, which we will certainly take on board. I am very grateful to him.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Constitution]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 14, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 47, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 48. The Minister's response to my noble friend Lord Caithness in the dying moments of the last series of interchanges has helped me to shorten my own contribution to the debate on these amendments.
From what the Minister said, I take it that he is prepared to reconsider the balance between what is in the schedule to the Bill and what might be dealt with by regulations in the content of the memorandum of association and the commonhold community statement. I profoundly agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness that it is very important to have some clear standard provisions on the face of the Bill—even if they are only in a schedule—rather than to leave them to regulations which can be changed from month to month or from year to year by a procedure which does not allow your Lordships' House to table amendments to any document proffered by the government of the day.
Behind the amendments that I have tabled to Clause 33 and Schedule 3 lies a wider concern. It is whether the Government are using too powerful an
CWH 68
instrument—that is to say, the memorandum and articles of association under the Companies Acts to deal with a series of problems that may more simply be dealt with by a tailor-made form of association and set of rules.
Some commonhold associations will cover a very small number of unit-holders, where the management problems they face are relatively straightforward. Is it right that they should be faced with the full panoply of the Companies Acts as a framework within which to pursue their management responsibilities? I would go further than that. If the Government insist on using the Companies Acts as the basic framework for the management of a commonhold association, would it not be better to adopt the model of a company limited by shares rather than a company limited by guarantee?
I can see in that situation at least two advantages that would accrue to the commonhold association. First, the association would be able to differentiate between unit-holders who had different degrees of interest in the association, perhaps by having some shares as category A shares and other shares as category B shares.
Secondly, it would provide a simple solution to the problem that I raised when we discussed the first set of amendments; that is, the problem of requiring individual unit-holders to meet their obligations with respect to the common property. A simple provision which prevented the transfer of a share from vendor to purchaser until the vendor had met all his obligations could achieve the same result as a forfeiture provision, or a provision similar to forfeiture of the kind I sought to describe in my earlier amendment. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Before I speak to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79, which have been included in this group, I shall touch briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said about the corporate structure. I know this will come up in subsequent amendments but as the noble Lord has raised it now, it might be convenient to deal with it briefly.
I strongly disagree with him about the suitability of company limited by shares, since the whole nature of a commonhold association is that it should be on a one member, one vote basis. There should not be votes weighted by shares or share capital; nor should there be different kinds of shares. However, I wonder whether the Government have considered the possibility of allowing CHAs to be set up—as an alternative to a company limited by guarantee—as a limited liability partnership, under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act passed in the previous Session. It was set up as a "cheap and cheerful" form of incorporation, suitable for small businesses and with very considerable simplification as compared with the ordinary company. This might be suitable for small CHAs, where only four or five people are involved, all of whom wish to take part in the running of the organisation. I would like to think about the matter further and possibly to bring it back at Report stage.

CWH 69
I turn to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. The former deals with the fact that under Clause 31(1), regulations make provision for the content of commonhold community statements and many "permit, require or prohibit" the inclusion of certain provisions. Under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3, the regulations require to make provision about the form and contents of the memorandum and articles of the company.
The memorandum and articles of the CHA and the commonhold community statement are obviously of central importance to the future of commonhold. I welcome the production of drafts but these are still at a very early stage. They will need a good deal of further consultation and working out. The House will need an opportunity to give them a proper debate.
I accept, and again disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that it is more appropriate to have these matters in regulations than on the face of the Bill. The memorandum and articles and the community statements will require modification from time to time. Indeed, since the Companies Act 1985, even the standard table A (they are now tables A to G) of the various types of company is contained in regulations, rather than being set out in a schedule to the Companies Act. That seems a perfectly suitable precedent for the memorandum and articles of a company of this kind.
However, I have some concern about the memorandum in particular. This seems too long, compared with normal memoranda, and too broad. For example, taking together paragraphs 3.21, 3.22, 3.40 and 3.41, a commonhold association could set up in business as the developers of a beach resort in the Canary Islands or of an office building in Hong Kong, without doing anything contrary to the memorandum.
The community statement also needs vetting. For instance, Article 58, which is obligatory, states that except with the consent of the directors of the CHA, no unit-holder can have in the unit any,
"mechanical, scientific or electrical apparatus other than ordinary domestic electrical appliances".
Thus, permission would be necessary for, for example, a disabled person to keep an electric powered wheelchair in his flat, that clearly not being an ordinary domestic electrical appliance. It would also cover any apparatus that was mechanical but not electrical; for instance, a hand-powered coffee grinder. At least in the second draft the ban on having pets without the consent of the association has been downgraded from a compulsory to an optional provision.
In the draft, of course, some provisions are obligatory and some are optional. I am concerned—in this I follow what was said in the previous debate by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—about the status of these optional provisions. Can they be modified? For example, would it be possible to include a requirement that cats could be kept without the consent of the commonhold association but that consent would be required to keep dogs on the grounds that they are noisier and messier?
CWH 70
Can the CHA decide that the community statement should include other provisions—in addition to those that are set out in the drafts—provided that they are not inconsistent with the obligatory rules? That is a very important point. There is no indication on the face of the Bill and we do not know what the regulations will say about that. Is everything prohibited from inclusion in the community statement which is not either required or expressly permitted by the rules?
We need a proper discussion of these matters. I strongly suggest that, although we have had a chance to see them, because of the early state of both the memorandum and articles and the community statement, it would be appropriate for the first set of them to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in order that we may, in due course, discuss them properly.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My main experience is as a unit-holder and, therefore, I cannot say that I have ever been much involved in the direct management of the company. However, I phoned Australia a week or so ago to ask about that and to ask, in particular, whether the full obligations of company law came with being the owner of the unit. I was told, no; it came within a slightly different company law. It came under a specific category but you filed your returns and annual accounts in the usual way. I wonder, therefore, whether the Minister could find out more from New South Wales about exactly how this ties in with normal commercial law or company law.
I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Good hart, on what is a normal appliance. There is nothing more normal, in these days when we are so aware of disability, for someone to want to have an electric wheelchair. If I were a unit-holder, I would certainly defend until the last my right to my electric wheelchair. The noble Lord's coffee grinder and electric wheelchair were not particularly good examples. However, I take his point about cats and dogs.
My own experience is that you can agree anything provided that you attend the management meeting and that those present at the management meeting all choose to accept whatever is proposed. Those who do not attend meetings find that matters go ahead in a way that they do not particularly like. Therefore, the message is that you have to take an active part in your commonhold, to be there and help to make the decisions.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The Minister was most kind in his response to my earlier inquiry. We all agree that commonhold is an idea whose time has come, but there are some of us who fear that commonhold will never happen because leasehold will continue to run on. That has been discussed already.
However, one of the things that will make commonhold happen is for there to be as simple a set of documents as possible. At the moment, there are 47 pages in the commonhold community statement and the memorandum of association and it is an inexorable trend that these documents will become

CWH 71
longer as we go on. I hope that the Minister will prevent civil servants from running away with the ball on this. This could become 70, 80 or 90 pages—I remind the Minister of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. If it becomes complicated and difficult, far fewer people will seek to use it, because it will just be so complicated to understand.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the way that the objects in the memorandum have been set out. I find it extraordinary that, in paragraph 3.31, it should be permissible to lend money or to give credit. I am not quite sure why a commonhold would be lending money and I am not sure that that does not take it into another set of regulations in any case.
Baroness Hamwee: With regard to the memorandum of association, is the use only of object clauses and no powers at all intentional? Is that particular to this form of company?
Lord Selsdon: I should declare an interest in that I have enfranchised, as I explained at Second Reading. I then ended up having created a right to enfranchise and a right to manage a company. With the best legal brains in the country, we created our memorandum and articles of association, which are only a few pages long. We had an extraordinarily difficult time, because people who had never been directors of a company were asked to be directors of a company. At an extraordinary annual general meeting, with the right notice being served, we persuaded every tenant to agree to be a director. Then one of them asked, "What happens if someone falls off a ladder? Am I liable?" And then all the anxiety and fears arose, and we had to take out all the extra insurances.
We then found that we had sought permission to file relatively limited accounts. That was fairly complicated but, in the end, we got it down to one page and, 18 months later, we filed the accounts. The whole activity relates entirely to neighbourliness, if that is the word. If you know each other, there is no problem. You explain all the difficulties, such as the problem you may have about the parrot, or the noise on the floors above. However, it is when you are different from each other that the problems arise. I would hesitate to make the point, but the longer documentation is, the more likely it is to make people nervous.
I hope we can make it shorter. Should the Minister feel willing to consider what we managed to do, I shall willingly send him a copy. I feel that the corporate entity of a limited liability company is just as good as that which is proposed at the moment.
Lord Bridges: Like the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, perhaps I may make a contribution to the debate based on some experience. I live in a small house in Pimlico. It is held on leasehold and is divided between four tenants. We have had some difficulties in this property. The superior leaseholder had the right to appoint a managing agent who would set up a management company whose expenses we would subscribe to. The
CWH 72
management agent he appointed, although a well-known firm, failed to submit the company's return and so it was struck of the companies' register, whereupon the tenants in this house got together and told the landlord that he had appointed a rotten agent. We said we would get the company put back on the register and run it ourselves.
We have done that and it works very satisfactorily—it is very economic—but I am sure that we will approach this legislation in the hope that it will be possible to turn the procedures in the Bill to a vehicle to having the right to acquire the freehold, with the management company playing a part in that. I hope that the machinery in the Bill will be sufficiently flexible to allow all these various different circumstances—we all have slightly different experiences—to be taken into account in a flexible piece of legislation. As I work my way through the legislation, I find it rather difficult to see that that is what would happen.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Bach: We have had an extremely useful and interesting discussion on this set of amendments. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly those who have done so from their own experiences. One of the great advantages of the Committee stage in this House is that we can gather from people's experiences and what they tell us when we are preparing the documents that will eventually be put before the House.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about Amendment No. 78. I do not think that he spoke to it. He spoke to Amendment No. 79, with which I shall deal—I hope to his pleasure—in due course.
Lord Goodhart: That was a paving amendment to cover subsections (4) and (5) of Amendment No. 79. It removes Clause 61(2)(e) which makes all regulations under this part subject to the negative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 79 includes a provision in subsection (4), so the first regulations under Clause 31 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 have to have the affirmative resolution procedure and then other regulations have the negative procedure.
Lord Bach: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. We have taken Amendments Nos. 78 and 79, not just to deal with Clause 31 and Schedule 2(3), but also Clause 3(1)(e), Clause 3(2)(f), and Clause 19(4). I want to make sure that I answer his points correctly. The noble Lord has not dealt with the three earlier points.
Lord Kingsland: I believe that my recollection is at fault. I thought that we had covered most of that last time. Briefly, I felt that Clause 3(1)(e)—the power to prescribe classes of person whose consent is required—and Clause (3)(2)(f), which enables the court to dispense with the requirement to consent in specified circumstances, were important powers which ought to be exercised only by the affirmative resolution procedure.

CWH 73
The most important, however, was Clause 19(4) which states:
"Regulations may modify a rule of law about leasehold estates (whether deriving from the common law or from an enactment) in its application to a term of years in a commonhold unit".
That is an extensive Henry VIII power and, in particular, is one which ought have the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord. The amendments in this group have in common the aim of requiring provision which is to be made by regulations either to be put on the face of the Bill or to be made by way of affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure. Subject to what I say about Amendment No. 79, with a view that all matters covered are appropriate for regulations made by negative resolution procedure, the first three amendments in this group, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would effectively require the model memorandum and articles of commonhold association to be fixed on the face of the Bill.
We believe we have reached a stage of development of the draft model memorandum and articles which makes its likely contents clear, although we are far from having reached any final decisions about the document that we put before the House, and that fixing it on the face of the Bill would, on balance, forsake flexibility and the ability to consult further for minimal gain and certainty.
During discussion on the previous group, I said to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that it was not that we would put these matters on the face of the Bill, but that when we drafted our next draft, as it were, we would distinguish between what we saw as something that was definite on all, and those on which there could be options. I think that was clear to him when I said it.
We believe that we have it right in regulations and those first three amendments should not be pressed.
Before I move to the fourth and fifth amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked why not a tailor-made association or set of rules. We remember that the 1996 Bill to create a free-standing vehicle produced great complexity on the face of that Bill, which came in for considerable—and perhaps justified—criticism and did not produce the simplicity for which we are all searching.
The noble Lord mentioned interest in the idea of making this a company guaranteed by shares. We agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the essential nature of commonhold being one member one vote. As to his cheap and cheerful suggestion about the Limited Liability Partnerships Act, we will consider that, and no doubt he will consider it further. Our inclination is to say that it is perhaps new and untried and that a company limited by guarantee is a fairly simple and well understood structure. I suspect that we would need some persuading before we changed from such a company limited by guarantee.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. These amendments would subject certain sets of regulations to the affirmative resolution procedure. Subsection (3)
CWH 74
of Amendment No. 79 would cover regulations made under Clause 3(1)(e), Clause 3(2)(f) and Clause 19(4). We believe that on balance these are matters of detail of the kind to which regulations are well suited. There is nothing here of significant policy impact. 'They are all powers to enable flexible and targeted provision—where, for example, the shoe pinches—to ease potential blockages or difficulties. For example, while the power in respect of consents may appear wide-ranging, it is intended as a safety net to protect the interests of people in certain circumstances in which the change to commonhold might damage their interests.
As to Clause 19(4), which was described as a Henry VIII power, we do not think that it is as drastic as it looks. It is directed only to rules of landlord and tenant law which may be found to cut across or be inimical to the rules governing leasing within commonholds. Some, if not all, of those rules have already been addressed in consequential amendments, although we cannot be sure that we have caught them all. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that that clause was brought to the attention of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee by my officials—that committee not having spotted that clause—and we were told that the committee was satisfied. I recall his sad account of events last week on that matter.
I turn to subsection (4) of the amendment, which would affect the first set of regulations under Clause 31 which governs the CCS, and Schedule 2(3) which governs the content of the memorandum and articles of commonhold association. We accept that much more work needs to be done on those. That is one of the points of bringing out drafts at proper intervals. When we have reached a conclusion on them, both documents will go out to wide consultation outside the House before they are introduced in the House. I was asked about optional and mandatory. We take the point. We want to have a closer look and to be able to say which we see as which when we come to those final documents.
The report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee referred to Clause 31 and Schedule 2(3) and stated:
"The House may wish to see a draft or at least the principal elements of the regulations before reaching a decision about the merits of the provisions. Failing that, the House may think it appropriate that the first set of regulations in each case should require affirmative procedure".
We recognise entirely why that very respected committee reported as it did. We have circulated models of the documents—first and second drafts—and those revised drafts will be subject to further refinement, particularly in the light of this debate and other debates that we hold in Committee and elsewhere, and subject to wider consultation. Nevertheless, they are substantial drafts which we believe amply fulfil the requirements of the committee. So we could be excused from going to the second part of the committee's recommendation, which was that if we did not provide drafts we should agree to affirmative resolution. I am happy to tell the Committee that we have taken the view—and I hope

CWH 75
that the Committee will agree—that they are such important documents that, in principle at least, there is a good deal to be said for the suggestion that they should come back to the House and be subject to the affirmative rather than negative procedure. That is how our mind is working at present. We recognise the concerns underlying the new subsections in Amendment No. 79. I invite the Committee to allow us to consider in good time for the Report stage whether that approach is appropriate. I make no guarantee but we believe that they may well be appropriate for affirmative resolution.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. It is a concession that I hope will be made. While I recognise that the Government have done their best to produce drafts and have now produced two versions of the documents, there may well be substantial changes before they become a draft order. There will be a good deal of consultation and it is right that they should come back for affirmative resolution. Unfortunately, it is not possible later to amend them at that stage, but it will be possible to have a proper debate in your Lordships' House.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister very much indeed for his extremely full response not only to my amendment but also to those tabled by others. The contributions from all sides of the Committee have helped to focus on the underlying issues that the amendments sought to reveal.
I draw some comfort from what the Minister said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the affirmative procedure for the regulations. However, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has rightly pointed out that even with an affirmative resolution, your Lordships' House is unable to amend the underlying document. I regard that as a serious defect. I therefore put the Minister on notice that on Report I shall seek to make both the commonhold association agreement and the commonhold community statement schedules to the Bill so that at Third Reading they can be amended.
I accept that it may be appropriate to retain the use of regulatory procedures for some elements in those documents, but I am convinced that the balance at the moment between what is in Schedule 3 and what is, for example, in the commonhold association agreement is wrong. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Commonhold association]:
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Duty to manage]:
Lord Brennan moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 15, line 8, after ("if') insert ("this will not involve any significant financial disadvantage to the other unit holders and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 50, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 52. Both amendments affect Clause 34, which is a critically important clause. It creates on the part of directors of community associations a specific duty to manage. In subsection (1) the primary objective of the directors is to give full effect to the rights and enjoyment of property of each unit-holder. These two amendments seek to improve subsection (3) which creates special considerations for the directors where there has been a failure by a particular unit-holder. The message of this Bill often includes the tedious but occasionally contains some linguistic charm. Last week we debated the concept of the flying commonhold. If one looks at Clause 34(3)(a) one finds the concept of inaction for the sake of harmony, which would surely be a suitable epitaph for the prime ministership of Stanley Baldwin. But considerable care should be exercised when one converts it into a legislative concept, and this amendment seeks to introduce such care.
Why? Let us take the example of 10 unit-holders, eight or nine of whom pay their dues regularly one or two of whom are recalcitrant. As the clause presently stands, the directors, who numerically may not represent the entire force of eight or nine unit-holders who pay, may decide that it is better for all of them to give up on the one or two recalcitrant unit-holders and let them get away with it. That puts a premium on intransigence by such defaulting unit-holders. The amendment introduces into subsection (3)(a) the concept that directors cannot choose not to act where the result would be financial difficulty for the majority who pay. The proposition is a simple one and I hope that it commends itself to the Government.
The second amendment deals with subsection (3)(b) which advises directors to have regard to the desirability of arbitration and other means of settlement, which is an entirely sensible approach. By the insertion of "particular" before "regard" I seek to introduce some emphasis. The Minister may well say that it adds nothing, and I may well agree. I choose the word because it is sufficiently puny to stimulate the parliamentary draftsman into a greater degree of emphasis, whereby directors choose legal representation as a last rather than first resort.
I hope that some form of wording can be introduced to make directors, as consistently as possible around the country, look to non-legal solutions before they approach lawyers. This is especially important if directors put the management of the units into the hands of management companies which may have a financial incentive with friendly lawyers to go to court at the first opportunity. Those are the purposes of the two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Selsdon: The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, raises one of the more difficult issues; namely, non-payment of service charges and the consequential impact upon the maintenance of the building or upon others. It is unfortunate that as the law stands people who live abroad, or who may be on holiday, always find plenty of excuses as to why certain things have or have not happened. The matter goes far beyond "the cheque is

CWH 77
in the post". People transfer their properties and obtain permissions of landlords or companies without having paid their service charges. The problem is that that burden often falls on others, some of whom have retired, who have made careful budgets for the amount that they must pay. There needs to be some protection within the Bill. I am not sure that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord are correct. I had thought that perhaps penalties should be imposed with the right to charge interest at the exorbitant rate charged by many credit card companies. It is a difficult issue and, as the Bill is about money, where money is not paid when it is due the issue should be properly addressed.
Baroness Hamwee: Like the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I found the introduction of the maintaining of harmonious relationships an interesting one to be brought in by legislation. It makes me wonder how this provision lies with the director's normal fiduciary responsibility. Does this provision mean that that normal responsibility is somehow downgraded? I do not know the answer to that and should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us.
Lord Goodhart: The point raised by my noble friend introduces the subject matter of Amendment No. 51, which is in the next group but should probably have been grouped with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I am quite happy to take that separately or to take it now, whichever would be preferable.
Lord Bach: I can be brief in what I have to say. Those who heard the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and his praise of the language of the Bill, in particular the phrase "maintaining harmonious relationships", will not easily forget the comments he made. No one has yet sought to delete that phrase from the Bill and I trust and hope that no one will.
As regards my noble friend's two amendments, we are interested in both of them; perhaps more the first than the second. With the permission of Members of the Committee and of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I should like to take them away and consider them. If we feel that there is something in them, we will table amendments with which he will not be dissatisfied, perhaps more likely in respect of Amendment No. 50 than Amendment No. 52.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I do not know the answer. Rather than guess, perhaps I may write to her after due reflection as to whether it affects the position on the duty of directors under the Companies Act.
Lord Brennan: The Minister has been helpful in his reply. In closing on the issue of duty to manage, I suggest that in all the various clauses with which we will deal, the one question that unit-holders when they meet will ask is, "What are we here for?". The clause requires that directors shall manage in the best interests of the unit-holders.
CWH 78
I noticed at a glance, though I have not studied it carefully, that the memorandum of association makes no reference to the duty to manage. That seems unfortunate. Neither does the community statement explain to people who may not be trained lawyers how they should implement Clause 34. I do not wish to extend this document. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, rightly said, it should be reduced to its simplest form. Those around the Minister in his department could probably do it on two sheets of paper. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 51
Page 15, line 9, leave out from ("of") to ("and") in line 10 and insert ("the commonhold association")
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 51. Perhaps I may take advantage of the relative informality of these proceedings. We had mentioned in the previous debate and indeed in earlier ones of how to take proceedings against somebody who fails to pay up and how to enforce them. Would I be right in thinking that, while there is no provision here for forfeiture, there is nothing to prevent a common hold association, which is owed money by a unit- holder, seeking a charging order under the Charging Orders Act, if necessary using powers under that Act to sell the unit and recover the amount owing which had been unpaid?
I shall now move on to the proper subject of Amendment No. 51. Clause 34(3) appears, at any rate by implication, to allow directors to avoid action only if inaction will establish or maintain harmonious relationships; that is, they say they need not take action in specific circumstances and do not mention any other circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that he hoped that no one would remove the reference to the maintenance of harmonious relationships. That is exactly what the amendment does. It is of course desirable to maintain harmonious relationships but, first of all, there may be cases where action needs to be taken at risk of damage to relationships. Plainly, the maintenance of relationships is not the only possible justification for inaction.
I give one example. Let us say that one unit-holder, in the view of the directors, is not complying with his obligations. The directors are advised that their view is probably correct, but not certain. The particular unit-holder is known to be extremely litigious, as some of them are, and is likely to challenge any enforcement action; and, if he is successful, the CHA will incur substantial costs. It would be reasonable, therefore, for directors not to take action if the breach of obligation is not likely to have serious consequences for the other members. That is an example of the kind of case that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, had in mind.
It is a well established principle of company law that directors must act, or refrain from action, in the interests of the company. Why not simply apply the'

CWH 79
same principles here and say that the directors must act in the interests of the commonhold association as a whole, it being of course a matter for their judgment as to what the interests of the commonhold association are in the particular circumstances with which they are faced?
The Earl of Caithness: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, because the amendment makes the Bill clearer and the running of an association clearer. Perhaps I may ask the Minister—a well-known lawyer—what his opinion would be if there were a conflict of interest for the directors between establishing and maintaining harmonious relationships between the unit-holders and the interests of the community association. There could well be situations where that arises.
We go back to the point of law mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It is the primary duty of the directors of the commonhold association to look after that association.
Lord Kingsland: Clause 34 imposes on the commonhold association a duty to manage. Subsection (3) allows the directors of the association to decide not to act against the failure by a unit-holder to do something if they think it would maintain harmonious relationships between unit- holders.
These amendments—I refer to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in the previous group as well as to all the amendments in this group—provide variations on that theme. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would permit no action if it would be in the best interests of the commonhold association. My Amendment No. 54 has a similar effect. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, would allow inaction only where there would be no financial disadvantage to the others as a result. My Amendment No. 53 would disqualify a director from taking part in the decision if he or she were a defaulter.
I have now to choose between my two amendments. I believe that Amendment No. 54 is preferable to the other. Its effect is broader than that of Amendment No. 51, in that it requires the directors to exercise their whole duty to manage in the best interests of the association, rather than just give them discretion not to act. It continues to allow the directors not to act against every trivial infringement if that would maintain harmony in the community. The requirement to exercise discretion in the best interests of the community offers protection against directors not enforcing against their friends when it would be to the benefit of the whole community if they did act.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is not to receive a response to the amendment from a well known lawyer. The response comes from a less well known market researcher, but that is all that he is entitled to. I deal
CWH 80
first with the point about charging orders. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is correct that that is available to any commonhold association which seeks to enforce arrears against a recalcitrant unit-holder.
I turn to the amendments in this group. Amendment No. 51 removes the felicitous phrase "harmonious relationships". I would also be sad to see that go. The amendment would tend to blur the distinction between the commonhold association and its members in their capacity as unit-holders. As it stands the subsection is intended to allow the commonhold association to choose not to take formal action against a unit-holder if it seems best not to do so, without forfeiting its right to take action later against the same unit-holder, or any other unit-holder, for that or some other infraction.
We expect there to be two broad types of complaint within commonholds, in the same way as there are now in leasehold blocks or other circumstances in which people live together cheek by jowl. One will be the more formal type in which the association itself considers taking steps to deal with some failure, or compel some action by a unit-holder. The other will be a complaint about one unit-holder that is brought to the notice of the association by another with more or less justification. The association by its directors is already bound to permit or facilitate the exercise by unit-holders of their right to, and enjoyment of, their freehold estate in their units by virtue of Clause 34(1). By virtue of Clause 34(2) it is directed to use the powers created by Clause 36 to deal with infractions or failures by unit-holders.
Clause 34(3) is designed to be a safety valve. If the directors of the association, acting with the best interests of the association in mind—as they are bound to do by virtue of their office—genuinely believe that inaction in the face of a complaint is more likely than not to establish or maintain good relations between the unit-holders, that permits them to exercise some discretion. They may legitimately refuse to take formal action against a unit-holder who hangs out the washing on a Sunday afternoon in contravention of the CCS, thinking instead that a quiet informal word with the unit-holder, perhaps when meeting in the lift or over coffee, would be more conducive to good relations than the legalistic step of issuing the notice that they would be entitled to serve. Therefore, nothing is taken away but something is added. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that does sit with the directors' normal fiduciary duties; it will operate side by side. It will not be possible to decline to take action where inaction will damage the company or unfairly prejudice its members, or any class of them. Amendment No. 51, therefore, misses the point that there is an opportunity on the face of the Bill for directors of the association, who must always have the best interests of the association in mind, to use some discretion in order to help promote good relations between the unit-holders; in other words, to exercise people rather than business skills. After all, without good relations and goodwill no amount of efficient running of the association and serving of notices will make the commonhold a good place in which to live,

CWH 81
and that is what Part I of the Bill is about. With some reluctance, we believe that we are better off with the Bill as it stands.
I turn to the three remaining amendments in this group. I shall pass over Amendment No. 53 which is not the preferred amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
In the case of Amendment No. 54, the duty of directors comes under the Companies Act. A director's duty is always to act in the best interests of the company. There is nothing to be gained and there is potential for confusion if that duty appears expressed differently in a multiplicity of places in the statute book. Our decision to opt for a Companies Act vehicle for the commonhold association was not capricious. It was taken in the knowledge that we import with it many useful concepts which fit well with our policy intentions.
Amendment No. 75 imposes explicitly on the directors of the commonhold association a duty which is implicit but perfectly clear from Clause 32 read together with Clauses 11 and 24. The purchase of a part of a commonhold by a compulsory purchaser will give rise to a change in the physical confirmation of the coin rnonhold. Clause 11 provides a definition of a commonhold unit by reference, inter cilia, to plans. Clause 24 defines the common parts as all that land within the commonhold which is not for the time being a unit. In both cases, the definition is made by means of the CCS. It follows that a change brought about by compulsory purchase, or indeed any other sale or purchase, must be recorded in the CCS.
Lord Kingsland: The Minister said that the duties under the Companies Act must be implied into the Bill. However, I wonder how he feels about circumstances in which the duty under the Companies Act would conflict with the contents of Clause 24(3)(a).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said in respect of Amendment No. 51 that if there were to be a conflict, or if an action would result in damage to the company, the directors would have to intervene. This gives them an additional discretion only to do or not do something without going through the full formality. Nothing takes away either from their rights as directors or from their duties as directors under the Companies Act.
Lord Selsdon: As a former market researcher, perhaps I may help a little. We are talking here about the definition of the phrase "duties of care". There is a mixture of duties of care as a director, but there is a duty of care to everybody as a unit-holder and to take into account their personal circumstances which may vary from one to the other. Perhaps if the phrase "duties of care" could be used, it would be easier for some of us to understand.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: too, am a former market researcher. Clearly, I would not be standing here if I still were. My answer would be that the Companies Act applies. I do not have the full volume of the Companies Act in front of me, nor indeed the
CWH 82
single volume from the review committee. If "duty of care" was used there, it applies here. If it was not, it does not.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister but I am not entirely convinced by his argument. It seems to me that the maintenance of harmonious relationships may very well be in the interests of the commonhold association as a body; frequently it will be. If so, there is no need for a specific reference. If it is not in the interests of the commonhold association, it would be wrong to refuse to take action simply to maintain harmonious relationships.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The failsafe is the other way. They can always take action in the interests, and indeed they are obliged to take action in the interests of the commonhold association. If there is any question of damage to the interests of commonhold hold associations, they are obliged to take action. This is a let out where there is no issue of damage.
Lord Goodhart: If the Government take that view, and if they are not prepared to accept my amendment, it would be desirable to accept the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in order to put that point on the face of the Bill and leave no room for doubt in the minds of the court or, more importantly, in the minds of directors or their advisers who may be required to read the Bill and decide what it means.
I should also point out that the maintenance of harmonious relationships may not only be between unit-holders but between occupiers who are not unit-holders. That is another reason why the reference to maintaining harmonious relationships between the unit-holders is inappropriate. Be that as it may, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 54 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Enforcement and compensation]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 16, line 7, leave out paragraph (g)
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 55 seeks to remove the requirement for the regulations to make provision for a tenant of a let unit to enforce a duty against another tenant, unit-holder or the association. Amendment No. 56 seeks to enable a tenant to pay any moneys owing on the unit to the association if his landlord, the unit owner, were in default, and then to offset that sum against the money that he owed to the landlord in order to avoid any risk of double payment.
Although there is a logic in allowing those who live in the units a right to seek enforcement of obligations against others, we believe, as a matter of principle, that enforcement should remain between unit owners and the association and that subsection (2)(g) should be deleted for that reason.
The problems that this provision seeks to overcome can be dealt with by using other legislation or via the provisions of the tenancy agreement. This provision

CWH 83
grants tenants of rented units greater rights than they would enjoy elsewhere. Allowing the tenant to offset money paid to the association from that owed to the landlord enables the tenant to protect his own position if the landlord is in default, while ensuring that the overall effect does not see him double charged. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may ask the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, whether this would cover the kind of situation that has occurred frequently in the past. I refer to a situation where someone might receive an electricity bill which the tenant in the property knew nothing about; the non-resident landlord, who was perhaps overseas, would fail to pay it and the tenant was then at risk of having the electricity cut off. Is that kind of problem covered? It is quite relevant.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 affect the rights of tenants. Amendment No. 55 would remove the subsection in Clause 36 that would allow a tenant of a unit-holder to enforce a term of the CCS, the memorandum and articles or some other term of the Act against others in the commonhold. This provision was included to balance the fact that a tenant would be subject, at the minimum, to the terms and conditions of the CCS as part of his lease or other agreement. Clause 19 allows such obligations to be imposed, whatever else the lease may do. It seems to us to be wrong to deny the tenant the protections available in the same document by failing to apply Clause 36(2)(g), which is what Amendment No. 55 would do.
Amendment No. 56 merely duplicates the provisions of Clause 19(3)(a), which provides that any sums paid by the tenant to the commonhold association in default of the unit-holder may be set against sums owed by the tenant, or indeed, under subsection (3)(b), may be recovered from the unit-holder.
There seems to be some sense in Amendment No. 57. If regulations are to make provision for the payment of compensation in certain circumstances, it seems proper that they should be required to say how the necessary calculations are to be made and what provision should be made for late payment. I undertake to come back to the House at Report stage with the definitive answer when we have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the draftsmen.
As to the point about electricity bills raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, this part of the Bill applies only to matters arising from the memorandum and articles, the CCS or elsewhere in the Bill. It does not cover other matters.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister for his reaction to Amendment No. 57, but less happy about his response to the other two amendments upon which I shall reflect before Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.00 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Goodhart: There seems to be far too much provision in this Bill for matters to be covered by regulations. Clause 36 is dispensable and does not appear to be necessary. In law a memorandum and article constitute a contract between members of the company. They can enforce rights conferred on them by the memorandum and articles against each other as a matter of contract law. Would it not be simpler to provide for the commonhold community statement to be binding, as if it were a contract between all the unit-holders for the time being? It may be necessary to add a little to this, for example to provide that obligations are enforceable by the tenants of the unit-holders as well as by and against the unit-holders themselves. But, surely, it is not necessary to have a massive set of regulations to cover these matters. This is overkill and can be done by a much shorter clause that does not involve the making of regulations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a very interesting suggestion. If some way could be found to shorten both the Bill and regulations without damage we would look at it. My first reaction is that Clause 36 is helpful because it sets out in ways which are available to everybody the principles on which the regulations shall be drawn. If, however, it is felt that, unusually, a greater degree of delegation is required—perhaps it is not unusual given the noble Lord's membership of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—we are happy to consider the point.
Lord Goodhart: I do not propose a greater degree of delegation; rather, I suggest that this clause can be replaced by a simple one which treats the commonhold community statement as a contract between the members but is extended simply to make it binding on those who buy and on tenants and unit-holders. However, I shall consider that further.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Commonhold assessment]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 16, line 22, after ("to") insert ("prepare an annual statement of projected expenses which the association might reasonably expect to incur and")
The noble Lord said: This amendment would require the directors of the commonhold association to prepare an estimate of expenditure as well as income. The present Clause 37(1)(a) is intended to place an obligation on the directors of the association to prepare an annual budget. We believe that simply requiring an estimate of the income needed is inadequate. This provision could be fulfilled by stating a figure without offering any justification as to how or why that figure was reached. The purpose of the

CWH 85
amendment is to oblige the directors to provide an estimate of expenditure in order to render the budget more precise. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I do not know why my Amendment No. 60 is grouped with Amendment No. 59, as they do not seem to bear any relationship to one another. However, before speaking to my amendment, I should like to query the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Is he saying that people will be able to charge on the basis of the projected expenses rather than the actual budget, or is he saying that it will be just a procedure in arriving at the budget? That is quite important as people who have properties in leasehold blocks at the moment often find that people make a budget and charge a great deal of money over what is required. Then at the end of the year they find that the second payment is less but they have been out of pocket all that time on the projected budget.
With regard to my own amendment, it is not connected at all with Amendment No. 59. It deals with a situation that already exists in leasehold property and I believe that it could very easily happen in commonhold. I can quote the instance of a block near where I live where, after 100 per cent of the costs were allocated to all of the people in the building, little niches were discovered, which I believe had been broom cupboards, which were brought into residential use. Those residents had a zero service charge because 100 per cent of the cost was already allocated.
A similar situation occurs where people build another one or two floors on top of a block, which is common practice in London at the moment. It certainly could occur if your commonhold was enlarged. You might be able to extend and build further over what was previously an open space. Therefore, it is most important that, with the inclusion of any additional unit into a commonhold, there should be a complete restructuring of the percentages of costs borne by each resident. Although the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the point about one person, one vote—it should not matter whether the unit is big or small—the share of the property for which you meet the costs is related to the size of your unit. Even if you hold only one unit, if you have a unit twice the size of the man next door, you will certainly be expected to pay more of the general upkeep of the building.
A real situation arises where 100 per cent is already allocated and, when additional units are brought in, there seems to be no power at the moment to bring those into the reckoning. The people already in the block would then, if anything, have their percentage reduced. It might not mean that their payment was reduced but it would be very wrong if they were paying out costs for the other people.
Lord Bach: We do not believe that Amendment No. 59 would add anything to the operation of Clause 37(1)(a). At present, that clause requires the directors to make an annual estimate of the income required to meet the expenses of the association. The new words
CWH 86
which the amendment would add would require them to prepare an annual statement of projected expenses which the association might reasonably expect to incur. We believe that the added words are implicit in the clause as it stands, because without the projected expenditure, how could there possibly be an annual estimate of the income required to meet that expenditure? We need to be persuaded that the amendment, if carried, would add anything at all to the obvious meaning of the clause. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that her amendment has nothing to do with the previous amendment, save that it comes in the same part of the Bill. I see the point at which the noble Baroness is driving, but I will do my best to convince her shortly that the job is already done. I invite her to look at Clause 37(1)(c) on page 16 at line 28 and onwards. Any new units in a commonhold must appear as amendments to the commonhold community statement.
The provision to which I have referred requires the CCS to specify the percentage allocated to each unit—and and I emphasise those words, which are in the Bill. That will mean that, however many units there are from time to time, the allocation of the assessment must be made between all of them—always bearing in mind that it is possible to allocate 0 per cent if that is considered appropriate.
I hope that that meets the noble Baroness's point and satisfies—
The Earl of Caithness: Will the Minister give way on that point? This is crucial. He did say "any new unit" but what about a part of a unit? Like my noble friend Lady Gardner, I know a number of examples where parts of the building that were once common parts have been absorbed within a leasehold flat. They would now be absorbed within a commonhold unit, thus altering the useable square footage of that unit. Therefore the percentage of the cost payable should be allowed to be altered by any addition, whether it is a new unit or part of a new unit.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Earl.I am advised that what he suggests—taking over a part of what was common parts into a unit—could not be done without the commonhold community statement being altered. In other words, not even that can be done without the CCS being altered.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Despite what the Minister says, I have seen that such blocks exist. The landlord and head lessee have chosen not to allocate any costs whatever to the additional area and that has been very unfair to other people in the block. The view has been taken that if we already have 100 per cent we do not need any more. However, people should have the additional proportion taken into account. I am not entirely satisfied that the wording here will ensure that that happens.
Lord Selsdon: Perhaps I may try to help the noble Lord. This is a very complicated issue. Unfortunately, most of the service charges are based upon the old-fashioned rateable value. That often relates not to the

CWH 87
size of a unit but more to the value at that particular time. It takes no account of how a particular unit within a building may have been improved dramatically and have a higher value.
There is a difficulty. If you have 10 units which contribute 100 per cent of the cost in accordance with their lease, you cannot vary their contribution without mutual agreement on every lease and it is practically impossible to achieve that. However, it was originally suggested that you just make it 104, 105 or 106 per cent, and add 6 per cent, or whatever it might be, on to each additional unit. If it were possible within the Bill to amend the historic service charges being related to rateable value, that would be a wonderful achievement—but I believe it would be nigh on impossible.
Lord Jacobs: I rise to support both amendments. I shall deal first with the Government's amendment. When we used to have rateable values, when you extended your home—and it could be an extra floor on an apartment building—someone would come along and re-rate you immediately. In other words, you had to pay a greater share of the rates because of your extension of area. There is no doubt that if in a block of flats a number of areas are either extended or taken into account, which were perhaps not used before, the share of the charges should be varied. I agree it is extremely difficult to vary them between a whole group of leases, but if this amendment enables that to be done I strongly support it.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I did not fully understand the Minister. The noble Lord said that, obviously, one prepared the estimated income required from the expenditure and that was all that was needed. As a tenant of a block of flats, when one receives the service charges one knows exactly what one is required to pay. One does not look at how the income is derived from all the tenants in the building but how the money is to be spent. If one is to examine what the directors or the management company have decided is necessary, one must look very carefully at the detailed elements of expenditure. Only in that way can one judge fairly whether the income that is required for the building is properly derived.
I agree with the Minister's statement that one cannot arrive at the income without having examined the expenditure, but the preparation of a detailed list of required expenditures which comprise the full amount of the required income is very desirable. Today, the occupiers of any modern managed block—I know several people who live in such property—receive very detailed statements every year, sometimes half-yearly, which show how the expenditures have been estimated and how they are being incurred. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Bach: We are not persuaded by Amendment No. 59, and we believe that our reply to that is satisfactory. It is for the noble Lord to decide what to do with it.
CWH 88
As to Amendment No. 60, there seems to be some feeling about it. I have tried to persuade the noble Baroness in a few words and failed, and she has not yet persuaded me that her amendment is appropriate. If the noble Baroness is good enough not to move her amendment we can perhaps arrange a meeting between Committee stage and Report to try to persuade each other of our points of view.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am quite happy with that.
Lord Kingsland: The Minister said that it was for me to decide what to do with my amendment. As the Minister well knows, there is not very much that I can do with my amendment because the Government have insisted that the Committee stage of this Bill should take place in the Moses Room where we cannot put amendments to the vote.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government cannot and have not insisted; the usual channels have agreed it.
Lord Bach: As to what the noble Lord does with his amendment, I do not necessarily mean today but in the future.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful for that clarification from the Minister, which at least gives me some hope. I was much more impressed by the reaction to my amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. Nevertheless, since I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 38 [Reserve fund]:
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 17, line 1, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Earl said: We move on to Clause 38 which relates to the reserve fund. Amendment No. 62 requires the deletion of paragraph (b). I am very concerned about that paragraph which allows the reserve fund, into which all unit-holders have paid, to finance the repair and maintenance of commonhold units. That is not the purpose of the reserve fund. The purpose of the reserve fund is to deal with the common and structural parts of the building, including internal structural walls which might form part of a unit but which must remain the responsibility of the association. To have a provision such as this will merely encourage those bad leaseholders, as they are at the moment—in future, unit-holders—to be even more intransigent and difficult to deal with because they know that part of the reserved fund can be used for the repair and maintenance of their unit. I beg to move
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I listened with interest to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, but I believe that it

CWH 89
is quite important to have a sinking fund or reserve fund. As I understand it, he is suggesting that there should not be one. It is an important part of any unit. When the time comes to sell the unit, whoever is buying will ask about the seller's contribution to the sinking fund or reserve fund. It is used not only for what needs to be done on a routine basis. I have already declared an interest in that I own a flat in a block. There is no reserve fund. We find that a great disadvantage and we would like to have one. The only way to have one would be by getting the agreement of every single leaseholder in the block. It cannot be included at a later stage. I believe that it is important to maintain a reserve fund.
Lord Kingsland: Amendment No. 63 is grouped with these amendments. On mature reflection, I shall not move that amendment. On the other hand, I should like strongly to support Amendments Nos. 64 and 65, which stand in the name of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Lord Selsdon: I had not realised the extent of the sinking fund problem. It ties in with managing agents and irresponsible managing agents, but sinking funds or reserve funds are always held in trust. Presumably they are held in trust on behalf of all the unit-holders. I have worried about a statement in the consultative document on which people have commented. Management is a very trying business and unless it is clear, and unless issues such as this are clear, there is only friction.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 64 in my name, which seems to have become somewhat muddled with everything else. It is strange how my amendments are being grouped. If someone is making a demand for payment the date on which the payment is due should be quite clear on the document, particularly since, as has been mentioned by other Members of the Committee, we are all keen to charge interest to those who have not paid. It is important to know when one has to pay.
Lord Bach: The provision that Amendment No. 62 seeks to delete is not as odd as it might seem at first blush. In a sizeable commonhold development it might be thought convenient to have a caretaker living on site. In a commonhold sheltered community, a warden would be expected to live on site. In a very large commonhold development, the community association or its managing agents might well Find it convenient to use an easily accessible unit as an office. Of course, the unit could be redefined as part of the common parts, but we believe that retaining it as a unit could have advantages of flexibility and adaptability. For example, if one wanted to change where the caretaker's flat was, it would be easier to do so by making it a unit rather than a common part.
A commonhold association owning a unit or units for those purposes must have power to raise funds to maintain them. The power to raise funds in Clause 38(1)(a) applies to common parts, and these units are not common parts; they are units, the unit-holder of
CWH 90
which is the commonhold association itself. The commonhold association must be able to meet its responsibilities to maintain and insure such units. That is what Clause 38(1)(b) allows: no more, no less.
Amendment No. 64 seems on the face of it to be entirely reasonable. It would add to the certainty of the collection of levies for reserve funds. Indeed, if the logic of the amendment for this purpose were accepted, consideration should also be given to applying it to the notice to be issued for the collection of commonhold assessments under Clause 37(1)(e). I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, to withdraw her amendment today. I shall undertake to discover whether there are any hidden difficulties that we have not spotted in relation to her suggestion. If there are no such hidden problems, we shall come back on Report with a similar amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am happy with that. My other amendment, which has already been debated, could be dealt with in the same way and the two examined together. Again, it is a question of the interest running on the money. Amendment Nos. 64 and 65 seem to be connected, although they are not on the list.
Lord Bach: We dealt with Amendment No. 64 when we discussed Amendment No. 65.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I was saying that I shall not move Amendment No. 65 because we have already debated it, and it seems to me that it is part of the same parcel to be looked at later.
The Earl of Caithness: I listened with care to what the Minister said, and I should like to read the point more carefully in Hansard. Undoubtedly, where there is a warden, there will be special circumstances. Would the Minister consider an amendment along the lines of,
"to finance the repair and maintenance of any commonhold unit owned by the commonhold association"?
I make this suggestion in order to ensure that the issue is more specific and fair. At the moment, although the Minister said that it means no more and no less, that is not what it says in the Bill. How it can be interpreted? It can be interpreted as any unit in the block or in the development. I wonder whether the Minister would consider the possibility of such an amendment between now and another stage.
Lord Bach: Of course we will consider any amendment that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, puts forward. I would be grateful if he could send it to us in draft at the earliest possible opportunity. It gives us more time to consider it.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 65 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 17, line 20, at end insert—
("(3A) The assets of a fund established and maintained by virtue of this section shall be treated as monies reserved for future expenditure.
(3B) Any sums paid into a fund established and maintained by virtue of this section by a unit-holder, and any investments representing those sums, shall (together with any income accruing thereon) be held by the commonhold association either as a single fund, or, if the commonhold association deems appropriate, as two or more separate funds.
(3C) The commonhold association shall hold any trust fund—

(a) on trust to defray costs incurred in connection with the matters for which the relevant contributions were payable (whether incurred by the commonhold association itself or by another person), and

(b) subject to that, on trust for the persons who are the contributing unit-holders for the time being.

(3D) Subject to subsections (3F) and (3G), the contributing unit-holders shall be treated as entitled by virtue of subsection (3C)(b) above to such shares in the residue of any such fund as are proportionate to their respective liabilities to pay a percentage of the levy set under subsection (2) of this section.
(3E) If the Secretary of State by order so provides, any sums standing to the credit of any trust fund may, instead of being invested in any other manner authorised by law, be invested in such manner as may be specified in the order; and any such order may contain such incidental, supplemental or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with the order.
(3F) On the transfer of a commonhold unit, the unit-holder shall not be entitled to any part of any trust fund, and any part of such trust fund which is attributable to relevant contributions paid in accordance with this section, shall accordingly continue to be held on the trusts referred to in subsection (3C).
(3G) Any trust fund established under this section shall be exempt from any tax in respect of the contributions made to it by the unit-holders, whether (apart from this provision) a liability to tax may be imposed on the commonhold association or the contributing unit-holder.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 66 specifies that the reserve fund consists of sums held as future expenditure and are to be expended as such. It should, therefore, be treated as an exempt, tax-free fund, as the sums are held as principle and so should not be subject to tax. Interest on the sum, of course, should be taxed in the usual manner.
The amendment mirrors the provision of Section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which establishes similar provisions that service charge contributions in leases are held on trust.
During the Standing Committee debate on this clause in another place, the then Minister for Housing said that, without a trust arrangement, receipts would be taxable. This implied that with a trust arrangement they would not. Amendment No. 67 is intended to permit sums from the reserve fund to be used to pay debt if that would avoid insolvency.
We recognise that the prohibition imposed by subsection (4) is probably intended to protect the fund against third party garnishees. However, we consider that the flexibility would be helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Our Amendment No. 73 is grouped with this amendment. I have nothing to say on the text point. I am not sure that it is quite the same situation, but it may be exempt from tax anyway on the ground of mutual payment. No doubt that is a matter at which the Government will look.
CWH 92
On looking at the status of a reserve fund, it seems to me that there are two possibilities. The first possibility is that the fund is the property of the CHA, which would mean that if it was not used for the purpose for which it was set up it could be used to meet the debts of the company in the case of insolvency. The other basic possibility is that the fund is a trust fund. If that was not used for the purpose for which it was set up, it would have to be returned to the unit-holders who had contributed to it.
The Government here respond with something very close to the first of those possibilities. Clause 38(4) restricts the use of the fund to the purposes for which it was set up and prevents the enforcement against the fund for other purposes. However, Clause 54 overrides that and allows the fund to be used to pay the debts of an insolvent CHA.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, goes for the trust fund solution, although it does not specify that the fund under Clause 38 is necessarily a trust fund. If it is, I am a little puzzled by Amendment No. 57 which would enable the reserve fund under Clause 38 to be resorted to in order to stave off an insolvency. Logically, if the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is going for a trust solution, he should also object to Clause 54 standing part of the Bill, which he has not done.
Our Amendment No. 73 goes for the half-way house, which is intended to exempt a reserve fund from going to the creditors if a succession order is made and a phoenix association is set up. That would also require an amendment to Clause 49 to ensure that the reserve fund goes to the phoenix association, along with the common parts. We certainly believe that the reserve fund should go to the phoenix association to enable it to continue to operate. "Phoenix association" is an informal term for a successor CHA which is set up to take over the assets of an insolvent predecessor.
We believe that our solution is appropriate. I am tempted to go further and support the trust solution, where there is no phoenix association and the reserve fund goes back to the contributors if no succession order is made. However, I also recognise that the position is not quite the same in the case of commonhold as it is between landlord and leaseholder.
It is quite plain—we will come on to this later with other amendments—that, in the case of a reserve fund which is paid over by lessees to a landlord, there is every reason to insist on that being a trust fund. I recognise that, in the case of a commonhold where the fund is paid by the unit-holders, in effect, to a company which represents themselves, the arguments for a trust fund are not quite so strong. I shall wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say on that point.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Again, I do not know why my Amendment No. 74 is popped in here; the pages do not seem to be related.
I should like to comment briefly on the amendments which relate to reserve funds. Having spoken so strongly in favour of reserve funds, I should mention

CWH 93
that I met a woman the other day who manages her own block of flats. which was sold by a Duke to the Wellcome Trust. By the time she bought her flat in the early 1980s, a reserve fund of £100,000 had accumulated. She took over the management personally with the agreement of the other tenants in the block. She has run it since 1985 and has never needed to levy any money for repairs. They are still living on that £100,000. If we have a reserve fund, or a sinking fund, it is important that there should be some control over it.
Amendment No. 74 has been tabled because I found the provision at page 23 very strange. It states that the property would cease to be commonhold, but it did not state what it would become when that happened. It is very important that, if people are unit-holders, they are owners of that basic piece of property. Even if it was all burnt down, it would end up still being theirs, and I think it should be freehold at that point. This is why I have tabled Amendment No. 74.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall deal first with Amendment No. 66, which would import into the Bill a provision lifted almost bodily from Section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. In the 1987 Act, this provision was designed to protect the interests of tenants paying into accumulated funds by way of service charges, by requiring the landlord or his agent, whoever held the fund, to hold it on trust for the tenants.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, recognised, the relationship between the commonhold association and the unit-holder differs in almost every respect from that between a tenant and his landlord or his landlord's agent. Apart from what might be seen as a natural reluctance to import into the Bill the setting up of a new kind of ownership—a provision from the landlord and tenant law—we do not think we need it.
Because of the relationship between the commonhold association and the unit-holder, there is no need to set up a complex structure designed to provide protection against a problem which will not exist. There should never be a conflict of interest between the commonhold association and its members such that it would be necessary to create trusts as in the 1987 Act.
So far as tax is concerned, we do not believe that receipts by the company—that is, the commonhold association—would be taxable in the way that the fund accruing under the 1987 Act would be, as it would be a company asset and not a taxable asset of the unit-holder. I will check on that point and I undertake to write to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about it before Report stage.
The noble Lord did not speak to Amendment No. 67, so perhaps I should not speak to it either.
Lord Kingsland: I thought I had, and I have been duly reprimanded for what I said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. In the circumstances, I am rather glad that you do not remember.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I missed that telegraphic part, I shall have to reply. Amendment
CWH 94
No. 67 would make the reserve fund available to a creditor if the enforcement of a debt would render the commonhold association liable to a winding-up petition under Section 24 of the Insolvency Act 1986. A petition leading to winding up can be used as a blunt instrument by an alleged creditor to extract money from an alleged debtor. The essence is that a court can find insolvency not because the commonhold association could not pay its debts (which could be as small as £75) but that, for whatever reason, it did not. A heavy-handed alleged creditor can use the threat of insolvency as a first line of attack on a debtor.
The purpose of Clause 38(4) is to protect what we acknowledge may not be the most efficiently run companies from becoming easy prey to unscrupulous contractors. Clause 54 provides that where a court has been satisfied that winding up is appropriate, or the commonhold association passes a voluntary winding up resolution, or the court makes a declaration that the land is no longer commonhold, the reserve fund is released.
As to Amendment No. 73, we recognised that Clause 38(4) gives what some have thought to be an unusual degree of protection to the reserve funds of commonhold associations. In effect, it provides that reserve funds should not be available to judgment debtors to satisfy debts unless those debts arise directly from works or the provision of services for which the reserve fund was established. If you had a garden contractor paid on a weekly basis out of a current account, he would not be able to get at the reserve fund for outstanding fees but a lift engineer, carrying out periodic lift replacement, which is paid for out of the reserve fund, would have access to it. Therefore, we believe that the degree of protection is not unreasonable, but in addition a commonhold association which has been managed in such a way as to face winding up should no longer be protected in that way. It would be grossly unfair to creditors if a commonhold association got away with insolvency and kept what might be a considerable asset intact to be passed on to a successor association. I am afraid that that is what this amendment would do.
If the commonhold association has got itself into such a mess that the court believes winding up is the way to deal with it, it must pay up and the creditors should be recompensed as fully as possible. If it means that the successor association gets under way with no reserve funds, it is for the directors to find an alternative way to manage things until those funds can be built up again.
I turn to Amendment No. 74. I apologise that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, was not consulted on the grouping. Commonhold land continues to be freehold land when it is registered as commonhold. It must be freehold land to begin with. A unit-holder is defined as the person who is entitled in law to be registered as the proprietor of the freehold estate in his unit. The land takes on certain statutorily defined special attributes during the time that it is registered as commonhold which are, however, in addition to its underlying freehold status. When it ceases to be commonhold for any reason it merely sheds those

CWH 95
attributes. Its underlying freehold nature has not been disturbed and it does not need to become freehold again. As the clause provides, it needs to stop being commonhold.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his observations. He kindly agreed to look at the text of my Amendment No. 66 in relation to what he saw as the underlying reality and write to me. In those circumstances, I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Enlargement]:
[Amendments Nos. 68 to 70 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [100 per cent. agreement]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 19, line 7, leave out ("community")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 71 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 72. These are minor drafting amendments to remove the word "community" from the phrase "commonhold community association" to achieve the correct title. I point out to the Committee—perhaps it is a hostage to fortune—that, whereas the Government have received criticism in the past for tabling, even at this stage, a large number of government amendments to Bills introduced in both Houses, in this part of the Bill, as in those parts to come, there are very few such amendments. I believe that that is worthy of mention. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [80 per cent. agreement]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 19, line 19, leave out ("community")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Transfer of responsibility]:
On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Caithness: In Clause 50 we move to the transfer of responsibility from an insolvent association to the successor association. Clause 50 as drafted lists a number of matters that the court may include in an order. What it does not say and what it omits is serious. It does not tell us how the funds will be held and what will be done with those members who do not pay. These two items are worthy of regulation, so that it is clear for those who are entering into the association right at the beginning to know exactly what the
CWH 96
situation is going to be should there be a transfer of responsibilities. I hope the Minister will agree that a clear statement on these two points is required.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for giving us notice of his question on this clause. He asked how the debts would be held on transfer to a successor commonhold association and what would be done about members who do not pay. The debts of the original insolvent commonhold association will be its debts and not those of the successor commonhold association. The liquidator will have the full range of powers given by the Insolvency Act to collect the insolvent commonhold association's assets which will include arrears owed to it by unit-holders, and the liquidator will be able to seek a charging order over such unit-holders' property including his unit. That point was made in response to the question posed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I hope that satisfies the noble Earl.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister for that. I should like to consider at more leisure what he has said. I may come back to this matter at a later stage.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Release of reserve frond]:
[Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Compulsory purchase]:
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 26, line 4, leave out from ("regulations') to end of line 5
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 together simply allow for any regulations made under Clause 58(3) which relate to compulsory purchase to be made jointly by the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 26, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under this Part shall be made—

(a) in the case of regulations under section 58(3), by the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State acting jointly, and

(b) in any other case, by the Lord Chancellor.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 26, line 13, at end insert—

("(3) Regulations shall not be made under sections 3(1)(e), 3(2)(f) or 19(4) unless a draft of the instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(4) The first regulations under section 31 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), regulations under this Part shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: I shall be very brief. The amendment is by no means the most important we will look at, but an enormous quantity of material will be published and will no doubt frequently be revised. It is essential that commonhold associations act on the basis of the best, current and up-to-date information. I recognise that in practice the best way of doing this is electronically; and no doubt there will be a website where these regulations will be maintained.
It is worth raising the point that it will be essential for information to be brought to the attention of the commonhold association. One practical way of doing that would be by ensuring that all of them—they can all equally be identified from the Land Registry—receive copies of the regulations free of charge. as soon as they are made or, in the case of draft regulations from the affirmative resolution procedure, before they come into force. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: This amendment would result in commonhold associations being provided at public expense, with documents published for sale by the Stationery Office. It has to be admitted that it would apply only to regulations issued after the first commonholds were set up but not to the first raft of publications because we expect to have those out well in advance of implementation of the Act. In the early stages there will be very few such organisations to be supplied. However, we have to consider the cost to the taxpayers of providing such material free of charge to companies which will levy commonhold assessments on their unit-holders for the very purpose of, among other things, covering the costs of managing the commonhold.
We are prepared to consider this amendment and will make inquiries between now and Report, at which time I will come back with a more definite answer. It may not be a positive answer, but we would like to consider the point in this amendment, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it today.
Lord Goodhart: I am very grateful for having received more encouragement than I had expected on this point. There are other later amendments which raise similar points in terms of publication of booklets and so forth to inform various groups and RPL organisations what they are going to be saddled with. I think it is important that these complicated matters should be brought to the attention of the CHAs. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 65 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Commonhold: consequential amendments]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 77, line 17, at end insert—
("Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)
. At the end of section 118 of the Housing Act 1985 (the right to buy) there shall be added—
"(3) For the purposes of this Part, a dwelling-house which is a commonhold unit (within the meaning of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2001) shall be treated as a house and not as a flat." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes a change to Section 118 of the Housing Act 1985, which relates to a tenant's right to buy from a public-sector landlord. Broadly speaking, if a dwellinghouse is defined as a flat, the only right to buy is the right to buy a long lease. If it is defined as a house and the landlord is a freeholder, there is a right to buy the freehold or a long lease. As it will not be possible to have a long lease of a commonhold unit, it is necessary to ensure that all such units are classified as houses for the purposes of the right to buy provisions, and that is what this amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clauses 67 and 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Premises to which Chapter applies]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 29, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) they consist of individual houses and blocks of flats comprised in an estate management scheme,").
The noble Baroness said: I ought to declare an interest because I acquired the freehold of my property under enfranchisement, but it was a long time ago and has had no great effect since, except to make me much happier. This Bill needs to tidy up all the aspects of enfranchisement and leasehold reform. There have been enough Bills over a number of years, and I hope that this is the one that will finally do the deed. If it is going to do that, it needs to include all elements where there can be a right to manage. One of those areas needs to be those properties which have been enfranchised and are on an estate. That does not exist at the present time. There are estate management schemes, but the right to manage does not exist under those schemes.
This amendment and Amendment No. 190 are designed to ensure that properties enfranchised by their owners, the owners then have the right to manage on the estate. This will probably include areas where there are flats with leasehold, but those owners should not be deprived of the rights of tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Many promises have been made during the passage of the Bill. One was made, I believe, by the Minister for Housing, when he conceded some time ago that this measure would be appropriate. I therefore have no doubt that the amendment will be accepted by the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My noble friend Lord Richard is unable to be present—he is attending the funeral of Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos in Anglesey—and therefore my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen and I shall be moving the amendments standing in his name on the Marshalled List.
Amendment No. 83A is self-explanatory. It is an attempt to extend the right to manage across a whole estate. Within the present definition, where RTM is contemplated for an estate comprising, say, six separate blocks of flats, each building must satisfy eligibility and make application separately. This is unnecessarily bureaucratic, more expensive in legal costs and could cause problems in the management of common areas in estate-wide contracts if only one or two of the blocks proceed.
It may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 89A, which attempts to define an "estate" for the purposes I have mentioned. The Minister will be aware of the problem and be sympathetic to it, but there will be difficulties in compiling a watertight definition of an estate that will not end up encompassing all the properties in a landlord's ownership. We propose that an "estate" should relate to the service charge for buildings and lands which together comprise 100 per cent of the charge levied.
The second issue arises from concerns expressed by the Association of Retirement Housing Managers about the possible effects of the exercise of RTM on flats on retirement estates which comprise both flats and bungalows and which have shared facilities—a warden, a common room, a laundry and so on. Again, the application must be estate wide for proper or possible future management.
Lord Kingsland: I rise to support both the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. As your Lordships are well aware, the amendments would extend the right to manage to cover estates of buildings. At present it applies only to blocks of flats. The estate is defined as having an appropriate degree of commonality in arrangements and service charges. The buildings must make up the entire estate. Leasehold houses are only included where the estate is designated as a retirement estate.
Under the Bill as drafted, blocks of flats on estates of linked buildings will not be able to exercise the right to manage as a group. Individual blocks will only qualify for RTM if the common areas, services and service charges can be disaggregated. This mirrors the position in relation to enfranchisement. The crucial question is the degree of commonality between the buildings—that is, the extent to which they share arrangements, areas and services—and the ease with which these can be separated.
CWH 100
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, define the estate so that it applies to estates where the commonality is such that the individual buildings cannot be separated. Even as the Bill stands, there will be estates where there will be blocks of flats able to exercise RTM, leaving the landlord compelled to retain the management of the surrounding houses. If the management of the common areas and services of the estate are linked in such a way that it is unreasonably difficult to disaggregate them, it should be possible for the entire estate to exercise RTM. A whole linked estate would need to achieve the appropriate majorities among the leaseholders. It will be important to clarify whether the qualification and majorities required should be assessed for each individual block or across the entire estate. Otherwise it is conceivable that confusion could arise where there is not a majority for RTM in any individual block but that there might be across the entire estate.
Our concern with allowing RTM to apply to estates is that it may have a seriously adverse impact on the ability to manage an estate as an estate, particularly if the concept of commonality were drawn widely. This could have a significantly adverse effect, for example, on some of the London estates where, arguably, the ability of the landlord to manage the estate has been an important factor in maintaining the quality of the area, establishing a sense of place and community and preserving and enhancing the value of the leaseholders' assets.
6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): As the Committee will have noticed, we have now moved on to the part of the Bill which is the responsibility of my department on the leasehold side. These amendments attempt to extend the people and premises to which the rights to manage apply, from those outlined in Clause 69, to estates or people who are subject to an estate management scheme. They should have the collective right to take over the running of that scheme.
I have some sympathy with the concerns behind this proposal and with the suggestion as regards the problem that it addresses. Indeed, the noble Baroness is correct to say that Nick Raynsford himself made some general statements recognising that it might be desirable to move in this direction—although he stopped short of giving a specific commitment that it would be possible to do so in this Bill.
I fear that the Committee will hear me say on a number of occasions that although these extensions may well be desirable they would be extremely complex to implement. It would be very difficult to implement them in the terms of the amendments before us and to resolve the matter in time for measures to be brought forward in this Bill.
Estate management schemes are intended to preserve arrangements for the management of an estate where leaseholders exercise the right to enfranchise either individual leasehold houses or

CWH 101
blocks of flats. In the absence of positive covenants which might run with the land, they are needed to enforce binding obligations on those who own the freehold of their property in order to contribute to the upkeep of common facilities within the estate as a whole. We are therefore left with a mixed community of the original landlord, freehold tenants of individual buildings on the estate and the leaseholders.
The problem facing us is that we need to consider very carefully the respective rights and obligations of all these parties and how they might inter-relate within what is intended to be quite a simple structure of an RTM company. This is an extremely complex issue. The fact of the matter is that we have not been able to address this within the time available. We would certainly be prepared, as a Government, to consider it in the longer term in the light of experience on the more straightforward premises and rights in this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Richard, proposes a more general right to allow the right to manage to be exercised for an estate of properties of all descriptions. Many of the points I have already made relate to this—we have given careful thought to the possibility of creating a right to manage applying to more than one property. That was raised very substantially during the consultation in August and we had to face a number of practical difficulties which, although potentially soluble, could not be satisfactorily resolved in time for measures to be brought forward for this Bill.
The first and most obvious question was that of the definition of "estate" for these purposes. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, makes a helpful suggestion, but there are other issues that would need to be resolved. As has been said, there are estates which consist of a mixture of flats, of maisonettes and of houses. A retirement estate is a clear example of this in many parts of the country. There will be differences between the rights of leaseholders of houses and leaseholders of flats—some as a result of historic accidents and others for more substantive reasons. We need to address both.
We have to recognise that on a complex estate the question of which services apply to which premises is also complex. Some services may apply to the estate as a whole and all residents contribute to service charges; others may apply only to a particular block, individual buildings or groups of buildings. To make sense of that, we would need rather more complicated amendments to the Bill than are proposed in these clauses. We agree that this is an important issue and that it may be desirable for the right to manage to be capable of being extended to people in these situations. However, one cannot simply extend the rights which apply to people in single properties to those who live on estates. That would be a matter for complex amendment or, in our judgment, a later Bill, by which time we would be able to take account of the experience of the more straightforward application of RTM in individual buildings. I, therefore, hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: The noble Lord suggested that perhaps he had not addressed my amendment but I believe that he did. As I understood the Minister's winding up, he referred to estate management schemes. I am slightly reassured by the Minister's suggestion that a more complex amendment tabled at a later stage might be received with greater openness. On that basis, and the fact that we may well try again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 83A not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 29, line 30, at end insert (", and
(d) no part of the premises are let on a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (business tenancies) applies").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 84 I shall speak to a number of other amendments in the same grouping. This part of the Bill gives tenants the right to manage the block in which their flats are located. It is worth recapping the law at present. Probably, for as long as leases have existed some landlords have ignored their responsibilities for the maintenance of the premises. Historically, the High Court had the power to appoint a receiver of a block of flats where the landlord was in breach of his duties under a lease. Due to the expense this was rarely an attractive option for tenants.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 simplified the procedure considerably, as many noble Lords are aware. After a number of statutory improvements, the present position is that tenants have the power to apply to the leasehold valuation tribunal for the appointment of a manager. In order to appoint a manager the tenant must show, in short. that the landlord is not carrying out his functions properly, so that in effect there is some misbehaviour on the part of the landlord.
The leasehold valuation tribunal determines whether the landlord is at fault and it is sensible to appoint a manager. I believe that noble Lords who are familiar with this branch of the law will agree that that has been a useful power to remedy the problem of landlords who have ignored their duties or, in some cases, have disappeared altogether.
The proposed right to manage, however, is quite different. A perfectly good landlord is liable to have his management function terminated at the tenants' whim. Those on this side of the Committee believe that there is considerable objection to the way that the Government propose to introduce the new power. The landlord has an interest in keeping the property in good condition so that his reversion keeps its value. The problem is likely to be especially acute in cases where leases have only a fairly short time to run. Tenants in such a case, understandably, are likely to be most unwilling to spend money on major items of repair. That is likely to reduce, significantly, the value of the landlord's reversion.
The effect of the proposed right to manage is that in the country as a whole less money will be spent on building maintenance than otherwise would be the

CWH 103
case. We have in this country, in comparison to many other countries, a fairly old housing stock. In order to keep this housing stock in good condition, it is vital that there is regular expenditure of reasonable sums of money on repairs. We are concerned that there is no adequate remedy for a landlord to ensure that tenants who exercise the right to manage carry out proper repairs.
The second matter is that a landlord's right to manage is a valuable one. Merely by way of example, there is currently a strong demand for freehold reversions, simply for the commission on their insurance premiums. Equally, as regards repairs, the landlord is obliged under current law to obtain competitive quotations for works. Having obtained quotes, there is no objection to a landlord using a building company which he owns to carry out the work, so long as the quote put in by the company is the lowest. The landlord can then, I submit quite legitimately, make a profit on the building work. Taking away the landlord's right to manage is, in principle, expropriative.
There seems to be a human rights problem here. Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights protects rights of property. It is quite true that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights gives member states considerable leeway in determining the extent to which interference with property rights is permissible. One has only to think of the Duke of Westminster's case, James v. the United Kingdom, where he challenged the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, giving householders holding long leases the right to buy their houses at a low price. The court in Strasbourg held that that was justifiable on social grounds.
Here, however, it is difficult to see what pressing social need there is to stop good landlords—and I emphasise the word "good"—managing properties in which they hold a reversion. Our approach to this part of the Bill, therefore, is to seek to make improvements in the legislation and to make it human rights compliant.
The effect of the proposed amendments to Clause 69 is to prevent there being any automatic right to have an RTM company appointed in mixed developments, where there are both residential and business premises. The reason for excluding mixed use developments is this: business premises are usually let on short, or shortish, leases, with a variety of terms as to repairs; Sometimes the business tenant is responsible for repairs; sometimes the landlord is responsible for repairs but is expected to meet these repairs from the rent. On the ending of a business tenancy, there is often a claim for dilapidations from the landlord. In other words, there is a very close relationship between the landlord and the business tenant where great care is taken to set out the precise rights and obligations of the parties between themselves.
Commercial tenants expect a professional landlord with professional knowledge. The Bill, as presently drafted, will vest the duty to manage business premises in the RTM company. The business tenant will not be
CWH 104
a shareholder in the RTM company and will not have any control over the RTM company. The people who control the RTM company will be the residential tenants. The landlord will, on the Government's proposals, be a shareholder in the RTM company but will have no veto and no right even to sit on the board of directors. Therefore, in certain circumstances, it may be unfair to a commercial tenant to have the management of a block taken from the hands of a professional commercial landlord and placed in the hands of the residential tenants. It is doubly so, when the commercial tenant has no say in the conduct of the management of the block.
Moreover, there are liable to be enormous conflicts of interest between the commercial tenants and the residential tenants. This is most marked in cases where the commercial tenant is paying a rent inclusive of a service charge. The landlord has an interest in keeping the building in first-class condition so that he can keep the tenant at the expiry of the tenant's lease. The residential tenant's interest is keeping the service charge rather lower. The Bill at present provides no means of squaring this particular circle.
We suggest that the only sensible way forward is to move mixed developments from the scope of the right to manage. The effect of removing mixed use developments from the right to manage will not be to prejudice residential tenants. The reason is that where a landlord is guilty of bad management, the right to have a manager appointed under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 will remain.
It is for this reason that a consequential amendment is proposed to Schedule 13 to the Bill—the repeal schedule—so as to keep unchanged the leasehold valuation tribunal's powers to appoint managers. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 85 to 88, which stand in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. We have had what could be described as a Second Reading speech from the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I understand why he made it because it explains the background to the amendments which he is proposing to introduce, and it is of assistance to the Committee.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way so graciously, as he always does. I recall that when I made my Second Reading speech I was accused by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, of making a Committee speech.
Lord Goodhart: I do not propose to speak at length about our attitude to the principle behind the amendments to Chapter 1 of Part II, except that on this matter we support the views of the Government that the right to manage should be extended to cases where there is not necessarily any criticism of the landlord. I should say that we also recognise that there will in practice be many cases where, for various reasons, the tenants or a sufficient number of tenants will be happy

CWH 105
with what the landlord does and will not wish to take on the responsibility for the management themselves and will not seek to set up an RTM company. That is perfectly reasonable. But we think it is a matter on which the tenants should have a choice.
I turn now to the substance of our amendments in this group. The issues raised are similar to the question of flying freehold or flying commonholds which were raised by us in amendments which were discussed on the first day of Committee stage. This is not a case of flying freeholds or flying commonholds because nothing in this group of amendments affects the nature of the interest in the property as such. We wish to see a possibility of dividing the responsibility for management between different parts of the same building if they are self-contained, whether on a horizontal or vertical basis, so that they could apply, for instance, to the flats in a block which had shops below and flats above, the flats being self-contained in the sense of having a separate entrance, separate facilities and not having any common part shared with the shops.
In that case, if the flat lessees want to form an RTM company, they will obviously take over the landlord's responsibilities for performing the maintenance and other obligations in respect of the flats. What happens to the shops? Of course, under the present legislation, it will be possible to have a single RTM unit if the shop takes up to 25 per cent of the space. However, what we propose here is the possibility of an alternative course which in no way intends to exclude the other possibilities.
There are two solutions. The first is that the landlord retains the obligations in relation to the shops. That would be workable only if the landlord and the RTM were willing to enter into an agreement for the division of responsibilities. The other alternative would be to allow the RTM to take over the management of the whole building. It might, of course, be a disincentive to forming an RTM company, but there has to be either a single management or co-operative management and we cannot disregard the physical nature of the strategy of the building.
If flat owners want to exercise the right to manage and are able to enter into an agreement with the landlord or are willing to take over the management of the whole building, one could say, "Why not?". I believe that that could be done without too much additional qualification.
Lord Lea of Crondall: In speaking to Amendment No. 89, my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen and I are grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. In one respect, the thrust of the approach we set out has also been reflected by the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Whereas the right to enfranchise must take the whole block into consideration, that is quite unnecessary and counter-productive when it comes to the right to manage. The actual management of residential parts in these situations is usually quite separate from the management of the shops or restaurants. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said
CWH 106
that there is very little common interest between the shops and the residential parts. Indeed—this could be a point of further clarification and is implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said—normally there will be separate front doors and separate access and it is normally quite clear from the point of view of service charges that there is a separation between the residential and commercial parts. This could be clarified by surveyors.
It is true—this is not something one has to concede—it is an obvious ex hypothesi that the freeholder would still appoint the managing agent for the shops. Where is the problem in that? All that would happen would be that the freeholder would be dealing with the same two management categories as at present. At present, he is dealing with the management category "commercial" and the management category "residential".
Giving the residents the right to manage would give them the right to appoint the managing agent if they wished to take on the responsibilities set out. They may not always wish to do that, but this is the potential right that would be adduced. It also sheds light, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, on the 25 per cent threshold maximum for the commercial share if the RTM right is to be exercised.
Let me just consider a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, whereby the residents consider taking over the RTM option where the share is 20 per cent below the threshold. They have the right to do that, which is set out in Schedule 6. Why should they have to exercise the management right vis-à-vis the commercial parts? There is no reason at all that I can see, and yet we are told that it is essential. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that this is indeed the implication and that those of us who have spoken have not misunderstood that that is what is being said.
The two amendments would eliminate—we all agree that there are several ways of doing this—the 25 per cent threshold but, more importantly, they would change the basis of the RTM to the residential parts. I put it to the Minister that that would be a far more plausible proposition than whether the figure was 15 per cent, 20 per cent or indeed 40 per cent. Does the Minister disagree with that? That is much more relevant than the percentage.
Incidentally, the argument that the 25 per cent is needed to identify a division above which the value of the freehold is split roughly 50/50 in value—that is adduced because of the higher value per square foot of the commercial parts—is a concept which seems to have been conceived in the context of the right to enfranchise. I do not know whether someone's word processor has got stuck, and that is why we see 25 per cent appearing on the right to manage, but the logic is quite different. It is inappropriate to adduce that as a consideration here.
Finally, if it is suggested that this amendment would change the very delicate balance of the Bill between the legitimate interests who have been consulted, I have to say that I have had a good deal of correspondence and

CWH 107
many conversations now. The main property interests are not opposing it, as I understand it and, indeed, we have the support which is adduced here today.
The final subsection of Amendment No. 89 provides for arbitration of any dispute on the extent of residential parts. That does not create a new precedent as this is precisely the sort of demarcation that is necessary for the application of service charges at the moment.
The Government may have firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick on this point. I hope we can look at this point—and not in the longer term. I know that Members of the Committee will be familiar with the statement by Lord Keynes that, in the long run, we are all dead. That is rather too close to home in this context. But why the longer term? The difficulties have been addressed and there should be time for the Government. We do not know how this will progress in the time set down, and timescales may open up so that this Bill has more room for examination. We do not know what will happen in the next few weeks. But these matters have been discussed extremely thoroughly and there should be some scope to address this point before we reach a conclusion.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: I have some problems with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I agree with him that the idea of having the residents of a block of flats being responsible for the management of a commercial undertaking—usually retail shops on the ground floor—is, as I have always thought, somewhat absurd. However, the idea that we should reverse it and allow the landlords effectively to appoint managers for the shops and for the flats would, in my opinion, be going backwards. He mentioned that, at the moment, there is a strong demand for freehold reversionary interest to obtain the insurance commission. Members of the Committee have no doubt read the deeper meaning of that, which means that the landlords should not trouble to get the lowest possible insurance because that would give them less commission. That is not an encouragement and is one reason we want to see flats having the right to manage their own properties.
I would like to ask the Minister why it has never been possible to separate the retail shops entirely from the residential blocks located above. One could, for example, insert a 999-year lease between the freeholder and the shops, which would make it possible for the shops to be managed separately and the flats to be enfranchised, or whatever, thus providing an alternative structure. At the moment, however, it should remain that the flats have the right to form their own RTM.
Lord Selsdon: This is an occasion on which all sides of the Committee agree and on which the Government have tried to do things in the interest of harmonious relationship but have probably failed. It is quite idiotic to try to bring commercial and residential management together. The structures that exist
CWH 108
historically are not clean and neat. While the residents in the mixed block may well hold a direct lease with the freeholder, sometimes they may hold indirect leases and commercial property may often be on franchises, or let, or there may several intermediate landlords.
Moreover, usually or from time to time there is a conflict between the residents and those of the commercial property. It may relate to opening hours, to noise, to parking by customers or to signs. It may relate to a whole range of issues. Therefore, if the spirit of the Bill is harmonious relationship, as drafted in terms of right-to-management, it is likely to lead to disharmony. It would seem logical, therefore, to separate the two. The idea of a group of residents in a large block, who have never managed a property in their lives, forming a company and coming together to try to manage it strikes me as very difficult.
There is an alternative which is within current procedure. If a landlord wishes to appoint a managing agent rather than manage a property himself, he or she is required to choose three alternatives and receive three proposals for management by professional, competent agencies. They are not always obliged to take the cheapest but to take the one that will provide best value. It seems that in mixed development, if one is unable to separate the management of the commercial property from the residential property one should try to adopt some formula like this, where both sides are required or have the right to appoint an independent managing agent.
Lord Whitty: These amendments focus broadly on the same area, although that of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, ranged somewhat more widely, which may perhaps have been appropriate for early discussions of this part of the Bill. However, I shall resist responding to that part of it and concentrate on the amendments. I was not entirely clear where the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, stood on this because his name was attached to two amendments that appeared to move in precisely opposite directions.
Amendment No. 84, to which he spoke, is effectively attempting to propose that the right to manage should not apply to any property to which a business tenancy also applies. On the other hand, his support of the Amendment No. 89, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, is effectively to provide for virtually the same thing. There seems to be some confusion here. It is a complex area and I shall deal with the fundamentalist opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to what is provided here. It is that in certain circumstances where there is a business tenancy we provide for the residential element to have a right to manage the company, whereas the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lea of Crondall, are looking for an extension to that right.
We all probably agree that apart from the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in certain circumstances there should be that right.
Amendment No. 84 suggests that we disapply the right to manage for all properties with a business tenancy. We have significant difficulties with that. The right to manage is intended to allow leaseholders who

CWH 109
have a majority stake in the property—which is our dividing line; I shall return to the issue when I deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lea—to take over the management of that property.
Amendment No. 84 would have the opposite effect. Theoretically, at least, it would prevent leaseholders who have acquired 99 per cent of a property on long leases from being able to manage the block simply because of the presence of another 1 per cent which was not in that category. Your Lordships may say that that is a ludicrous situation which would never arise, but it underlines the importance of my point. By saying that one cannot exercise the right to manage any property where there is a business tenancy, one directly creates a tremendous incentive for a landlord to engineer a way of letting a small part of the property on a business lease. At its most extreme, a broom cupboard suddenly becomes an office or an attic becomes a factory. That may seem absurd but, nevertheless, we know that a number of scams have operated. We have to ensure that unscrupulous landlords are not allowed to seize on such a loophole. Amendment No. 84 is therefore not within the spirit of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Lea accused us of getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. To some extent, his amendment and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also get hold of the wrong end of the stick. It may not be the same stick.
The position is not that the right-to-manage company takes on the responsibility for the management of the business unit—indeed, subsection (6)(a) has the effect of preventing the RTM company from becoming directly responsible for the management of any flat or unit which is not on a long lease; in other words, a remaining tenanted flat or a business premise, shop, restaurant or whatever—but it will be responsible to everyone, including renting and commercial tenants, for maintaining the common part and fabric of that property.
Lord Goodhart: To what clause does subsection (6)(a) refer?
Lord Whitty: It refers to Clause 93. It is not the case that we would be in a difficult situation were the RTM company to take on the direct management of the internal affairs of the business premises; it is only the fabric of the building that we are talking about.
As to the threshold above which the residential part has the right to manage, my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall says that the idea that one must roughly assess where the dividing line arises is not appropriate. I believe it is. A rough indication is that the RTM would become available only where the non-domestic element of the block was no greater than 25 per cent. That 25 per cent equates to the 75 per cent which would thereby remain in residential ownership.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I hope it is possible in this procedure for me to intervene to ask my noble friend a question. Does not his most recent remark depend on the presumption that the right to manage would cover
CWH 110
the residential and the commercial sections? One would then have the concept of an equity majority. If we are talking about a separate right to manage, where does the question of the minority dominating the majority—which is my noble friend's argument—arise?
Lord Whitty: My noble friend's amendment appears to address the right to manage not only the leasehold flats but all the common parts. I am referring to the outer fabric. The management company would become responsible for the outer fabric of the building and for the services which are common to the building as a whole. The difficulty arises if it is responsible only for less than half the putative value of the property, which was why we arrived at 25 per cent.
As to the management of the fabric and the common services, it is important that those aspects remain in one pair of hands; otherwise, if responsibility for the integrity of the fabric is unclear there is endless scope for confusion, disputes and risk to occupants. There are also issues to do with insurance and the split between the landlord, or the landlord's agent, as regards the management of the non-domestic parts and the leaseholder as regards the domestic aspects. It is to some extent an arbitrary threshold. However, where they are responsible for more than half the value of the property that is a sensible point at which to establish the threshold.
To allow the residential leaseholders to take management control over matters which are strictly internal to the domestic parts and closely associated common parts, such as stairways, would not be of huge value, in the sense that again there would be a risk of constant arguments about exactly where responsibilities began and ended.
I recognise the importance of this issue. Approximately 10 per cent of all leasehold premises are mixed use, but it is not entirely clear whether the whole of that would fall under this criterion. Nevertheless, it is a significant proportion of the leasehold market and, therefore, it may well be desirable that some rights should be extended to everybody who is in that situation. However, these are hugely complex issues. Were we to move down the road suggested in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lea the complexities would have to be addressed by much more detailed amendments than simply the addition of the set of tenants to the list of those who are eligible. Regrettably, at the moment there is little that we can offer to residential leaseholders in this area where there is a high—over 25 per cent—non-residential component.
Amendments Nos. 85 to 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, produce an even more wide-ranging extension, in that they change the definition of a self-contained part of a building. That would allow the right to management to be extended to a horizontally-separated part of a building provided it had a separate entrance. In certain circumstances that would lead to ridiculous situations. Let us consider a row of terraced houses, each of which is divided into two flats, one up and one down. Theoretically, the

CWH 111
amendment would allow two neighbouring top floor flats to combine together to exercise the right to manage, provided that they could have a separate entrance. What happens to the two downstairs flats? How do they address the problem of the fabric or the roof over the top flat which is leaking downstairs onto their own woodwork? Again, it is a question of who is responsible for what and to whom. To extend the right to any geographically adjacent flats compounds the difficulties which are inherent in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lea. Therefore, I am concerned that we would enter into even greater complexity if we adopted the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Without going into all the complexities, we believe that it is much preferable to ensure that the whole block is subject, as far as practicable, to the same management regime for the fabric of the building. We believe that to make exemptions from that, and to make extensions to different sub-parts of the building, undermines the simplicity of the right and the way in which the building is managed thereafter.
We hope that, given all these practical problems—we do not disagree with the principle—all noble Lords who are concerned with this group of amendments recognise that they will not achieve what they want, and to achieve more would go beyond the nature of the Bill that we are currently proposing.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: Of course we understand the Government's desire to harmonise procedures under the legislation as far as possible, and entirely accept the important wish of residential leaseholders to gain greater control of the properties in which they live. But requiring them to take on the commercial elements in a mixed use building adds an unnecessary complication, as my noble friend Lord Selsdon said. I believe that is the view from all parts of the Committee. At Second Reading a noble Lord asked why someone who has a residential flat above, say, a well-known London department store should wish to take on the management responsibilities in relation to property matters of the store itself.
In my introductory remarks to our amendment I set out the views that we would prefer. I should say in that context that I would not like to give the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, the impression that I endorse some of the practices that landlords have engaged in with respect to insurance premiums and other matters such as that: I deplore them. I believe, nevertheless, that where a good landlord offers a competitive price for a service to the tenant, that should be something that is properly applauded.
One aspect which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, does not address is the position of older converted buildings where there is a single entrance and access and all the units—whether commercial or residential—have their individual entrances off a single common access. The Minister thought that out rather well.
CWH 112
If the solution that we offer in Amendment No. 84 is not acceptable, the Minister might like to consider whether it would be sensible to include in the legislation the ability for the landlord to require a lease back of the commercial elements, to mirror the position in relation to the right to enfranchise in mixed use buildings. I shall leave the Minister to reflect on that, and meanwhile beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 84A to 88 not moved.]
Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 89:
Page 30, line 2, at end insert—
("(5A) This Chapter applies also to a part of a building which comprises flats occupied as dwellings, "the residential part", where the building containing those flats is not solely occupied for residential purposes.
(5B) The exercise of rights under subsection (5A) includes the residential common parts.
(5C) The "residential common parts" shall be all of those areas over which the qualifying tenants have rights of use, passage, or other easement or right.
(5D) Any dispute between the RTM company and the landlord as to the extent of the "residential part" shall be determined by a surveyor appointed by the president of the leasehold valuation tribunal, whose costs shall be met equally by the RTM company and the landlord.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may say that there are matters which we will have to consider. We shall look closely at Hansard to see how many of the arguments stack up. Points have been made on all sides which require some thought. I have not found totally convincing the Minister's rationale that one could separate out a new demarcation between the service charges for the shops and the fabric of the shops—I think that is what is being said. We need to consider that.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 89A not moved.]
Clause 69 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Premises excluded from right to manage]:
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 78, line 22, leave out paragraph 2
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 93. I have raised the question about paragraph 2 because I do not know what it is about. Why should the fact that two persons own different parts of freehold premises mean that that should be taken outside the scope of the right to manage? I cannot understand why it makes any difference and the Explanatory Notes make me none the wiser.
Amendment No. 93 refers to paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 6, which says that the chapter does not apply to any premises where the right to manage has been exercised by an RTM company and ceased to be so exercisable less than four years before that time. Why is there the need for a gap? It would seem to me that it should be possible, for example, to form a new RTM

CWH 113
company to take over from an existing one immediately, if the lessees consider that appropriate. I should like to hear the explanation for the need for this gap and why four years rather than three or five years is considered the appropriate time.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find Schedule 6 quite difficult to understand. In particular, it refers to premises excluded from the right to manage. Paragraph 1(1)(b) states that if you have a garage it should be part of the residential premises. Does that mean that that would be enfranchisable with whatever else one was enfranchising?
Lord Monson: Having prepared a vigorous speech in support of Amendment No. 84A, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which he chose not to move, perhaps I may at least console myself by pointing out that Amendment No. 91A has a drafting error. It should refer to line 17 and not line 18.
Lord Kingsland: I made a mistake. I thought it was another amendment and that is why I ducked it. If I had looked at the right amendment I would have moved it. I apologise.
Lord Jacobs: I should like to raise the issue of the 25 per cent, which has a relevance here, but probably an even greater relevance when we come to the right to enfranchise.
One of the difficulties with the original clause in the previous Bill was that it said "over 10 per cent" and everybody realised that they would need a building of 11 floors—11 storeys—before you could enfranchise. On reconsideration, however, you would in some cases have needed buildings of over 21 floors because, in most cases, certainly in London, retail shops have basements which are usually used for storage.
There is also the question about garages, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. It would be helpful, whether it is done for this clause, but certainly for the enfranchisement, to look again at the wording to see whether it is possible to exclude from all calculations garages and such spaces but also basement use; otherwise we may have the situation—I am aware of a number of blocks that I have looked at in London—where there is a row of shops and a full basement below but a total of only six or seven storeys. Those would not come within the 25 per cent, because that area has to be taken into account.
I would therefore ask the Minister whether he could look at the idea of perhaps excluding basement storage or, alternatively, to say that where there is basement storage the percentage might have to be increased.
Lord Kingsland: I rise to speak to my Amendment No. 91A. Given the arguments that have been put forward as to the benefits of the right-to-manage leaseholds, we do not see why it should not apply to local authority properties, just as for private blocks of flats or those owned by residential social landlords. Local authority leaseholders have been subject to the poor management of their blocks by local authorities and have campaigned hard to gain the benefit of those
CWH 114
rights given to others whose situations are identical, except that they are in respect of freeholders and not local authorities. Extending rights under leasehold reform to local authority leaseholders should be seen as the logical extension of the right to buy.
Lord Whitty: I shall deal with Amendment No. 91, with which Amendment No. 93 is associated. It provides for two further changes. The deletion in the first part of his amendment would cause me significant concern because it deals with the division of the freehold. Some Members of the Committee may remember a scam which was run by some less scrupulous landlords following the 1993 Act. Their trick was to divide the freehold of a single block of flats into a number of parcels, which effectively—and in some cases quite explicitly—made it impossible to enfranchise the block. For that reason, the Housing Act 1996 introduced provisions to deal with that abuse.
Those provisions stated that it was not possible to enfranchise a property which was made up of more than one freehold if it was possible to enfranchise each of the freeholds separately. That in turn made clear the converse: that if it is not possible to enfranchise separate freehold parts of a single block, it is possible to enfranchise them altogether. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 mirrors the provisions of the 1993 Act. They are therefore needed to ensure that the same sharp practice that was used to frustrate enfranchisement cannot be used in the same way to frustrate the right-to-manage. I hope that explains the first point of this amendment.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 is there for a good reason. There are a number of circumstances where the right-to-manage will be lost. This will happen mainly where the leaseholders have proved unable to run their affairs properly. Unless we provide otherwise, there would be nothing to prevent those leaseholders immediately embarking on a second or subsequent go at the right-to-manage. It would be wrong to allow for repeat acquisition of a right in this way; an unfettered right to re-acquire right-to-manage would mean that there was no real incentive on the leaseholders to make sure that they were managing the property correctly in the first place.
That said, one failure should not disqualify them forever. Aside from other considerations, there will inevitably be some turnover in the block and a point will come when there will be a new set of leaseholders who wish to exercise the right-to-manage. For that reason, we have chosen that disqualification should last for four years. This is the typical amount of time taken for a substantial turnover of leaseholders within a block to take place. From that perspective, the seven-year period proposed by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would be too long.
In a case where turnover is more rapid than that, or there are other good reasons why leaseholders might reasonably be allowed a further opportunity more quickly to exercise the right-to-manage, we still have the fall-back position of a leasehold valuation tribunal

CWH 115
being asked to dispense with the bar. I hope that that explains the inclusion of those provisions and why there should be no deletion of them.
Before going on to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I shall address the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in relation to the garage. Where the garage is let as part of a flat, its floor area is counted as residential when working out the relative residential and nonresidential parts. Likewise, presumably if the garage is part of the commercial premises it counts on the other side. I agree that there are complexities, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, pointed out, and one might look at a way of expressing that more succinctly. However, the totality of the property which was in the residential part should count towards the residential quota and likewise on the other side of the equation.
I now come to Amendment No. 91A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. This is probably where I have to declare a personal interest. Indeed, if the amendment were passed, I should probably have to declare a personal interest in many parts of the Bill because my wife is a leaseholder of a local authority property. However, I would hope that that would not be the only reason that he would not press his amendment.
We want all local authority tenants and leaseholders to influence and take control of the management of their homes. As regards the local authority leaseholders, there is already in existing legislation a range of opportunities to enable them to do this. The Government are working to extend the opportunities for participation through the best value regime and tenant and leaseholder participation compacts, all of which are operating within the local authority sector to improve local housing management and the various options available to tenants and leaseholders in local authority property. We have already broadened the Government's tenant empowerment grants programme to help leaseholders and other tenants to look at the options for involvement, and to support groups which set up tenant management organisations under the existing local authority right-to-manage.
Because there is such a wide range, therefore, of existing options open to all local authority tenants, including leaseholders, we do not believe it would be right to overlap those with a right which can be exercised by the leaseholders only within those blocks and estates. That would lead to competition between different groups of tenants and leaseholders in a particular block owned by the local authority, and there would also be a legal conflict between the existing broader rights and this one, which would be a narrower one for leaseholders only. That kind of competition and potential conflict would not be to anyone's benefit and certainly not to the benefit of the better management of local authority property with greater tenant and leaseholder involvement.
The amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also suggest that we should prevent a claim to acquire a right-to-manage being made for a property within two years of an earlier claim having
CWH 116
been withdrawn. This relates to my earlier point that we cannot see any justification for doing this. Where the right has been acquired and lost, there will have been some kind of fault or failing and it is only right that, in such circumstances, the leaseholders involved should have to wait. However, the withdrawal of a claim notice would not necessarily mean any fault or failing. The landlord will not have had the management taken away, and will be entitled to receive all the costs incurred in dealing with the abortive attempt.
I hope that that deals with all the amendments in this group, and that they will not be pursued.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: With regard to paragraph 4 of Schedule 4, the Minister spoke about the possibility of conflict. However, there is much potential for conflict now between tenants and leaseholders who often have different interests. He mentioned work that is going on to help tenants in the issue of management. I am not aware of anything like as much energy going into dealing with the position of leaseholders. It is a difficult area and I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for drawing our attention to it.
I wonder whether the Minister knows and, if he does not, whether it is possible to tell Members of the Committee at a later stage what kind of numbers we are talking about. The provision for the number of qualifying flats is a criterion which will affect how leaseholders might fall within—indeed, whether they would or not because—so many blocks will contain a large number of tenants rather than leaseholders. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the Committee some idea of the scale.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 6(1)(b) of Schedule 6. I understand the reasoning behind paragraph 6(1)(b). I do see how the explanation of paragraph 2 fits in with its wording. One must have premises which are divided between two or more freehold owners, one of whom owns a part of the building which is itself self-contained. Amendment No. 69 envisages that there is a self-contained building structurally detached which is divided into two or more self-contained parts which are vertically divided.
The only meaning that I can give to paragraph 2 is that where that set of circumstances arises the right to manage cannot be exercised. That seems to be a long way from the Minister's explanation. I believe that paragraph 2 needs to be looked at again. I understand and support the objective, but I do not see how the paragraph achieves it.
Lord Whitty: As to local authority leaseholders, the various activities to improve the management of local authority estates include provision for leaseholders as well as tenants. I cannot give a precise answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but of the million or so leasehold flats there are probably 200,000 council leaseholders. I cannot say how many of them would be in blocks or estates where

CWH 117
the majority were leaseholders and, therefore, might qualify. The number would be relatively limited. Nevertheless, in those areas the conflict to which the noble Lord rightly refers between those who exercise the right to buy council property in some form or another and those who remain tenants of the council still exists. However, to provide an additional right to leaseholders without a parallel provision to protect the tenants in a situation where the latter are in the minority greatly complicates that conflict.
We seek to pursue this entirely within the local authority management system rather than borrow something which exists in the private sector and transplant it into the local authority sector. The complications which would arise and the additional conflict created underline that.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to paragraph 2 of Schedule 6. That paragraph means that if the freehold is split into two or more self-contained parts the RTM will be exercised for each separately. If the parts are not self-contained one can lump them together and exercise the RTM across all of them. The reason for referring to the scams following the 1993 Act is that one moved from the second to the first and thereby avoided any right to manage. That is the loophole that we were trying to avoid with these provisions. It might be helpful to the noble Lord if I were to spell it out in more detail with cross-references to the texts of the 1993 and 1996 Acts. What is intended might then become clearer to him, and probably to me.
Lord Goodhart: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91A not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 79, line 25, leave out paragraph 5
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 92 is another of those very rare Government amendments to which my noble friend Lord Bach referred earlier. Together with Amendments Nos. 99, 101 and 108, it seeks to remove the prohibition in the Bill on exercising the right to manage where the freehold has already been purchased by an RTE company under the requirements of Chapter II of Part II of the Bill.
The amendments also remove the bar which would prevent RTM continuing where a separate company is used as the RTE company. Leaseholders would therefore be able to have separate RTM and RTE companies for the same premises after the enfranchisement had taken place. I believe that is also the intention of Amendment No. 102, which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Having looked at the matter again and after discussing it with the noble Lord and others, we thought it sensible to pursue the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I greatly welcome these amendments. A significant objection to the Bill was that RTM and RTE could not co-exist. That would mean that someone who was a member of an RTM
CWH 118
company but was not prepared to join an RTE company because of the cost implications would have had to give up the right to be involved in management. The co-existence of separate RTM and RTE companies may make administration a little more complicated, but that is not enough to override the injustice to those involved in management who would have been forced out of that involvement tinder the original proposal.
Lord Kingsland: I also support these amendments for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 93 and 93A not moved.]
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 [RTM companies]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 30, line 4, leave out ("a") and insert ("an")
The noble Lord said: The Committee will have observed a large number of amendments in my name proposing that the Bill should refer to "an" RTM company rather than "a" RTM company.
When the Bill was first proposed, I feared that the Government would try to find some suitable name in keeping with their modernising culture such as "stakeholder co-operative". It was, therefore, a relief to find that the corporate vehicle for the new right would be simply a right-to-manage company.
Your Lordships will, however, remember the fashion that gripped companies during the 1970s of turning their names into initials. The British Tube and Rubber Company turned into BTR; International Business Machines became IBM; the British Oxygen Company turned into BOC. It was thus, I suppose, inevitable that, by the turn of the century, the Government would decide to call these management companies RTM companies.
I submit that one naturally speaks of "an" RTM company rather than "a" RTM company. I therefore commend the various amendments which seek to make this phonetic correction. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Those of us who sat through debates on the House of Lords Bill will recognise this as the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I thought that "a" hereditary Peer was correct and so we opposed the amendment when it was taken to a Division during the course of the proceedings on that Bill. On this occasion, I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: Faced with a combined opposition on the issues of syntax, I fear that, whatever the merits or otherwise of the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, under a different piece of legislation, that at least had the merit of relating back to the origins of the language as to whether we were speaking Norman French or English, which is always a matter of concern within this House. This issue relates to whether we take

CWH 119
the full name of the company or the initials of the company and the pronunciation of the initials. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is disparaging of the tendency during the 1980s to change the names of organisations to their initials. Indeed, I remember myself changing the name of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trade Unions into the GMB. I thought that was an improvement—it certainly saved on the word processor, if we had them in those days.
In this case we refer to "a" right-to-manage company, which must be correct. When we reduced it to RTM we are referring in reality only to a right-to-manage company. To attach the "an" to R, which is not even a vowel, is putting the spoken word above the written word. We and the parliamentary draftsman are concerned with the written word. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not pursue this rather substantial range of amendments, but I must commend his diligence on spotting the point throughout the text of this Bill.
Lord Monson: Before the Minister sits down, when I was a school governor some years ago we installed an ICI ceiling heating system. It was recorded in the minutes as such and we applied for a grant as such. Is he suggesting that we should have said a ICI heating system?
Lord Whitty: As I tried to explain, if one spells an Imperial Chemical Industries system would be "an". Therefore, were we to be legislating on such pieces of equipment, I would readily accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. However, we are not. We are legislating on a new entity which begins with "R".
Baroness Hamwee: Does the legislation anywhere provide for a right-to-manage company spelt out in full? The definition in Clause 110 refers to Clause 70, which states:
"This section specifies what is a RTM company for the purposes of this Chapter".
I do not think we ever call it Imperial Chemical Industries.
Lord Whitty: The answer to that is probably no, except there. I am trying to look at what is normally the definitional part of the Bill. The noble Baroness may have a point, but it does not alter the basic fact that this entity is a right-to-manage entity and not Imperial Chemical Industries.
Lord Kingsland: I am extremely disappointed to hear what the Government have to say. While I am not going to make much of it this afternoon, I fully intend to return to this matter at Report stage, confident that I shall have support from other quarters. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 30, line 7, leave out ("guarantee") and insert ("shares with at reast the minimum paid-up capital, divided into "A" shares and "B" shares")
The noble Lord said: There are two aspects of the corporate structure, proposed by the Government for RTM companies, which potentially make the Government's proposals impracticable and which this amendment addresses. There is a further issue as to the kind of regulation-making powers which should be given by the Bill for matters of central importance to the corporate governance of RTM companies.
So far as concerns the corporate structure of RTM companies, the Government's proposals are that these companies should be limited by guarantee with residential tenants and the landlord as members. As the Committee is aware, there are three forms of companies which can be formed under the Companies Act. The first is an unlimited company where members have unlimited liability for the debts of the company. The second is the usual form of a company, with liability limited by shares, the feature of which is that each member—that is, each shareholder—has to contribute the nominal value of his or her shares as a capital contribution to the company.
The third form of company is one limited by guarantee. The peculiarity of this form of company is that its members contribute nothing to its capital. Instead, they are under an obligation whereby if the company limited by guarantee becomes insolvent, they have to contribute up to the amount of their guarantee.
The Government propose that RTM companies should all be limited by guarantee. In our view, this would prove wholly unworkable. One of the difficulties of commercial life in this country, which results in many small limited companies being unable to pay their debts, is that limited companies are under-capitalised. These RTM companies which the Government propose are not just under-capitalised but, in effect, zero-capitalised. It is essential that RTM companies have adequate working capital. Only in this way will they be able to carry out the important functions allocated to them.
It is right to consider the possible consequences of an RTM company having no capital whatsoever. A typical scenario, where tenants seek to have an RTM company appointed, will be a background of dissatisfaction with the landlord. There is likely to be considerable bad feeling between tenants and landlord because repairs have not been done or have been done badly or the landlord has tried to charge too much. There may also be bad feeling between one tenant and another. When things become acrimonious, it may well be that one tenant may refuse to pay service charge demands.
The first thing the RTM company would then have to do would be to sue the defaulting tenant. However, if the RTM company has no capital, there is no money to pay the lawyers to pursue the tenant. Sometimes, though by no means always, a lease will provide for a landlord to recover legal expenses but this is invariably in arrears.
That is not the only kind of case where difficulties arise. Suppose the RTM company collects service charges with no problem and then employs a builder to carry out repair works. One problem with building works is that costs often overrun. An RTM would have collected service charges; but if the costs overrun would not have enough money to pay the builder in full. When this situation arises at present, a landlord is usually willing to pay the extra himself because he knows he can recoup that expenditure from the tenants. However, an RTM company with no capital itself can do this only if it borrows money.
Yet it is unlikely that any financial institution would lend money to an RTM company because that company has nothing to provide by way of collateral. It might be possible to demand further moneys from the tenants by way of supplemental service charges; but this takes time and builders are notoriously unwilling to wait payment.
Another problem concerns the landlord's rights. Where the tenants only have a few years remaining on their leases, there is no incentive to carry out repairs. The landlord would have a claim for the damage done to the reversion by the RTM company's failure to carry out repairs. Yet, under the Government's proposals, the landlord's claim against the RTM company would be worthless because the RTM company would be, literally, worthless.
What we propose, therefore, is that RTM companies should have some capital. Naturally, RTM companies will cover developments with quite different characteristics: a block could have as few as two flats in it or upwards of 100 flats. Any single figure for minimum capitalisation would either be far too big for the two flat building or far too small for the 100 flat development. A fair method of overcoming this difficulty seems to be to suggest that an RTM company should be capitalised at about twice the service charge and rent payable.
This would work as follows. Let us suppose that a flat has a service charge of £1,000 a year and a ground rent of £100 a year to pay. The lessee, in order to obtain the right to manage the premises, would have to contribute £2,200 to the RTM company. In a block with 20 tenants, the RTM company would have a capital of £44,000. This proposal gives the RTM company sufficient working assets to meet the problems that I have outlined. At the same time, the amount which a tenant was required to contribute would not be disproportionate. As long as the RTM company prospered, the tenants would be able to pay themselves dividends or set off profit against the service charge payable. So much for the capitalisation of RTM companies.
The second point, on corporate governance, concerns the landlord's involvement in the RTM company. Although this point appears in the same amendment as the issue about capitalisation, it is in fact quite independent and separate. Under the Bill as presently drafted, a landlord will be a member of the RTM company. In other words, the landlord will give the guarantee to pay £1 to the RTM company in the event that the RTM company is wound up.
The landlord has an interest in ensuring that the block is maintained properly because the state of repair of the building affects the value of the reversion. It is right, therefore, that the landlord should have some involvement in the property. The problem with the Government's proposed solution is that it does not provide adequately for the landlord's involvement. Under the Bill, the landlord would have the right to appear and vote at a general meeting of the RTM company but the landlord would have only one vote and would therefore be outvoted every time by the tenants. He would have no right to appoint directors and would thus have no practical power to have his interests considered by the RTM company.
The solution, we propose, is to give the landlord a right to appoint two directors. This would give the landlord a minority on the board of directors and we consider that this meets his legitimate claim. If the landlord were allowed to appoint only one director, there might well be practical difficulties if that director, for example, were unavailable for a particular meeting. The tenants would appoint three or more directors so that they would stay in the majority on the board.
Of course, a landlord would not have to exercise his right. Many landlords whose reversion only fell in a great many years hence might well have no interest in appointing directors and taking on that sometimes onerous responsibility. None the less, we consider that the landlord should have that option if he wishes.
The technical way in which we seek to give landlords the right to appoint directors is to divide the shareholding in the RTM company into two types of shares—A shares, to be held by tenants, and B shares, to be held by the landlord. Holders of the B shares have the right to appoint two directors. A further aspect of the A and B share arrangement is to ensure that the tenants are the ones who provide the share capital for the company. The notional value of a B share is £1, so that the landlord does not need to contribute substantial sums to the company.
I now turn to the power to make regulations. As so typically happens nowadays, the Government propose to give themselves extensive Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has already given, at Second Reading, the views of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, on which he sits with such distinction. Its view is that regulations on central issues should be subject to the affirmative approval of both Houses of Parliament. This must be right in relation to the power to determine the memorandum and articles of association of RTM companies.
All the proposals which I have put forward in this amendment are matters which, if the Bill were left in its current form, could be introduced by the Minister by way of regulation. For example, the Minister could determine that the guarantee which a member of an RTM company, limited by guarantee, must give, should be not £1, as is usual with companies limited by guarantee, but several thousand pounds. The Minister could equally determine that landlord members of an RTM company should have a right to appoint directors.
Can anyone doubt that such proposals are precisely the type of issues that should be the subject of public scrutiny and debate? Moreover, who should make the regulation? At present the Bill refers, cryptically, to "the appropriate national authority". The Bill does not, however, condescend to state what this mysterious body might be. I have suggested that it should be the Secretary of State after consultation with the Welsh Assembly. I notice that some Government amendments refer to the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor jointly making regulations. There seems to be no objection in principle to that, although it sounds a little cumbersome. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Our Amendments Nos. 110, 111 and 119 in this group raise an important issue. Should the landlord ipso facto be a member of an RTM? We think not, so we are on the opposite side to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, with the Government somewhere in the middle. We disagree with both points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland: first, the need for paid up share capital; secondly, the landlord's rights as a member of the company. As to the first issue, we believe that a company limited by guarantee is the appropriate form of company and it is inappropriate in these cases to have paid up share capital. Certainly, the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would make it more difficult to get people to form an RTM if they had to provide a significant sum of capital up front in addition to the service charges which they have been paying, and will continue to pay, to the RTM.
We also believe that initial paid up capital is no guarantee of continued solvency, because unless it is put into untouchable reserves the effect will be that that fund can be run down. In a year or two it is perfectly possible that the funds will no longer be there. Indeed, it is likely that if the members of an RTM company have had to put money up front they will decide to use it to pay off the first year's service charges rather than pay those service charges in addition to what they have had to pay.
Secondly, we are certainly not prepared to support the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that there should be B shares which give the landlord a right to vote and to nominate directors. We might be prepared to accept a formula, if one was put forward, whereby the landlord could be a member of the company with a right to attend meetings, but without a vote. However, that is not on the cards at the moment.
The purpose of an RTM is to transfer the right to manage from the landlord to the lessee. The landlord retains an interest in ensuring the maintenance of the building in order to preserve the value of his reversion, but over the course of time the interests of the RTM company and the landlord may well conflict. The RTM company will owe an obligation to the landlord which can be enforced by the landlord through proceedings in court, whether it is a leasehold valuation tribunal or a county court. To allow the
CWH 124
landlord to be a member of the RTM as well creates a conflict of interest, not only between the RTM as a landlord but within the RTM itself. The landlord, for example, may challenge the decision of the directors. Landlords are likely to be more knowledgeable and have access to better advice. They may be able to paralyse the RTM company through procedural measures. The member of a company can restrain the company from proceeding when it is in technical breach of its own internal rules, for example if decisions have been taken at a meeting at which a quorum is not present. However, a third party cannot do so.
One cannot prevent a landlord who also holds the lease of a flat, or occupies it in his capacity as a freeholder, being a member of the RTM company. The Government's proposals confuse the relationship between the tenants and the landlord. The RTM company should be the vehicle for the tenants alone. I am aware that this is something about which many tenant organisations feel strongly.
Under the existing legislation, it is a matter for the tenants to conduct the management. That relates only to cases where the landlord's right to manage has been forfeited because of his misconduct. However, misconduct is difficult to prove. One of the reasons for the present Bill is to make it possible for discontented tenants to get the right to manage without having to go to court in order to prove misconduct.
In those circumstances, there may be a significant number of cases where the application, the claim for RTM, is instigated by the fact that a landlord is not doing his job properly and is, in one way or another, frustrating the wishes of the tenants. In those cases, it seems to be wholly wrong to allow the landlord to continue as a member of the RTM company; the RTM company and the landlord should remain at arm's length from each other. In those circumstances, I hope that the Government will be prepared to reconsider their position on this significant issue.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 110A, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Richard. The thrust of the amendment is the same as the thrust of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Some adjustment is needed on this issue. Looking at the practicalities of the matter, as I said at Second Reading, it would be very strange indeed if, when discussing sensitive matters, a typical RTM company—which is, to use present day language, the residents' association must—have the landlord present in the room at all times.
At Second Reading, I made a suggestion which I hope was noted. It may have been a stupid suggestion, but I have not yet heard why it is stupid and that is why I am about to repeat it. There may be a case for having a basic RTM company meeting—whether under the Companies Act or some other legislation—structured to include a part A and a part B. Part A of the meeting should be confined to the residents; this may or may not include the landlord—it would depend on whether the landlord has bought one of the flats—but that is a separate issue.

CWH 125
It is highly desirable that there is some structured relationship with the landlord. I wonder, quite seriously, whether the Government could think of a route by which a statutory RTM company meeting could be held with the landlord present at a particular stage in the annual cycle; and/or a route by which the RTM company could meet as a residents' association in the normal way every three months or so. It would be for the RTM to invite the landlord to attend on such occasions, but he would have the right to attend once a year, or something like that. To say that there cannot be a properly constituted residents' association meeting—that is, an RTM company meeting—without it being mandatory for the landlord to be there, is going way beyond what is necessary to meet the Government's aims in this matter. I hope that this issue will be given further consideration.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lea. There has to be some means by which the landlord can be sure that the building is being maintained adequately, but it would be quite inappropriate for him to ascertain that at the residents' right-to-manage meeting.
Lord Whitty: The amendments covered in this group raise some substantial issues on the nature of the RTM company and the rights of the landlord in respect of the RTM company.
Amendment No. 95 and the associated amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, propose that the company should be only a company limited by shares. Part of the rationale of the Bill is that it provides for three different companies: the RTM company, the RTE company and the commonhold association. We consider it important that all three should have the same structure so as to allow leaseholders who wish to move through the three types of companies to do so without other complications. Where they have acquired the right to manage, the leaseholders may wish to use the company as a vehicle to purchase the freehold, and this amendment would prevent that happening because there would be different types of company. In particular, it would mean that leaseholders would always have to set up separate companies to acquire the right to manage and then to purchase the freehold.
An even more important objection to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is that it proposes that the RTM company, as a company limited by share, should have a minimum amount of share capital. Indeed, the formula proposed would suggest that it would have to have quite a considerable amount of share capital. I appreciate that the leaseholders' company which takes over the management of the property needs to have access to funds, but to stipulate that it needs to acquire at the beginning a substantial degree of share capital would price a lot of leaseholders out from the start and create far too great a threshold for them to pass through into the right-to-manage company. Many leaseholders would find it hard to pay the
CWH 126
service charge once, and they would find it impossible to have to put forward additional funds as share capital.
The right to manage is intended to be just that, a right. It is intended to put right the imbalance which prevents leaseholders who have a majority of the equity in a property in terms of the leasehold value having a say in the management of that property. We do not want to hedge that around by establishing a threshold whereby they have to build up a fund first. Leaseholders already have to pay the management for the running of the property, and will therefore exercise a right to manage knowing that they themselves, if they take that decision, will have to meet the costs they run up. The additional requirement is therefore an unnecessary and heavy burden.
The noble Lord also put forward an amendment regarding how the Government should set about prescribing the constitution of the company. I appreciate that we need to have some idea of what we are intending in this respect. I sent to noble Lords who had shown an interest in this at the Committee stage of this Bill a draft constitution for both the RTM and the RTE company, and those drafts go wider than we would intend in the regulations, so they cover a number of aspects. We have produced full draft constitutions for the two companies in order to make sure that our minimum requirements sit properly within the wider constitution of those companies and the intention of this Bill. We obviously intend to consult further on those drafts, but it is useful that the Committee has that information at this stage when we are dealing with the substance of the Bill. We will have draft regulations before Parliament when the constitutions of the companies come forward.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred to the appropriate authorities. They are defined in Clause 155(4) in terms of the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. Subsection (1E) of Amendment No. 109 proposes that the Secretary of State should make regulations as they apply to Wales as well as England. There may be good arguments for having the same prescribed requirements, but the National Assembly has clear responsibility for secondary legislation on housing matters and I see no reason why we should change that in this particular instance. The effect of the proposed subsection (1E) would be to do that.
I hope that the noble Lord will not press that the company should either be constituted as a share company or that these other provisions in his detailed amendment should prevail.
In relation to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and spoken to my the noble Lord, Lord Lea, that we should restrict the right of landlords to be members of the right-to-manage company, I understand the arguments about conflict of interest. I understand the concerns among leaseholders who would balk at the suggestion that the landlord should have the right to participation in the company. I recognise that that is a contentious part of the Bill.

CWH 127
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, indicated, this is a process to establish a no-fault right to manage. The landlord is not doing what was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, namely engaging in misbehaviour or failing to meet his obligations. The presumption is that the landlord has done nothing wrong, and it is not intended to be a vehicle to get rid of an exploitative or neglectful landlord. This is a provision to establish leaseholder rights without having to prove negligence on the part of the landlord. Hence, the landlord has forfeited no rights, except insofar as provided for in the Bill.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Does the noble Lord accept that, although technically it is a no-fault provision, in a high proportion of cases it is likely that dissatisfaction with the way that the landlord is managing the property will be the reason why the tenants seek the right to manage?
Lord Whitty: That may be a motivation in some cases but it will not be necessary to establish that in order to trigger the right to manage. There are existing provisions to deal with neglectful, negligent landlords or those who have ignored their legal or contractual obligations. This provision establishes an entirely new right without going through any fault procedure.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Is the noble Lord able to clarify whether "landlord" in this sense can be either a head lessee or the owner of the property? Are they both covered by "landlord"? Is it either/or?
Lord Whitty: That is so in this case, although there may be points in the Bill where that does not apply. We do not intend to have a procedure that is either anti-landlord or pro-landlord. There is a balance of rights here, and the landlord cannot be entirely cut out of the equation. The landlord has an ongoing interest in the management of the property. At the very least, the landlord has a legitimate reversionary interest; in some cases he will have a greater interest because he may have some flats which are not let on a long lease, or there may be a non-domestic unit within the building.
In deciding the balance, therefore, we have to take account of the fact that the landlord will have an interest in management, and in practice it is sensible that that is de facto equity in the company.
Lord Jacobs: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does that mean that where the present leasehold system continues and the management is the landlord it is proper for the tenants to have the right to be on the management committee or team? If the landlord is allowed to sit with the tenants under the right to manage, is it not equally fair that where there is no right to manage tenants should have a say about the landlord's decisions in managing the block?
Lord Whitty: In practice, the Bill provides for that to happen in most circumstances. Where leaseholders wish it they can establish a right to manage along with
CWH 128
the landlord. It is simply the reverse of what we propose here: they can trigger a right-to-manage company but the landlord will still be part of that structure.
Lord Jacobs: I am sorry to press the point. It is not always necessary for the tenants to manage their own building. If the tenants are satisfied they are unlikely to want to manage their own building. As has been pointed out, if the tenants have the right to manage the landlord should have the right to sit on that management committee and be party to those arrangements. Surely it follows from that that in cases where the tenants do not decide to take over the right to manage themselves they should equally have a representative sitting with the landlords on the management of their building.
Lord Whitty: In a situation where people are not eligible for the right to manage under the Act, the noble Lord may have a logical point. However, where the right to manage applies, the way to establish an engagement in management by the leaseholders is through triggering the right-to-manage proceedings. The Bill does not provide for a fall-back position of the type described by the noble Lord, where people have decided not to go for the right to manage. The landowner does not have that choice. If the right to manage is triggered, the provision that he should remain part of the company that manages is to protect his residual right in that property. In some cases it may be large, in others it may simply be a reversionary impact.
The consultation paper made it clear that the proposals as to how large a landowner's interest in the company would be would be proportionate because circumstances vary. They would be proportionate and not different or unequal. We are therefore not attracted at this stage to A and B shareholders or to members of the company, although such things could be set out in the memorandum and articles of the company. The existing draft does not do that. The structure of statutory meetings as proposed by my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall would also need to be set out. That would, in effect, imply different classes of membership and at the moment we are not convinced that that should be the case.
I understand the considerable anxieties about this arrangement. Nevertheless, the landlord has rights in such a situation as well as anybody else with an interest in the ongoing management of the property. Our proposals suggest that therefore the landlord should be part of the company on an equivalent basis to that of others with an interest in the management of the property.
Lord Lea of Crondall: Before my noble friend moves on to the next point, one of the problems in practice is a great difficulty in arranging meetings in a typical block of 20 or 30 flats. If the landlord is in a position to say that the meeting is inquorate, or is not properly constituted unless he has been properly advised and so forth, it seems likely to be difficult to run this organisation. The weight of requirement on running

CWH 129
such meetings is beginning to worry me more and more. I ask my noble friend to look at some way of easing this burden so that not in respect of all meetings is the agenda is so arranged that it is necessary to be able to invoke that provision. That could be a way forward.
Lord Whitty: My noble friend makes an interesting point. Were that to be achievable without creating differential classes of member, we might be prepared to look at it in the context of the consultation on the structures of the company. We are anxious that the landlord as a member of the company will preserve some rights in the continuing management of the property. No doubt we shall return to this at later stages in the Bill and I shall say no more now.
Amendment No. 111 suggests that there should be a right for commercial tenants to have long leases. Frankly, this is not an issue to be members of the RTM company. It is not something that came up in the consultation and the commercial tenants have not indicated any great desire so to be.
Lord Goodhart: I did not really deal with that point when I spoke earlier. I concentrated on Amendment No. 110. This is a quite different and fairly minor point. Very few commercial tenants will in fact have long leases. If there are any, there is no reason why they should not be members of the RTM along with residential leaseholders if they are all in a building which is a single RTM unit.
Lord Whitty: We are not aware that that is a great problem and for the moment I shall indicate my resistance to that position. It also complicates the position of the landlord as a member of the company if the landlord's relationship is with the commercial tenants. In a sense, he represents that part of the building as well in terms of the company. It would be a little complex in relation to having commercial interests involved in the company as such, although, as I understand the amendment, it would be treating a long-lease commercial tenant as if he were a long-lease residential tenant. I cannot see many circumstances in which that would arise, but it is an interesting proposition.
I resist the attempt to define the RTM company as a share-based company. I also resist the attempt to remove the requirement that a landlord may be a member of the company for the reasons explained. We may well come back, certainly to the latter point, at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: Although I had no support, in terms, I detected a thin mineral seam in the Minister's response on which I may be able to work between now and Report stage.
I wish to make one or two detailed observations. I would suggest to the Minister that the noble Lord would not need two companies to move from an RTM to an RTE. It would be quite possible simply to amend the memorandum and articles to change from one type of company to another.
CWH 130
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the point that the RTM can run down capital; but in my submission that would ignore the director's duty to raise enough money in service charges to cover the outgoings. A director who deliberately runs down an RTM company's capital would, in certain circumstances, be guilty of misfeasance, and potentially liable to disqualification. There is a built-in disincentive to misbehave financially in those conditions.
In all the circumstances, and in particular, owing to the fact that we cannot vote anyway, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 98 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): In calling Amendment No. 99, I should point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 100 because of pre-emption.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 30, line 13, leave out from ("company") to end of line 14
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 30, leave out lines 17 to 25
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 102 to 107 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 30, line 33, leave out ("1993 Act") and insert ("Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (referred to in this Part as "the 1993 Act")
( )"RTE company" has the same meaning as in Chapter I of Part I of the 1993 Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Thursday, I st March at 4 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Before we adjourn, may I have some indication of the plan for the future? At the moment, we have only one further day for the Committee stage. We have dealt with the first 110 amendments in two days, but we have another 159 to deal with. Will the Government provide a second further day?
Lord Whitty: It is not a matter for me. It will have to be pursued through the usual channels. At the moment there are three days, and we will need to consider how far we have come.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday, 1st March at 4 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at eight o'clock.

  Annuities and Long-term Care Benefits
  Annuities and Long-term Care Benefits
  Single Currency: Economic and Monetary Affairs Framework
  Single Currency: Economic and Monetary Affairs Framework
  Pension Fund Annuity Purchase Requirement
  Pension Fund Annuity Purchase Requirement
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  DCMS Expenditure Limits
  DCMS Expenditure Limits
  Inland Revenue On-line Tax Filing System: Security
  Inland Revenue On-line Tax Filing System: Security
  Financial Services Single Market: Lamfalussy Report
  Financial Services Single Market: Lamfalussy Report
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
  Haemophilia Patients: Recombinant Clotting Factor Treatment
  Haemophilia Patients: Recombinant Clotting Factor Treatment
  Children's Commissioners
  Children's Commissioners
  EU Sixth Environment Action Programme
  EU Sixth Environment Action Programme
  Police Recruits: Wastage
  Police Recruits: Wastage
  Job Advertisements for Senior Officials
  Job Advertisements for Senior Officials
  Tribunals: Publicly Funded Representatiion
  Tribunals: Publicly Funded Representatiion
  Devolution Guidance Notes
  Devolution Guidance Notes
  National Missile Defence System
  National Missile Defence System
  Subsidiarity and Repatriation of Powers
  Subsidiarity and Repatriation of Powers
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Overseas Estate: Sales and Purchases
  Overseas Estate: Sales and Purchases